[Thomas An.]

Linux didn't pick up because most computer users want to write emails, surf the web and chat. But look at webservers, render farms, production studios....it picked up there because it is in many ways a more intelligent design, and more efficient, not just because of stability and security.

It didn't pick up with me either ... and of all people I hate M$
It has been laying on my drive for a few years now (and I have put several thousand ours on it)... Not to count the forums... and I do have some programing background.

If 3D professionals only wanted to render spheres on planes, then perhaps Maya would be less popular than....Cosmic Blobs.

We went through this. Cosmic blobs is not a good UI. And Rhino can do more than spheres. As a matter of fact, its paradigm of treating everything as hollow sheetmetal is quite powerful and liberating.

To me it seems counter productive to design something that is supposed to be very powerful and efficient for people that take a little time to learn it

Well no, we are not supposed to have time to learn. The goal is to have the maximum output with the minimum effort. The human element should not be taxed at all costs. (He has to learn a gazillion other things in life causing an overall information overload). We are supposed to be simplifying our existence instead of twining ourselves into new self-made complexities. When a designer resorts to forcing a user to learn new ways, that is the moment of defeat (the moment where his imagination run out).

.....

ok, lets look at it from another vantage point.

All major 3d apps out there are basically doing the same thing (drawing objects on screen and edit them). Their toolsets are also similar.

In a sense 3d apps a like "homes"... every home has furniture, a living room, kitchen, etc. The difference is that the furniture (layout) are organized differently.

Now what would happen if we arranged the furniture so that, when you were to open front door, required to climb over a desk, step down to a heap of chairs, leap over a pile of kitchen appliances, tip-toe around a heap of utensils intermixed with a pile of clothes, cliffhang on the edge of rail-less stairway ... to get to a bedroom... and do this over again to get out ?

This house contains the exact same tools and utilities as another house, the only difference is that it feels completely disorganized. Yet, it is possible to adapt to this "disorder" and actually discover a way to get in and out quite fast. So blender looks like that. "Chuck-full of features .... but ... a mess" and some people are pretty fast with it; once they have reached a comfort zone..

[Polyxo]

Funny. I really love Rhino (even teach it) but still agree with Mihai in most aspects.
There's many things I could mention, why I think that Rhino is a great program, but the don't direcly have to do with workflow:
its low price without maintenance fees, its fabulous support team, its interesting market position in the middle between VFX-programs and Solid-Modellers. In fact it is the sum of these aspects and the fact that it outputs producable geometry what makes me use Rhino, not its workflow.
That beeing said, I would certainly confirm Thomas' experiences with Blender.
I am personally not overly impressed with Rhino's customizablility of the interface, mouse and keyboard-options. This is what I would only call good average.

What I like most in my daily Rhino- workflow is of very simple nature:
* Orientation in 3D space - for me the best of dozens of 3D programs I have tried. It is hard to nail down, but I know about the slight pain coming up, when I watch my (very experienced) collegue navigating in the viewport of Cinema4D. It is always several strokes more than needed in Rhino.
* Its CAD-style (per command) object pivot: Aligning and rotating objects is imo done with far less hassle than in packages, which first require me to change the position and orientation of the center of translation (transform gizmo)
- its great option to edit in all viewports at the same time -without the need to make them active, nested suppressions activations and display- changes inside running commands.
* its limited default degree of automation: You can automate actions if you want to, but Rhino is very sparing with assuptions about the next logical action. Programs which make more guesses about your next step may be more comfortable and faster in many operations, but if they fail, they fail.
Rhino allows for doing it "all on foot", lets you duplicate or project or slice whatever piece of geometry you never wanted to inspect. Does it have to do with workflow, that this program somehow gives confidence to get things done the one or the other way?

Non the less, I find four aspects inside many Subdivision Surface Modellers or Solid Modellers by far more intuitive:

- preselection highlighting: This eases, clearifies and speeds up subobject-selection a great deal
- component based editing: (faces/edges/verts etc.)
Even total novices are able to pick the correct edge, they want to fillet/bevel. You can just do so in Solidworks. You can just go ahead in Softimage or Silo or Cinema (...), right after you understood the simple and universally valid concept of component based editing (or you use the universal selection mode). The same extrude command extrudes edges, one or several faces in some programs even vertices.

In Rhino in contrast you won't be able to preselect an edge (or not know the secret trick). The user is forced to learn myriads of commands, which mostly are only applicable for just one component type and are far from logically named:
Want to duplicate an edge? - dupEdge
Want to duplicate an border? - dupBorder (superfluous in programs which provide elegant ways to select closed loops
Want to duplicate an isocurve? - extractIsocurve - ok? Now it is extract...
Want to duplicate a surface? extractSurface - but this time additionally with "Copy" checked.

In most modellers, which work with component based editing, you press Ctrl+D (or similar) for duplicating every geometry type available and you are all set. This is just one example where Rhino has several commands, bloating the application without any need. MOI, using the same core as Rhino but component based editing shows that things can be much, much slimmer.

Finally Manipulators/Transform Gizmos... Commands do not need a "Tapered" option. No need for "Twist" or Shear, if this can be done with these proven helpers inside the viewport. This only makes sense in unprecise Subdivison Programs? No. SolidWork has them and IronCad, even the dinosaur Autocad has them in its 2007 release...

Holger

[acquiesse]

What Mihai seems to be saying is that, if there is a compromise between the capacity of the program and its usability, that the capacity should always come first.

I guess I am idealistic, but I tend to consider that if there is a compromise, someone has said "this isn't possible" to which the human response is usually "this isn't possible yet and I can make money if I do solve it"!


EDIT : Ok, I'm tired, ill and Idealistic, so I got rid of the ranting bit

[Thomas An.]

Finally Manipulators/Transform Gizmos... Commands do not need a "Tapered" option. No need for "Twist" or Shear, if this can be done with these proven helpers inside the viewport. This only makes sense in unprecise Subdivison Programs? No. SolidWork has them and IronCad, even the dinosaur Autocad has them in its 2007 release...Holger

These gizmos sound like an abstraction (that is usually the kiss of death for intuitive UI) ... it makes sense only if you know about it.... sort of you have to know the pass-code to get through the door.

On a similar note, Rhino now has the concept of paperspace. This is also an abstraction layer ... and IMHO it sucks buckyballs. I could think of a few ways to enhance the printing capabilities without introducing this conceptual convolution (feels like teleporting to a parallel universe, between Rhinospace and paper space) ... I supose this feels ultra natural to the Autocad users who also use Rhino.

[Polyxo]

These gizmos sound like an abstraction (that is usually the kiss of death for intuitive UI) ... it makes sense only if you know about it.... sort of you have to know the pass-code to get through the door.

Thing is, that Rhino is one on the very few programs, which still does not employ these helpers. People, with experience in other programs will look for them. Yes, maybe a (limited) degree of abstraction is needed to understand how they work (btw. very similar, close to identical in the programs I have looked at) Every manipulator is for sure far more intuitive than Rhino's "elevator mode" or its horribly abstract MoveUVN.

On a similar note, Rhino now has the concept of paperspace. This is also an abstraction layer ... and IMHO it sucks bucky-balls.

It is still much slimmer, than the concept found inside SolidModellers. These usually open a complete, totally different looking workspace to create page-layouts. Well, I at least would not have a better idea at hand, how to set up plan-layouts.
One advantage of a paper-space is the option to import native AutoCad-Layouts. This is what people have asked for regularly.

[Mihai]

These gizmos sound like an abstraction (that is usually the kiss of death for intuitive UI) ... it makes sense only if you know about it....

And yet, they can make you work lighting fast if they are properly designed. With only three mousebuttons and one or two key switches you can effectively replace maybe 20 buttons.

But forget it.......keep going on intuition alone

[Eric Lagman]

* Orientation in 3D space - for me the best of dozens of 3D programs I have tried. It is hard to nail down, but I know about the slight pain coming up, when I watch my (very experienced) collegue navigating in the viewport of Cinema4D. It is always several strokes more than needed in Rhino.

Polyxo i noticed this also on some training videos for C4D. The people doing the training video would click on the view and rotate buttons above each viewport to rotate their view or pan. I thought this was very odd though since this is customizable. In c4d I have my roatate view set to middle mouse button, and pan to my right mouse button. You may want to let your collegue know this if he would find it more useful to map his 3d navagaition to a mouse button instead of an icon.

I struggled with this when using Maxwell studio for the first time. I never used a keyboard button combined with a mouse button to move my view around the 3d viewport. To me this is the most common used function of a 3d application therefore it should be put on the most easily accessable button. To not make this custmizable would make me not use an application. I am able to overlook it with Maxwell studio though becuase I dont do any modelling in it, and rarely need to pan and rotate around my model.

To me ease of use and functional power does not have to be an either or scenario. "Good design" is where you have both. In design school people would always ask the question which comes first form or function. The reality is they should work together. The minute one trumps the other you have bad design.

[Polyxo]

Hi Eric,
thank you, that is very kind! However, my collegue uses a tablet....so he will probably go on with these icons.
I've personally also done a couple of projects with this program, a mouse and and 1/2/3 keys and it still felt awkward to me. (I found view navigation in other famous packages not much better - kind of like driving with a car with broken shock absorbers and no feeling for the wheels in comparison to Rhino).

[Eric Lagman]

Hi Eric,
I've personally also done a couple of projects with this program, a mouse and and 1/2/3 keys and it still felt awkward to me. (I found view navigation in other famous packages not much better - kind of like driving with a car with broken shock absorbers and no feeling for the wheels in comparison to Rhino).

Yes but what I am saying is if you want to make Cinema 4d navagation just like Rhino go to window/layout/command manager and find the pan camera and rotatate view commands. You can map your mouse buttons so that it performs like Rhino. Also go to edit preferences and choose reverse orbit to make the rotation behave as rhino does. Not sure if I was clear by your response. Forgive me if I am stating what you already understood.

I personally find sub-d modelling very confusing, but that is because I come from a CAD background using Solidworks and Rhino. It is too much of a shift in learning, and even if I did learn it I would only be able to use it as a hobby since my job requires me to use CAD modelling packages Some of the stuff made in sub-d is so cool though it makes me want to learn really bad. I have seen tutorials, and it is almost like magic from one screenshot to the next. Make a box pull this point rotate this extrude that. Now subdivde the jaggedy polygon model and Walla you just modelled an alligator it was that easy. Then I try it, and end up cursing all over the place just to get a sphere that is all lumpy

[michaelplogue]

Then I try it, and end up cursing all over the place just to get a sphere that is all lumpy

You and me both Eric!

[Thomas An.]

...I have seen tutorials, and it is almost like magic from one screenshot to the next. Make a box pull this point rotate this extrude that. Now subdivde the jaggedy polygon model and Walla you just modelled an alligator it was that easy. Then I try it, and end up cursing all over the place just to get a sphere that is all lumpy

That is exactly the feeling !

... and that is the heart of this discussion and what ergonomics and intuitive UI should be all about; that when done correctly a new user should never have to feel like this. (Using cryptic paradigms that only begin to make sense once someone whispers you the "secret"... and you can be highly productive only for as long as you keep it salient).

[Polyxo]

Yes but what I am saying is if you want to make Cinema 4d navagation just like Rhino go to window/layout/command manager and find the pan camera and rotatate view commands. You can map your mouse buttons so that it performs like Rhino...

Yes, I knew about these customizing options. Cinema allows alot, but it is e.g. not possible to map pan to RMB. I also do not like the slow zoom pan and view rotation speed with no way to change this anywhere.

I personally find sub-d modelling very confusing, but that is because I come from a CAD background using Solidworks and Rhino.

I think, this is the main problem in many discussions. People are proficient in either Nurbs or in Subdivision-Surfaces and find either the one or the other clumsy.
The outcome however can be ridiculous:
-product-designer spend days in a spline based package, trying to to model a half way decent ear, when they are asked to design a new hearing aid
- visualizers only fit with Subd.Modellers fool arround endlessly to create "hard surface models" spending thoughts about mesh flow and how to avoid booleans for stuff, that is done in a minute in Rhino or Solidworks.

It is too much of a shift in learning, and even if I did learn it I would only be able to use it as a hobby since my job requires me to use CAD modelling packages

This is no longer correct. I certainly would not use Subdivison-Modellers if they had nothing to offer for those, who need physical output.
1)It has always been possible to Rapid Prototype a Subdivision Model, collapsed to a mesh with sufficient density. A great advantage I see here is, that means far less effort to create several variations of a design, compared to Nurbs. If the prototype matches all requirements, the model can be recreated with precision, using Nurbs, based on the HiRes mesh.
2) There's T-Splines. Have a look at this Rhino//Maya plugin: www.tsplines.com . Though still in Alpha, it allows for decent direct conversion from Mesh to Nurbs. It is now not only possible to punch a precisely round hole into your Aligator, but also generally doable to make a parametric model of it, in say SolidWorks.

[Tim Ellis]

Thomas, I agree about your original statement.

However, I have the same problem when using Maya. So much so that I don't use it at all. Not an intuitive interface, niether is 3DSMax imho.

I'm sure the first incarnations of all 3D apps, were intuitive.
But the more additions that appear with each new release, remove that initial intuitiveness.

Blender has the ability to ignore keystrokes if you prefer just mouse work, but for speed and ease of use, keyboard shortcuts & macros rock.

Perhaps there should have been a global standard from the beginning, in the same way USB, midi, audio rca's etc have been.
That way M can be move, R rotate, S scale for each and every 3D application.

New apps would be more intuitive, if the shortcuts matched between apps.

My 2p.

Tim.

[Boris Ulzibat]

Polyxo i noticed this also on some training videos for C4D. The people doing the training video would click on the view and rotate buttons above each viewport to rotate their view or pan. I thought this was very odd though since this is customizable. In c4d I have my roatate view set to middle mouse button, and pan to my right mouse button. You may want to let your collegue know this if he would find it more useful to map his 3d navagaition to a mouse button instead of an icon.

I noticed that too. But i think they are doing it to be more "visual" rather than speaking "now we press and hold the RMB and rag across the screen to rotate the camera". In 3DFluff tutorials, they are not even deleting objects by pressing "Del" button - they do it from the pull-down menu.



And the other thing i thought of today.
The interface can be very intuitive, but very powerful at the same time - for this it must all follow same internal logics. And the user than will not have to LEARN, he will need to UNDERSATAND.

[Eric Lagman]

Yes, I knew about these customizing options. Cinema allows alot, but it is e.g. not possible to map pan to RMB.

This can be done. Right click the right mouse button twice very quickly in the bottom field where it says "ASSIGN" to map it to that button when you are in the command manager. It took me a bit to figure this out because it kept bringing up the right click menu. I got angry and started clicking very fast and it worked. So that would=not intuative. The secret is to get angry at the programs maybe.