
Open-Source 3D Graphics Design: Where to Begin - sf_tony
http://media.bemyapp.com/guide-open-source-3d-graphics-design/?utm_source=bma&utm_medium=ycombin&utm_content=&utm_campaign=media
======
nothis
>If you’re sensing we don’t recommend Gimp very highly, we don’t. Gimp’s
downside is difficult to discuss tactfully. Gimp suffers from forever living
in the shadow of Photoshop. Gimp’s development is also closely tied to both
Richard Stallman’s GNU values and the GTK+ widget toolkit. For the final time,
your humble author will quit trying to rewrite this paragraph to explain
what’s wrong with Gimp, and just scream “POLITICS!” and then run away. You
figure it out.

Heh. Whenever you ask someone who doesn't work with image editors
_professionally_ (that doesn't mean "use it quite often", it means, having
real-world deadlines depend on productivity), they'll point out how many
"features" Gimp shares with Photoshop. But features don't mean shit. The
interface is a bulky mess. Tons of "little" things don't quite work as
expected. And then, when it comes to the truly heavy-weight features, of
course Gimp doesn't compare.

Out of curiosity, I tried installing Gimp to see how much has changed (for the
better?) since I last checked it out. The tool interface doesn't quite fit
into its window by default so you have a tiny little scrollbar at the bottom
that you have to scroll to see the full text. I resized it. After popping out
a submenu, it once again didn't fit.

Free/open software projects are so idealistic, I kinda want to support it. But
it's so rare that anybody in these communities gets interface design. It's not
unheard of (Firefox is a positive example in my book) but it's rare.
Photoshop's main advantage is it's clean interface: [http://f64academy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/The-Interfa...](http://f64academy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/The-Interface.jpg)

~~~
lostgame
>> It's not unheard of (Firefox is a positive example in my book)

Well, I'm not trying to say it's not without it's difficulties, but designing
a browser's UI is not even just not in the same court as putting together
something like Photoshop, it's not even the same sport.

Photoshop's UI/UX isn't...great, itself, I'd say.

It's far from intuitive. I use the example of Photoshop when explaining
software that really learns better when you have someone over your shoulder
teaching you.

I find people can't even 'get' photoshop until I sit them down, spend an hour
and show them the basics of what's what. Then they can explore.

This is...technically still good UI/UX. If, for such a 'pro' level tool, after
an hour or less of slight instruction, a user can find their way around,
that's cool - but I think the 'de facto' standard of UI/UX these days is 'pick
up and instantly understand how to use'. PS doesn't translate to that, and
GIMP could fill that void, and even create a _better_ UI/UX, if they could
find some dedicated, passionate people to do it.

Lord knows I wish I had the time.

~~~
jacobolus
The issue with Photoshop is that the core abstractions were built in 1990, for
1990 hardware and GUI conventions (based on ideas from software for 1970s
graphics workstations). Over the years, additional features (sometimes
gimmicky ones designed to demo well in 5 minutes) were piled on top of this
core, but nothing was ever removed.

So the end result is sort of like a junk drawer filled with weird kitchen
appliances. You have your grandma’s beat-up cast iron skillet and rusty chef’s
knife with some chips in the handle; these need some maintenance but are still
your most flexible workhorse tools. Then you have a melon baller and potato
peeler you picked up at a flea market 2000, a popcorn maker that you bought
for your college dorm in 2003, a waffle iron you found abandoned when you
moved into a new apartment in 2007 that makes waffles shaped like zoo animals,
and just last year you were given a fancy bluetooth sous vide stick as a
wedding present but the bluetooth is kind of flaky and sometimes you need to
re-enter the settings 4 or 5 times before it works.

After long experience, if you put everything together you can usually make
whatever meal you want, but sometimes it takes some creative license with the
recipes, and folks observing the process are mystified.

------
valine
> Blender suffers from the habit of redesigning its entire interface every
> other version, although it seems to have calmed down lately.

I think this is a bit misleading. The last major UI overhaul was in 2011 with
blender 2.57. Since then the UI has changed very little. There have been many
new features, sure, but I can't think of anything that would be exceptionally
disorientating.

~~~
onion2k
Recent versions of Blender have some _really_ annoying usability issues
though. For example, various panes work differently depending on whether
you're using the Blender Internal engine or the Cycles rendering engine. To a
new user that means you can be following a tutorial and just not have a button
or an option available because you haven't swapped to the right renderer - it
would make sense to group renderer specific options in a way that make it
clearer why you don't have something available.

~~~
astrodust
Cycles is the way to go. The legacy engine is included as a default for
reasons unknown. They honestly should make it an optional plugin to avoid
confusion.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
BI is still there because it has a wealth of functionality that Cycles doesn't
yet, and because it's _really_ fast by comparison.

~~~
astrodust
You get what you pay for. A lot of times the real-time OpenGL render looks
better than the legacy render.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
Yeah, I know. I've seem the side-by-sides.

But if you just need a fast render...

~~~
astrodust
Cycles in preview mode isn't bad, you can tune it, and it's also possible to
incrementally render in real-time. It looks all dithered, but it works quite
well.

Its performance will only increase as GPU acceleration options improve. CPU
performance is pretty much at a dead-end now, it's barely improved in the last
half decade but to slam more and more cores into the chips, while GPU
performance is increasing rapidly even now.

------
jaclaz
I am missing the "3-D" in Inkscape, Gimp, and in the "honorable mentions"
Paint.NET, Krita and IMagemagick ... Title: "A Guide To Open-Source 3D
Graphics Design" Real title:"A LIST of open source graphical programs, some of
which offer 3-D capabilities"

~~~
hacker_9
And not a single mention of any of the open source CAD tools available.
Pointless article.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
3d ARTWORK. Not 3d work.

Do you know any artists who work in BRL-CAD?

------
exDM69
Is anyone aware of a project that would be creating an open source alternative
to SketchUp?

It's one of the two pieces of proprietary software (other being Mathematica) I
rely on day-to-day life. I've even considered starting such a project, but
it's near the end of my very long TODO list and I'm unlikely to have time to
make it into something usable by the general public.

I really enjoy using Blender for my more art-oriented 3d needs, but I use
SketchUp for more engineering oriented tasks like making drawings for my
woodworking projects.

~~~
zokier
Would a full-blown CAD like SolveSpace be overkill for your uses?

[http://solvespace.com/](http://solvespace.com/)

discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12650290](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12650290)

~~~
exDM69
Yes, it's probably overkill. What I'm after is the simplicity, even if it
comes with limitations. My woodworking plans are pretty simple, and I have no
need for fancy shapes or parametric stuff (I can't design more complex things
than I can cut and chop with chisel and saw).

I wouldn't go designing fancy shapes for machining with SketchUp, but it's
great for doing plans for simple projects.

~~~
tshannon
Yep, Sketchup is excellent for planning out woodworking. It lets you figure
out how everything will fit together in 3d space, and then you can just
measure all your cuts in your finished design.

I really wish there was an open source alternative, or at least a linux one
(Sketchup works ok in wine).

~~~
exDM69
I've been _really_ considering starting a SketchUp -style 3d drawing program
project. I have a background in 3d graphics and data structures/algorithms, so
it would be right down my alley. But I don't have a lot of time on my hands :(

------
jordigh
> _Gimp’s development is also closely tied to both Richard Stallman’s GNU
> values and the GTK+ widget toolkit_

Gimp is indeed tied to the Gimp Toolkit+, but it has almost nothing to do with
GNU anymore (and it never had much of anything to do with rms, so trying to
smear Gimp by association is kind of mean). In fact, the Gimp developers
themselves are quite hostile to the idea of doing things like changing the
language to fit GNU recommendations. When I suggested that they shouldn't
refer to it as "open source", they were the ones who shouted "POLITICS",
refused, and ran away.

So, if you dislike its UI, don't blame GNU or rms. Probably shouldn't even
blame GTK+. Just blame Gimp.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
POLITICS seems like a good file to include along with README, LICENSE, etc.

------
tonyplee
Recently, Disney/Pixar open source their USD and other tools:
[https://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios/USD](https://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios/USD)

Very good demo Video from SigGraph 2016:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmH4KYcmHOo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmH4KYcmHOo)

Pixar Courses at Khan Academy: [https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-
content/pixar](https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar)

------
colinthompson
I think the biggest thing missing on the list is a full featured compositing
package. Fortunately there's Natron:

[https://natron.fr](https://natron.fr)

------
tobltobs
All those "the Blender UI is awful" might be correct, I don't know because I
don't have a comparison, apart of freecad, which has a possible even more
awful UI. But what I love about those two projects is the UI mode where you
can open a console which shows the API calls which are triggered if you make
an UI action. This enables you to easily write some scripts making the UI
obsolete. Of course you still have to understand the UI which sometimes needs
a lot of googling.

~~~
gcp
It's true that typically "craftmanship" (I don't know a better word) software
has a "terrible" UI in the sense that it doesn't follow typical (let alone
platform) conventions, has bad discoverability, etc.

The issue is that these tools are used in day in and day out by a specific
audience that is willing to make the investment to surpass the bad parts of
the UX. It's not like a 3D artist can choose to skip using a 3d package - and
in many cases the choice which one will also be dictated by external factors.
Once the initial hurdles are surpassed, the UX of the tools _does_ work well
for that flow. It has to, because that's the customer base.

Basically, these tools can afford to suck in the basic UX because they can't
really "bounce" users there.

~~~
zokier
I think it is reasonable to judge the merits of professional software by its
usability for trained/experienced professional users. And then suddenly many
UIs that might superficially appear bad become very efficient tools.

I do believe that by that metric Blender UI is not that bad.

------
gima
No love for MyPaint? :(
[https://github.com/mypaint/mypaint](https://github.com/mypaint/mypaint)

------
CyberDildonics
Blender: reinventing their UI wheel, never making it round.

------
Pica_soO
Blender is simply bad UI-Design. It has nothing to do with a learning curve. I
ve used alot of open source software, and the UI is usually the equivalent to
english-aristocratic mansion, where every late addition is glued to the main
house like a little bay window. And the first strange keyboard and control
preferences (can we put a terminal in for that), will be forced down your
throat. And i can handle this. Usually you find the configs and tailor them to
something more adhering to common user-expectations. But then all the
tutorials become useless for you. And that is where its over. I would really
have loved this project to succeed. And in parts it has. There are awesome
plugins for nearly everything. (Evolutionary Algos for Animation creation for
example) But its completely disregard for UX-Standards have prevented it from
making a industry-impact. A 3 year subscription to the max, is more expensive
then it was 1990.
[http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php?t-182943.html](http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php?t-182943.html)
That's how a self-inflicted defeat looks like.

~~~
moron4hire
Blender is not actually that bad. 3D modeling is just a hard job. You have to
make a set of 2D tools that are fundamentally conflicted with the 3D work
you're trying to do. You cannot realistically use Maya or 3DS Max in a
professional setting without also learning a raft of keyboard shortcuts and
non-standard UI.

I keep hearing this "Blender doesn't adhere to common UX standards", but
nobody ever says which particular parts are the non-standard UI elements. They
don't use a standard UI toolkit, but that's not the same thing as not using
standard UI design. I look at it right now and I see: tabbed documents,
buttons, sliders, textboxes, accordion panels, all in relatively easily
recognizable formats.

You have to right-click instead of left-click to select things. Maybe that's a
good thing. Maybe that initial, small, tiny road bump encourages people to
look up tutorials instead of trying to forge ahead without any training.

But there are some things that are just not going to be easy. There is a
reason why materials are separate than textures. The modifiers interface has
actually been drastically cleaned up and things like particle emitters greatly
simplified within even the last year. Where it has "non-standard UI elements",
it's because there is no standard UI element to do the job. The shader node
editor is quite intuitive, if you ask me.

So again, if you're going to complain about a specific thing, please cite
specifics.

So save your money and put the effort into Blender. 3DS Max is not $5000
better than Blender.

~~~
gcp
_Blender is not actually that bad._

No, Blender is not bad, it's terrible.

You need a tutorial video to understand how to close a pane, and even then
it's hard. That has got nothing to do with 3D modeling being hard. It could've
been a word processor and it would still be terrible.

And yes, window panes are very much a standardized UI part which has a
completely non-standard interaction design in Blender. For no reason.

Edit: Before you downvote this, download Blender and try to close a pane. Just
try it!

~~~
astn
>It could've been a word processor and it would still be terrible.

Like vim or emacs?

>window panes are very much a standardized UI part which has a completely non-
standard interaction design in Blender. For no reason.

It's called "tiled window management". Lots of people find it more comfortable
to use than the classic overlapping windows.

~~~
oblio
> It's called "tiled window management". Lots of people find it more
> comfortable to use than the classic overlapping windows.

True, but when speaking about "lots", we have to keep in mind that tiled
window management for the general public died together with Windows 1.0. That
probably puts the percentage of the public who's ever used tiled window
management around 0.001% of the total PC using population :)

~~~
wolfgke
> True, but when speaking about "lots", we have to keep in mind that tiled
> window management for the general public died together with Windows 1.0.

And came back with Windows 8 :-)

> That probably puts the percentage of the public who's ever used tiled window
> management around 0.001% of the total PC using population :)

~~~
oblio
Well, the awesome success of Windows 8 kind of reinforces my point :-)

~~~
wolfgke
But the market share of Windows 8.1 is currently 8,40%.

[https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-
share...](https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-
share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0)

~~~
Pica_soO
Defenders of open source, rally around the OS-outcast - for he who is
condemned by the public, may he be horrible and atrocious as can be, is our
brethren in spirit.

You know how bad it is, if Microsoft lowest-point is your high point.

------
Pica_soO
Trying to be constructive: How much work would it be to rip the current UI out
of blender and replace it with one, that adheres to humanity's standards and
defaults?

