We've explored a number of side tracks here, but I think some of the central points of the original argument stand.

In direct responce to maxxmodels, yes, a complex, non-intuitive, disorganized command structure can be memorized with enough application of time and practice. But it will always result in less optimal workflow. I am a carpenter, as well as a scenic painter. In both those tasks I can and do slim down the tools to a small number (a half dozen) of primary tools that I keep close to hand, and a few dozen special tools that are racked for occaisional use. Each time I pick up a hammer it does the same thing -- it's behavior doesn't change from moment to moment, requiring me to shift gears. Similarly, my brush responds to my hand so that I can get all the basic effects I need without having to drop and swap, drop and swap. I spend as little time as I can manage sorting through some poorly-labeled box for a tool I've misplaced (it happens, though....boy, does it happen).

Too many 3d application force a "suis generis" mentality, where moving a polygon to the left uses the Hand'O Tool, but moving it to the right requires going into the Phase'em Room and using the Brillo Tool. We should be using our minds to look at the growing model or scene, not remembering heirachies of menus, and we should be flipping pages of artistic references, not manuals. One of the greatest joys of PhotoShop is the way it is organized in depth; there is always a simple way of doing something, and if you are like me, you get 90% of the job done with a few basic tools. The power and options never force you to wade through them during simple tasks; unlike many 3d applications, you don't have to click and dismiss a pop-up every time you choose a common tool.

I admit that 3d is still young enough where there are many plausible opinions about what makes up an object and how the workflow moves around it. I'm not surprised tools and terminology are not standardized. Different manufacturers put different tools into different catagories and classes, like competing paleontologists with their own arrangements of the fossil record. The best bet for the end user is to find the package that most closely matches the internal architecture of their own creative proccess. Still, I wish there was more effort towards coordinating standards for the nomenclature of basic tools, and the structure of shared files (like .obj).

On wizards... It is a mistake to think that there can be either one-size fits all (the "Make Art" button), or the other extreme of complete freedom. There is a continuum of helpfulness.

One thing I'd like to see more is increased real-world analoging/button examples. In the old Bryce, for instance, you could set any numeric value you wanted for refraction index -- and right below, the program would display the name of the nearest real-world analog. In the Poser5 cloth room, there are nothing but raw numbers, with no insight into what the programmers meant to model, what had been used by others to what effect, or even what the customary dial limits are.

There is so much difference between render engines, physics engines, that "Brass" is not going to behave the same in two different software packages. But both will behave in a way that is consistent with how metals are treated in that software package; if you have learned how a "Lead" object takes light, bounces, etc., you will have a fairly good what kind of behavior the programmers will have set up for a "Brass" object.

Too often it seems the relation between the numbers and the real world effects being simulated is undisclosed -- test after test is required to learn if changing a light from "50" to "100" is linear, photometric, or something else entirely. Worse, even the basic algorithms seem to be considered trade secrets. Are they ray-traced shadows? Shadow-mapped? Interpolated? Only her hairdresser knows for sure.

The user community can and does explore these questions and make an effort to educate fellow users. But how much more convenient if some of these answers were built into the software itself!

Message edited on: 12/27/2004 14:55