>:(
wer ist denn mit "High End Usern" gemeint ? Mathematiker mit Dr. und Prof. Titeln ?
Der Workflow bleibt völlig auf der Strecke. Ich dachte eigentlich ich wäre ein ruhiger und ausgeglichener Mensch. Bis eben ... als ich meine Tatatur gegen die Wnd geschmissen habe. Zum Glück hab ich noch ne alte Ersatztastatur.
Für jede kleine Kleinigkeit braucht man ein Tutorial. Und ich bin sicher kein Anfänger, ich arbeite seit über 5 Jahren mit Vue, Bryce u.a.
Ich weiß echt nicht wer sich dieses Müll-Interface ausgedacht hat, aber ich halte es für völlig ausgeschlossen, damit auch nur ansatzweise kreativ arbeiten zu können. Wie auch, man muss im Kopf ja ständig irgendwelche mathematischen Formeln durchgehen usw.
Offengestanden reizt mich an TG2 nur der Realitätsgrad der Render-Engine, der Rest drumherum ist unbrauchbar.
Ich glaub ich bin nicht der einzige der sich die Render-Engine von TG2 eingebaut in Vue wünscht. Das wärs doch, die Oberfläche von Vue mit der Render-Engine von TG2.
So, das musste jetzt einfach mal raus, mein Fruslevel ist auf dem MAXIMUM.
P.S.: Ich glaube auch nicht, das sich in zukünftigen Releases noch groß was am Interface ändern wird. Warum ? - Na der Grundstein ist doch schon gelegt.
rough translation:
Who is end meant then with "High user"? Mathematician with Dr. and prof. title?
The Workflow remains entire on the stretch. I thought would be actually I a quiet and balanced person. Until just... as I my Tatatur against the Wnd had hurled. To the good fortune, I still have ne old replacement keyboard.
For each small trifle, one needs a Tutorial. And I am certain work no beginner, I for more than 5 years with Vue, Bryce among other things
I do not know contrived has myself really who this rubbish-interface, but I consider excluded it to be totally creatively to be able to work therewith also only extension manner. How also, one must go through etc. any mathematical formulas in the head permanently.
Open state excites is me at TG2 only the reality degree of the Render-Engine, the remainder drumherum useless.
I do not believe am incorporated wishes for I the only of that the Render-Engine of TG2 in Vue. The wärs yet, the surface of Vue with the Render-Engine of TG2.
So, that must now simply once out, my Fruslevel is on the MAXIMUM.
P.s.: I do not believe myself also, that in future Releases yet largely what will change at the interface. Why? - Well the cornerstone yet already is put.
Hi, the current interface is still pretty bad and it is planned to be made better later in the development cycle. Terragen is still in a alpha state at the moment. though there is a bit of discussion about it around the forums.
regards,
Will
Hallo ist, die jetzige Schnittstelle noch ziemlich schlecht und es ist geplant, besser später im Entwicklungszyklus gemacht zu werden. Terragen ist still in einem Alphastaat im Augenblick., obwohl es ein Bit der Diskussion darum um die Foren gibt.
Beachtungen,
Wille
PS Erbärmlich seine eine schlechte Übersetzung
Highflyers: Die zukünftigen Versionen werden auch für Anfänger gut zu benutzen sein, ähnlich wie TG0.9.
The future versions will be much easier to use for beginners, similar to TG0.9.
If you think the current interface is "pretty bad", I'm afraid you won't likely appreciate the final version either. We will *not* be making a "TG 0.9-like interface". Improvements to the current UI will be implemented to make it easier and more intuitive to work with but developing and maintaining an alternative UI is simply not feasible at this point.
TG2 works differently from other applications just as many other applications do in their respective markets - World Machine for terrain modeling, Nuke for compositing, etc. A network-based model is not intuitive or easy to use for everyone, but at the same time many people find it much more powerful and in fact also *easier* to work with, provided there is a good network UI of course.
There are some significant improvements to be made to TG2's network UI, but it will remain network-based. We're aware that won't be appreciated by everyone, but neither is the UI of Vue, World Builder, MojoWorld or any other product in this market. No program can hope to be "all things for all people".
- Oshyan
Never thought I would say this but I have gotten use to this node network interface. A few more tweaks from Planetside and I think it will be great.
TG2 is a complex software. I don't mean complex to use, but complex in what it does.
Its like some people want to fly a jet plane with a stick and an "start" button. it just doesn't work like that. Have anyone seen the shader structure in Maya? or even in 3d max...
I think the current interface is very good and the node structure easy to learn.
Some people just want to import something from poser, move some sliders and hit render and get a photo.
HA! It doesn't work like that, not if you want a software that you expect to be in studios pipelines. If you make it that simple, it wont be flexible and it will be less powerful.
Terragen v0.9 was a much simpler thing. It was more of a touch this, move that and hit render. Of course great pieces could be made, but for example, having to resample images to get a nice render... that its a waste of time if you need to render lots of frames.
I think TG2 is on the right path to become a great piece of software. Of course in my opinion it needs a lot of work to get better than vue (the atmo model migh be less realistic and all that ...but it was used in feature films like pirates and it looked amazing)
Ok, but IMO the interface is nice, clear and understandable.
bye
Quote from: Oshyan on June 03, 2007, 04:13:06 PM
If you think the current interface is "pretty bad", I'm afraid you won't likely appreciate the final version either. We will *not* be making a "TG 0.9-like interface". Improvements to the current UI will be implemented to make it easier and more intuitive to work with but developing and maintaining an alternative UI is simply not feasible at this point.
TG2 works differently from other applications just as many other applications do in their respective markets - World Machine for terrain modelling, Nuke for compositing, etc. A network-based model is not intuitive or easy to use for everyone, but at the same time many people find it much more powerful and in fact also *easier* to work with, provided there is a good network UI of course.
There are some significant improvements to be made to TG2's network UI, but it will remain network-based. We're aware that won't be appreciated by everyone, but neither is the UI of Vue, World Builder, MojoWorld or any other product in this market. No program can hope to be "all things for all people".
- Oshyan
Why not set up some kind of official contest/challenge to do a new interface skin for the final release version of TG2 the winning skin being used in the final release version of TG2, you have this community here why not make use of them to design the interface, might be fun?
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel
I'm sure MeltingIce would come up with something good.
Regards,
Will
C-A, because a "skin" isn't going to do anything to improve usability, which is some user's primary complaint. Such an effort would be largely meaningless and accomplish little. If you were intending that people try to actually design a new user interface, that's frankly not feasible, unless anyone here is a professional UI designer. ;D
- Oshyan
Sorry "Skin" was the wrong team to use I was thinking of a mock up contest I have seen them before but can not remember where. Any way feasible or not just an idea that came to mind while reading this thread, it seems to me that I will let this one go.
Thank you for your understanding in this regard.
Regards to you.
Cyber-Angel ;D
Honestly, my first thought when i saw the UI was: "What a ... (insert your french here) of UI is that?" After working some hours with it, i thought: Well, not that bad as i thought as it would be. Now, after several month i think: It is not perfect neither optimal and it has some disadvantages and bugs (i know, it is an Alpha!), but with some well thought out changes and better consistency it would work pretty good for me. I for one don't really like the UI of Vue, the only thing i am heavily missing in TG2AP is an orthogonal view for placing objects and the like and a visually better nodes interface for example. (Er ... is that good English?)
Quote from: RealUser on June 04, 2007, 09:12:44 AM
Honestly, my first thought when i saw the UI was: "What a ... (insert your french here) of UI is that?" After working some hours with it, i thought: Well, not that bad as i thought as it would be. Now, after several month i think: It is not perfect neither optimal and it has some disadvantages and bugs (i know, it is an Alpha!), but with some well thought out changes and better consistency it would work pretty good for me. I for one don't really like the UI of Vue, the only thing i am heavily missing in TG2AP is an orthogonal view for placing objects and the like and a visually better nodes interface for example. (Er ... is that good English?)
I agree. When I first started TG 2 and saw the UI, I felt like I ran into a brick wall. I had no idea what to do. But after I read my first tut and a little trial and error I understood what was going on (with the node network primarily). It was merely a matter of understanding the shaders themselves after that.
I'd say 99% of my work in TGTP is done in the node editor. Luckily I had some prior node based experience from using World Machine.
To be honest, its worth learning and loving this system, due to the power and flexibility. Once learned its just as easy to use.
The node system is kind of like one of my favorite childhood toys "Tinker Toys".
You could follow the plans that came with the set and build some really great stuff.
Or you could use what was in the can/box to create your own even greater stuff. ;D
The nodes add a whole lot more flexibility as far as I'm concerned.
AGREED!!! ;D
Quote from: fmtoffolo on June 03, 2007, 05:53:49 PM
I think the current interface is very good and the node structure easy to learn.
but it does take time to learn and if English is not your first language it can be understandably difficult.
Regards,
Will
Hi there, as Will's translation is a bit clumsy (sorry, Will - Übersetzungsprogramm benutzt?), here's what Highflyers actually wanted to point out:
Quote from: Will on June 03, 2007, 12:17:35 PM
rough translation:
Who is meant then with "High user"? Mathematicians with Dr. and Prof. titles?
The workflow remains entirely on the stretch. I thought I'd actually be a quiet and balanced person. Until now.. as I smashed my keyboard against the wall. Lucky me, I still had another old one.
For each little aspect, one needs a tutorial. And I am certainly no beginner, I worked with Vue, Bryce etc. for more than five years.
I dont' know who came up with this rubbish-like interface, but I consider it to be totally impossible to work creatively with it. How then, one must permanently go through all kinds of mathematical formulas and etc .
Being honest, the only thing that excites is me at TG2 is only the reality degree of the Render-Engine, the remaining rest is totally useless.
I do not believe that I am the only one who wishes that theRender-Engine of TG2 would be included in Vue. That would be just the perfect thing, the surface of Vue with the Render-Engine of TG2.
So, that had to be said as my frustration level is on the MAX.
P.s.: IMO, I also don't think that there will be any further changes concerning the Interface in future releases ... why I think so? Well, the foundation stone has already been set.
(Translated by Highflyer's girlfriend who wasn't there the day he freaked out to write his opinion down in English ;-)
Quote from: Will on June 04, 2007, 04:41:45 PM
but it does take time to learn and if English is not your first language it can be understandably difficult.
Regards,
Will
Hi, Will,
this is Highflyer's girlfriend again - English is not the main problem as I am able to understand most things after studying it for a couple of years...what caused some headache was e.g. the fact that there wasn't just one high and one low value for creating the surface but another one that puzzled me (damn, I don't remember exactly when this occurred, I am a total beginner of this!)...there we go, it was the following: Lead-in scale, smallest scale and feature scale!! Now, who can tell me what is supposed to be what? I thought that there would be one number bigger than the other if you have to define a "from - to" (don't know how to say it with my very limited knowledge of programs like TG2 and Vue), but what the heck is the third factor all about?
Anyone who can explain me?
Quote from: fmtoffolo on June 03, 2007, 05:53:49 PM
TG2 is a complex software. I don't mean complex to use, but complex in what it does.
Its like some people want to fly a jet plane with a stick and an "start" button. it just doesn't work like that. Have anyone seen the shader structure in Maya? or even in 3d max...
I think the current interface is very good and the node structure easy to learn.
Some people just want to import something from poser, move some sliders and hit render and get a photo.
HA! It doesn't work like that, not if you want a software that you expect to be in studios pipelines. If you make it that simple, it wont be flexible and it will be less powerful.
Terragen v0.9 was a much simpler thing. It was more of a touch this, move that and hit render. Of course great pieces could be made, but for example, having to resample images to get a nice render... that its a waste of time if you need to render lots of frames.
I think TG2 is on the right path to become a great piece of software. Of course in my opinion it needs a lot of work to get better than vue (the atmo model migh be less realistic and all that ...but it was used in feature films like pirates and it looked amazing)
Ok, but IMO the interface is nice, clear and understandable.
bye
Don't you think that it is somewhat arrogant to say that if you just don't understand some of TG2's aspects, it is supposed to be that way? NOT being born with English as my first language, does that mean that I have to be left out of this just because I just cannot tell the difference between feature scale, lead-in scale and smallest scale , respectively which one of them is the one that stands for the highest value? And getting along with Bryce and Vue doesn't mean that all I can understand is how Poser works...somewhat offensive!
I wonder how good YOU would be if you had to translate a program you really want to work with into your language and then finding out that the tutorial just isn't explaining it well enough!
And, by the way, flying an airplane is not exactly the ability to compare with!
There is something between "move this, move that and hit render" and the kind of work that I am talking about...sure TG2 is complex in what it does (otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in using it!), but it IS definitely also complex to use, which is mainly because there's no possible step without a tutorial. Complexity isn't a sign for the value of a program...
Your confusion on these terms is understandable as their purpose is not immediately obvious, especially in the context of how other programs work. The fact that TG2 doesn't work like other programs do doesn't necessarily make it bad or wrong - there are reasons for everything, of course. Primarily the focus has been on increased flexibility and power but admittedly this is sometimes at the expense of ease of use. Having a way to set 3 aspects of a noise function - minimum, maximum, and "average" scale is more powerful than just setting min and max or average alone, but it does require explanation.
I do have to ask if you've read the documentation already provided, in PDF form on the Technology Preview download page and here in the forums, because these settings and many more are fully described. The PDF only covers basic information - the forum documentation here is more complete:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?board=12.0;sort=subject
In particular the Surface Mapping section covers these specific noise settings:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=22
Perhaps the issue is that the documentation is in English? We do plan to provide some basic documentation soon in German and we hope to be able to provide full documentation in multiple languages by the time of the final release.
- Oshyan
Quote from: Oshyan on June 06, 2007, 01:36:01 PM
Your confusion on these terms is understandable as their purpose is not immediately obvious, especially in the context of how other programs work. The fact that TG2 doesn't work like other programs do doesn't necessarily make it bad or wrong - there are reasons for everything, of course. Primarily the focus has been on increased flexibility and power but admittedly this is sometimes at the expense of ease of use. Having a way to set 3 aspects of a noise function - minimum, maximum, and "average" scale is more powerful than just setting min and max or average alone, but it does require explanation.
I do have to ask if you've read the documentation already provided, in PDF form on the Technology Preview download page and here in the forums, because these settings and many more are fully described. The PDF only covers basic information - the forum documentation here is more complete:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?board=12.0;sort=subject
In particular the Surface Mapping section covers these specific noise settings:
http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=22
Perhaps the issue is that the documentation is in English? We do plan to provide some basic documentation soon in German and we hope to be able to provide full documentation in multiple languages by the time of the final release.
- Oshyan
Hi,
no, the problem is not English (at least I consider it to be that way as it was my main subject at University), but the fact that the tutorial just didn't make it all clear to me (and THAT is because I am the translating one and my partner is the one with the knowledge of rendering machines...) made me asking myself why I just don't get the point! I never had such problems with Technical English before, as I worked as a secretary in the Automotive business as well as for architects; with lead-in / feature / smallest scale being expressions for highest / lowest and average, it gets much clearer to me, thanks!
This is essentially what the documentation already says, although it doesn't necessarily use those specific alternative terms (highest/lowest/average):
From the Surface Mapping area of the documentation:
QuoteNow let’s look at each of the various settings tabs. The Scale tab is selected by default and you will find several controls for scale here. Scale basically controls the overall size and distribution of the patterns in a surface layer. These patterns are generated by a fractal noise shader which is internal and in the case of the Base Colours node. The Feature Scale setting determines the overall average scale of features in the shader and this will have the most noticeable immediate effect on scale. The Lead-in Scale is essentially the size of the largest features that will be present in the shader output and naturally Smallest Scale then determines the size of the smallest features. All of these are measured in meters, the default unit of measurement in Terragen 2.
The range between the Lead-in Scale and Smallest Scale will determine the number of “octaves” of noise that are generated. This value can be changed directly if you have an idea of a specific detail range you want, but generally it’s easiest to adjust the other Scale values. Note however that the more octaves each of your shader nodes are generating, the longer your scene will take to render. The effect is not significant for only a few shader nodes but it can quickly add up, especially when displacement is involved.
Did you read that part of the documentation but found it unclear?
- Oshyan
I think HighFlyer's girlfriend is right about that bit of terminology. I know it's explained in the documentation, but the terms currently used are not intuitively understood (at least not by me). And when common English terms offer a technically adequate and much more intuitive alternative, why not use the common terms instead? Simple usability modifications like that may go a long way towards mollifying some of the complaints re the UI. (I'm not saying they're all justified. After some initial hiccups I've been pretty happy with it, but I think this one is valid.)
<edit>
Beg your pardon for piling on, Oshyan. I'm not trying to beat up on you, really. :)
</edit>
I'm not arguing the validity of the terms. Although naming has always been given consideration and there is somewhat of an overall naming scheme in place, the names have largely been chosen for their appropriateness to the underlying functionality, not necessarily as analogues to existing terms or functions in other applications. In this particular case these terms may be specific simply because my explanations are *approximate* - the actual terms of "Lead-in scale", etc. are likely more accurate than "maximum scale" and the like. So whether we should name them accurately or with "familiar" names is not necessarily an easy decision, but it's something we'll be considering heavily before the final release of course, and it is very likely that things will be more intuitively named and cohesive in the final product. That is not to say the names will necessarily match up with other applications, but we'll certainly do that where appropriate for the sake of consistency and ease of migration.
For now my fundamental point was that despite the terms being potentially confusing and unconventional, they *are* adequately explained in the existing documentation. As we are all aware this is a Technology Preview and the main intent was not to preview the UI in anything near a polished, final state, but rather to give people an idea of the fundamental working concepts (network-based) and the capabilities of the renderer itself. Beyond that almost everything is subject to change and will almost certainly do so.
But to reiterate, long story short, I found those names confusing too and they will be reevaluated for appropriateness before the final release, along with all other setting names. For now I simply suggest referencing the documentation for any confusing terms.
- Oshyan
I can claim to be totally unaffected by the terminology of competing products. If ignorance is bliss, I'm ecstatic.
;D
So basically all this is about the lead-in scale, ect parts of the fractal (at least on the main question)? and so far the answer is that "Lead-in scale" is roughly equivalent to Maximum and "smallest scale" is roughly that of minimum and that feature scale is some form of multiplier? I just want to get this all strait so the Highflyer's question can be answered.
Regards,
Will
Highflyer's question has been answered, as far as I know. Your Lead-in and Smallest Scale definitions are essentially correct. however Feature scale is roughly equivalent to "average scale", *not* a multiplier. I'm not sure where that impression came from but if it's a lack of clarity in something I've said in this thread or in the documentation please do let me know.
- Oshyan
no, no it was just my assumption from past experience, cool so everything is cleared up Oshyan. thanks :)
Regards,
Will
Quote from: Highflyers on June 06, 2007, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: fmtoffolo on June 03, 2007, 05:53:49 PM
TG2 is a complex software. I don't mean complex to use, but complex in what it does.
Its like some people want to fly a jet plane with a stick and an "start" button. it just doesn't work like that. Have anyone seen the shader structure in Maya? or even in 3d max...
I think the current interface is very good and the node structure easy to learn.
Some people just want to import something from poser, move some sliders and hit render and get a photo.
HA! It doesn't work like that, not if you want a software that you expect to be in studios pipelines. If you make it that simple, it wont be flexible and it will be less powerful.
Terragen v0.9 was a much simpler thing. It was more of a touch this, move that and hit render. Of course great pieces could be made, but for example, having to resample images to get a nice render... that its a waste of time if you need to render lots of frames.
I think TG2 is on the right path to become a great piece of software. Of course in my opinion it needs a lot of work to get better than vue (the atmo model migh be less realistic and all that ...but it was used in feature films like pirates and it looked amazing)
Ok, but IMO the interface is nice, clear and understandable.
bye
Don't you think that it is somewhat arrogant to say that if you just don't understand some of TG2's aspects, it is supposed to be that way? NOT being born with English as my first language, does that mean that I have to be left out of this just because I just cannot tell the difference between feature scale, lead-in scale and smallest scale , respectively which one of them is the one that stands for the highest value? And getting along with Bryce and Vue doesn't mean that all I can understand is how Poser works...somewhat offensive!
I wonder how good YOU would be if you had to translate a program you really want to work with into your language and then finding out that the tutorial just isn't explaining it well enough!
And, by the way, flying an airplane is not exactly the ability to compare with!
There is something between "move this, move that and hit render" and the kind of work that I am talking about...sure TG2 is complex in what it does (otherwise, I wouldn't be interested in using it!), but it IS definitely also complex to use, which is mainly because there's no possible step without a tutorial. Complexity isn't a sign for the value of a program...
Not that i want to continue with this, but i live in argentina, and i speak spanish. English is not my first language...
And the rest...well, its a matter of perspective. I don't know about your case, but there a lot of people that just buy models, import them , move some things around and hit render. I'm not saying that is wrong. They usually make very nice renders. For example, most artist that do this can be found in renderosity, while the artist that generally start from scratch are in cgtalk.
And about the complexity of the soft...any powerfull soft is complex. Mainly because it has to be very versatile. Try doing a high poly model in max or maya without reading any documentation,,,gets kind of hard.
In my short 3d carreer I have never ever seen a program that is easy to use from day 1 ! You have to dig into it, it´s the same with Poser, with 3ds max, cinema4d, PS.....
What do some people expect? I was´t able to drive around with a car after I had my first lesson....so what?!?!
And I am not a native speaker too. I am also German, but hey, if you´re interested in learning....you´ll get it one day...just keep trying....if not...let it be.
Of course there are days I am cursing around (it helps, *lol*), but my will to get it done is bigger, much bigger.
By the way, I should do something again with TG, spend too much time with Poser at the time *lol*.
If it helps non native speaker, there are also German boards out there....
Give it a try and don´t give up, it´s worth it!
Aenea
A node based system is the last step before scripting / programming.
Yes - it can be hard to get into - but there is nothing as powerful...except programming.
I think it's great that we get to go "under the hood" and re-wire the engine of TG2...that is what this node based system really is.
Now - coming from a background of using node based systems...there is one thing that I would like to see in the final version...
I would love to be able to hit F1 when I have a shader selected...and then get a help window describing what the shader does, what it inputs and outputs and what it is "usually" used for. A few links to info about the algorithms inside the shader would help a lot too!
Feedback anyone?? :)
cheers
//O.
odd,
I completely agree with everything you've just stated. A help system would be enigmatically useful. Well, maybe not that useful. But, greatly helpful. I do like the idea of a node system and the fact the TGD is just basic XML. This lends itself to programmatic changes as well.
A hit F1 help system for every node could be very helpful. I love this feature in WM!
Yeah, a complete help system (F1, menu selections for contents, index and search, etc) would rock. It would be a huge help. I also wouldn't expect to see anything like that for quite a while. I know that on my own projects, documentation is always the last thing to be finished. (For nearly a year now, I've been sitting on a couple of new features for a calculus program I have on the market. A Fourier series visualization tool and a surfaces of revolution tool - they work great but I still haven't written the docs.)
Let's face it - writing documentation totally sucks. Writing code is fun; documenting that code is the worst.
In my humble opinion everything is quite easy and understandable - this is for me. For Highflyers ... feel free to ask ... even in your native language. Flaming is not the best way to get help ;-)
Hallo Highflyer,
für mich ist die Oberfläche der Technologie-Vorschau (!) von TG2 ziemlich einfach. Wenn Du Fragen hast, dann stelle diese einfach, gerne auch in deutsch, irgendjemand wird schon antworten.
P.S.: 'Ne Frage hilft oft weiter als Meckerei ,-)
Volker
Well, that is at all really surprising.
Renaming a control takes about 30 seconds for the developer (if not he definitly had to think about a better naming system).
But this naming at all looks like you have discussed naming, and to give peace, every of the discussion partners have given a part to the naming:
One for Lead-in, lead-out, lead --?
One for greatest, smallest, average feature size
one for greatest, average, smallest scale,
well may be the one for the octave naming did loose, lowest, highest and main octave.
And so we look at different names for equal controls.
I do not know, if it really was so, but it looks so. Great teamwork and absolutley not confusing - if you have read the documentation and learn the TG2 language. So, hear to all those, who ensure, that TG2 is all easy, logical and do not change the naming before the final release and give us all a chance to learn to think and speak like a terragener. We will be part of a outstanding community and able to talk to each other by being sure, no one outside of our community will be able to follow us.
oh yes .... I understand the mood of the first posting .... I started 4 months ago with TG09 and went to TG2 one month later.
The first 6-8 weeks with TG2 were horrible!!! First of all the GUI which was completely different and not self explaining like TG09 was. And than that node system ...... ??? And the settings of the settings in a shader of a shader ... of a shader ......... of a ........ unbelievable! And no Help! Some basic tutorials somewhere in the internet. No ideas, which values are usefull and which one are completly stupid. Example? The settings in the cloud density: if you take the slider to the right you get a max. value of "1". But who the f.... knows, that the best value for puffy clouds is 20 or higher??? A slider should show the absolut min and max values and not a random range somewhere between. This are basics in software developement.
And that's not the only thing that works a little bit "strange" :)
Confusion and frustration !!!!
And then the system crashes ..... after 2 or 3 hours of configuration .... blop .... TG2 is shut down..... I had more system crashes with TG2 in 2 month than with all my other programs in the last 2 years.
The only thing that is really excellent is the render engine!!! But if i can't use the program to tell this engine what it should do, the best render engine is useless.
Well, there are some people here, they can handle TG2 like no others and their pictures are fantastic!!!!! They create pictures I'll never could do (I'm from Germany and my personal big problem with the software is the complete english interface and the terms which are used - but i don't want a german version :)) So I use TG2 for 10 - 15% of it's functions ... perhaps ... some days it will be 30%. The rest of functionality is fog and miracle .......
Now, to me, TG2 is like a Lamborghini or Porsche but .... nobody tells me where the clutch and the gearshift is (but i have a lot of pretty buttons i can push and sometimes something will happen) ...... So I try .... and try ..... and try ..... sometimes happy .... but very often frustrated .... and a few and far between very very angry.
Quote from: ThinkPink on July 18, 2007, 08:13:11 AMThe settings in the cloud density: if you take the slider to the right you get a max. value of "1". But who the f.... knows, that the best value for puffy clouds is 20 or higher??? A slider should show the absolut min and max values and not a random range somewhere between. This are basics in software developement.
And a 500 pixel wide slider to cover most of the values would be better? ;)
I don't know if you know it, I recently wrote a TG2 Tutorial for Beginners (in german):
http://nikita.tac-design.net/themen/tutorials/tg2einsteigertutorial/tg2tutorial.htm
No, a 500 pix wide slider is nonesense. But you can code a slider with a squared function, so a slider from value 0 to 50 covers 0 to 2500, for example.
This slider critic is constructive, how about accepting constructive critic and supporting it.
@ThinkPink - We are allowed to fill in any number, even sometimes negative numbers, within these blank fields which is far beyond the restrictions we would have with this sort of slider. The slider is okay as long as we can put whatever numbers we want in the field.
@nikita - Wow, that's incredibly helpful. I know we have quite a few German users.
Quote from: nikita on July 18, 2007, 11:11:54 AM
Quote from: ThinkPink on July 18, 2007, 08:13:11 AMThe settings in the cloud density: if you take the slider to the right you get a max. value of "1". But who the f.... knows, that the best value for puffy clouds is 20 or higher??? A slider should show the absolut min and max values and not a random range somewhere between. This are basics in software developement.
And a 500 pixel wide slider to cover most of the values would be better? ;)
I don't know if you know it, I recently wrote a TG2 Tutorial for Beginners (in german):
http://nikita.tac-design.net/themen/tutorials/tg2einsteigertutorial/tg2tutorial.htm
unbelievable........................
A nonesense slider is a feature!
@calico
Okay, if there would be a sensful slider, would you lost the feature of typing in a value in the textfield?
ThinkPink did not want to have the textfield disabled, but to let the slider represent the possible values for the textfield. It is so in nearly every application. It is sensful, it does not restrict the textfield. And it is possbile to code a slider so, that it represents the whole range of possible or sensful values.
You're right. If it's possible to have
possible values represented by a slider, this would be an accepted standard within an application.
I also don't want to lose the ability to fill in the blank, which is just addendum to this conversation. A slider like you stated would be nice and expected.
Quote from: cajomi on July 18, 2007, 11:46:36 AM
unbelievable........................
A nonesense slider is a feature!
@calico
Okay, if there would be a sensful slider, would you lost the feature of typing in a value in the textfield?
ThinkPink did not want to have the textfield disabled, but to let the slider represent the possible values for the textfield. It is so in nearly every application. It is sensful, it does not restrict the textfield. And it is possbile to code a slider so, that it represents the whole range of possible or sensful values.
My only point is: Designing such a smart slider is something probably very very low on the priority list for a "tech preview".
Plus, I'm pretty sure that if a slider is restricted to a certain range, they did it for a reason.
We have less than 6 months before the end of the year, which means there is still some time for this.
It would be nice to hear and actually understand the reason, if there is one.
I would like to see this whole thing to start to be treated like an end product rather than something that is "just a preview". That sort of reasoning is getting old, don't you think? If it's an end-product, then certain things are expected in the world of what works. Right?
Quote from: nikita on July 18, 2007, 12:08:12 PM
My only point is: Designing such a smart slider is something probably very very low on the priority list for a "tech preview".
Plus, I'm pretty sure that if a slider is restricted to a certain range, they did it for a reason.
Well, you are right. Coding sensful sliders costs some time. It is a question of priority:
Code as many algorithm as possible and then see, how to manage them
or code a algorithm, code the usuage, then the next, and see how far you come within the time.
The first will result in a very bad usable application, a car with unbelievable power engine and wood tires,
the second in a car with not so powerful engine but with really power grip tires.
Sometimes I got here the feeling, that this community is standing around a racing car and prising this damn powerful engine and if you then speak about the wood tires, all look away and back at the power engine.
Part of this "wait and see" attitude is simple patience that the end-product is built well
and powerful. I'm willing to wait, if it means TG2 will be the very best it can be.
Quote from: cajomi on July 18, 2007, 12:29:22 PM
Well, you are right. Coding sensful sliders costs some time. It is a question of priority:
Code as many algorithm as possible and then see, how to manage them
or code a algorithm, code the usuage, then the next, and see how far you come within the time.
The first will result in a very bad usable application, a car with unbelievable power engine and wood tires,
the second in a car with not so powerful engine but with really power grip tires.
Sometimes I got here the feeling, that this community is standing around a racing car and prising this damn powerful engine and if you then speak about the wood tires, all look away and back at the power engine.
That is a great honourful religious attitude.
Sure your trust is so big, that you have of course purchased TG2.
The node editor is great and I hope it doesnt change at all and to me, it makes sense the same way nukes node editor makes sense.
Many of the slider ranges have already been set explicitly and with specific "sensible" settings in mind. What makes sense for one person or group of users doesn't necessarily make sense for others though. If someone feels that a value of 20 on a particular setting is the "only way" to get a particular effect they will feel that limiting that slider to 1 doesn't make sense. But in reality there are probably many ways to achieve the effect they are looking for, some of them perhaps better than what they are using.
So simply because there is one way that works ok to create an effect by using a potentially extreme value for a setting doesn't mean the value range for the slider should be changed. You can still use the high values if you wish, but you should also pay attention to the default slider ranges and consider that they may be this way for a reason and there may be other, perhaps better ways to achieve your desired effects. Naturally these slider ranges will also be tuned further in the future, but it's important that you know that already they are not random or senseless in most cases.
In the end we could continue talking indefinitely about Planetside's development approach, the choice to release the Technology Preview, our pace of updates, etc. There is certainly validity in some of these criticisms and we're well aware of the limitations of our process and the consequences of that. What matters for most is the end product. If you don't like the way things are being approached now that may be a warning sign for you, but keep in mind most other products go through similar stages behind the scenes where years of development go unseen, and so the user community may be spared these moments of doubt and can judge the final product on its own merits.
We were aware of the danger of premature judgment of the product based on the Technology Preview when we decided to release it and we still feel that it has resulted in much more positive outcome than negative. For many this approach has given the opportunity to get an early start on learning a new approach to scene creation. For those who simply get frustrated at the pace of updates and feel more and more skeptical about the final release quality, it is probably best just to take a break and wait for the finished product. Then it can be judged on its real capability, ease of use, polish and overall value. Any previous issues with update frequency, etc. do not necessarily need to factor in - the important part is that we will have set a release date and met it, with a finished product that can stand on its own merits. If the end product reasonably lives up to expectation then it is fair to say that the process that led there, while not perfect, was workable.
We are continously evaluating and improving our processes and you can look forward to many positive changes in the future. The simple fact is that making major changes in the middle of later stages of development on a significant flagship product is difficult and disruptive, so while we have implemented many improvements internally, it will take a while to see what may be more desirable external changes. The bottom line is we are working hard to bring you a product that will be powerful, usable, functional, enjoyable, and that we at Planetside can all be proud of.
I hope that you will all revisit your opinions and concerns when the final product is released later this year. In the meantime enjoy the Technology Preview for what it is, but don't let it or the lack of this or that feature, or even the pace of updates, frustrate you. Take some time away if you need to. Those who have purchased are still entitled to an update to the final, release version, and that is ultimately the major benefit of pre-purchase - a significant discount on the price of the final product. Intermediate updates have been promised and will continue to be delivered, but the final release is really our focus.
- Oshyan
Yes, I am an intelligent believer. ;D
Planetside has my vote and my $$.
Quote from: cajomi on July 18, 2007, 12:53:24 PM
That is a great honourful religious attitude.
Sure your trust is so big, that you have of course purchased TG2.
@Oshyan - "...most other products go through similar stages behind the scenes where years of development go unseen, and so the user community may be spared these moments of doubt and can judge the final product on its own merits."
Thanks for making your process and reasoning clearer.
Hi Cajomi,
I really like that engine and those brand new high tech wheels of this vehicle. Maybe those wheels are not for some old and muddy roads - but the car drives. The amount of dials and switches may seem odd and sensless but fine tuning will help ,-)
I have purchased it for some reasons. One reason might be that this program is yet so powerful that I do not need a polish. Speeking for me.
I have watched the development states of the early Terragen versions. And always the sliders were reasonable. The presets were reasonable, too. There was no luck, but thought about the sun's diameter, horizon's curving and so on.
And of course, the sliders give you good results.
I am too lazy to use sliders, as I have a number in mind that I simply type in. This is just as I was going through some trial and error approaches, which I learned from. It is very (!) seldom that I use numbers beyond the reach of sliders, but.
Volker
P.S.: The 'old roads'-term used above is for old computers, not persons.
Hi all,
As Oshyan says, most of the sliders have been given min and max values that correspond to "reasonable" ranges of values for that parameter. There may be some exceptions, and it's useful if you can let us know where they are so we can fix them.
For many parameters the idea of "maximum" value is almost meaningless because it would be very, very high. Who is to decide what the maximum value should be? In these cases we have to choose an upper limit that is reasonable for the majority of scenes, otherwise the slider would not provide enough resolution (even with a power function on the slider, Cajomi, which I use in many cases). We also have to limit the range of the slider to suggest what values might be good, but again there is not always a simple rule for this.
If there are some sliders which you believe have badly-chosen minimum and maximum extents, please let us know so that we can either fix them or discuss the reasons for the current values.
Thanks,
Matt
That sounds good, and I did not have proofed the sliders. Here I trust what others said about the higher value.
To give you a better understanding for my frustration:
GeoControl is developing fast. It has now some strong features, for example, a river and lake tool, which produces natural rivers and lakes.
Well, to get those river and lakes rendered and to get them look really good, the render application must be able to:
fade out the colour in deeper parts of the water, must be albe to handle two terrains at the same place without mixing them, must be highly accurate (else the water parts will not fit).
After some tests I found, that Vue is not exact enough, Bryce has no fade out, Carrara has no fade out and a bad atmosphere.
When I start on GeoControl I had up from the beginning TG2 as the most important renderengine in mind. I had to develope GeoControl 2 with only assumption, how TG2 will work, what it will be able to render. And still I am forced to do that.
How about tilings? How about file formats for placing a "close up" terrain in a existing terrain? How about 16bit mask import?
I bagged, that you give me a chance to develope GC2 with many matches to TG2, but not success. I bought the tech preview to get closer to the developement. Else no success, because I definintly have not the time to read through the many tutorials, that are needed to use the tech preview. Also it is not really "optimized" at time on importing terrains.
GC2 will release end of the summer. And I am fully in the fog, how the workflow with TG2 will be. I am building a racing care, but damn, I have no streets to drive it.
Hi Cajomi,
TG2 was designed to be much more flexible and extensible than v0.9 was, and unfortunately supporting a purely heightfield-and-mask workflow is only one of possibilities that need to built on top of the low-level components. If we had poured all our resources into that too soon then the procedural flexibility may have suffered and we may have locked ourselves into a particular workflow too soon. One of the most important goals for the TG2 Technology Preview is to give the artist/TD many choices for procedural scene construction, and we still have some work to do until the top-level intuitive layers are completed.
I developed Terragen v0.x from scratch so I know very well how quickly a relatively focused application can be developed to a high standard, but Terragen 2 has been a much more challenging project with longer term goals.
You can import any number of heightfields, and although they cannot be rotated (currently), they can be positioned. Have you considered developing an exporter for Terragen clip files that can be imported into TG2? Of course this is not as good as a tiled reader that can keep unused portions out of memory until they are needed, but that is a difficult problem anyway when ray tracing is involved.
Matt
I also wanted to say that I am now working on improved transparency and reflections, and when that is completed the water shader will be given many new options to control its appearance at various depths.
Matt
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Matt on July 19, 2007, 12:46:43 PM
I also wanted to say that I am now working on improved transparency and reflections, and when that is completed the water shader will be given many new options to control its appearance at various depths.
Matt
The tiling would not necessary be a equal tiling. GC2 will be able to put together terrains with different resolution to a seamless tile set. A kind of manual LOD.
Well, I am not sure, what you mean with "clip" files?
Greatest problem so far I can see is, that the imported terrains are sitting on a tangential plane.
At all, I am aware, that the project TG2 is another dimension than my GC2. And I can understand very good, that you do not develope TG2 in a way, that you afterwards will be dependend from terrain generators. But on the other hand, the concept of TG2 was not the all in one wonder. Trees, objects and so on must be imported from other applications. I did expect, that TG2 will be a "stage", the final superb renderer, which is able to put together all the different parts to a complete scene. This is exactly what is totally missing in the market, while a procedural world is available with mojo world. So, this goal, that you have, well, it is fine to have a better "mojo world" but every minute you spend on the procedural approach, keeps you away from filling the hole in the market.
But of course I know about a good to do list. Although seamless tiling is one of the most important features of GC2 it will be developed at least, else it would cost to many time. And so it may be with TG2 import functions.
I will have to improve my river and lakes, which btw cost me 6 weeks only this tool. But I need a final renderer to see, what must be improved, to get at least real rivers, with a real river bed, with formed underwater parts, underwater shading and a real water surface.
So, looking forward to the next update TG2, with transparency like the old TG.
Johannes
ups .......
Sorry, but the following is in german, because I think this would be a little bit clearer what I think and what I want to say. If somebody want to translate in english, feel free :)
Was ich mit meinem 'slider-Beispiel' und dem posting sagen wollte war folgendes: Die Software TG2 ist grundsätzlich sehr sehr gut!!! Da gibt es nichts zu meckern.
Es gibt jedoch aber auch einige Dinge, die sind (bislang) unglücklich gelöst und die verwirren. Zumindest eine so neuen und unbedarften user wie mich, der seine ersten Gehversuche auf dem Gebiet der Rendersoftware macht. Vielleicht bin ich ja auch nicht die eigentliche Zielgruppe? Vielleicht wurde die Software ja wirklich NUR für Profis und die absoluten Render-Cracks entwickelt (fände ich jedoch schade).
Das Problem der freien Vorab-Bereitstellung von Software ist, dass man aufgrund der enthaltenen Bugs einen sehr großen Teil potenzieller User (und Käufer) abschreckt, da sie mit der Software fast nur Frust erleben und nicht zurecht kommen. Ich bin auf meiner Suche nach Tutorials in Internet immer wieder über Aussagen über TG2 gestolpert: "Zu komplex.", "zu fehlerhaft", "Rückschritt gegenüber TG09", "chaotische Handhabung" etc. Nicht gerade eine gute Werbung. Vielleicht hätte man die Alpha- und Beta-versionen erst mal einem ausgewählten Nutzerkreis zur Verfügung und nicht gleich frei zugänglich ins Internet stellen sollen.
Ich selbst habe mir TG2 als Preview heruntergeladen und kämpfe seither damit - sowohl mit der Software als auch mit der Entscheidung, ob ich sie kaufen soll oder nicht. Ich habe mittlerweile (ohne Handbuch, nur mit zusammengestückelten Tutorials) Stunden und tage damit verbracht und hatte mehr Frustmomente als Highlights. Was das tolle an dem Node-System ist, habe ich bis heute nicht begriffen. Vielleicht kann es mir ja mal einer erklären. Ich benutze es jedenfalls fast nie! Die Einstellungen kann/muss ich auch in den normalen Eingabefelder machen. Und das bisschen Drag&Drop von Input/Output kann ja jetzt auch nicht der Brüller sein. Aber wahrscheinlich habe ich was übersehen .... :) Ich bin ein sehr ruhiger und geduldiger Mensch. Aber in den letzten Wochen war ich hinsichtlich TG2 wirklich mit den Nerven am Ende. Deshalb konnte ich auch den allerersten Kommentar hier sehr gut nachvollziehen. Auch ich war schon kurz davor, nach dem 5. Absturz in Folge, die maus gegen die Wand zu werfen .......
Auf mich macht TG2 den Eindruck, als wollte jemand eine schicke Oberfläche gestalten, weil es andere auch machen. Um dann diese schicke Oberfläche als genial einfaches Instrument zu verkaufen - das sich natürlich nur den wirklichen Profis in seiner Genialität erschließt. Der Rest - so wie ich - bleibt dumm, weil er's nicht versteht oder verstehen will.
Ich spreche ein bisschen aus Erfahrung, da ich fast 20 Jahre Softwareentwicklung, Softwaredesign und Softwaretest hinter mir habe - allerdings auf einem anderen Gebiet. Ich habe einiges an Software gesehen und selbst entwickelt (die ich selbst genial fand), die aber bei den Anwendern nur Unverständnis auslöste. Da musste ich lernen, dass sich Softwareergonomie nicht am persönlich Geschmack oder an dem einiger weniger eingefleischter User ausrichtet sondern an der Tauglichkeit in der Masse.
.... oder kurz gesagt: ich wünsch mir einfach nur eine Software, die absturzfrei läuft und von solch Laien wie mir intuitiv bedient werden kann und die tolle Ergebnisse liefert ..... einfach eine Eierlegende-Wollmichsau ..... ;D
Most issues in Thinkpinks post were already covered in previous 'english' posts. Thatswhy I answer in german.
Hi,
auf das meiste findest Du schon genügend Antworten im englischsprachigen Teil ,-)
Es gab lange Zeit (mindestens seit 2004) schon die Alphaphase von TG2 und erst Ende letzten Jahres wurde nach konsequenter Überlegung eine Tech-Vorschau veröffentlicht.
Den Entwicklern war bewusst, dass es dadurch zu sehr vielen Meckereien kommt, aber der Fortschritt in der Software-Entwicklung wurde dadurch immens beschleunigt. Es gibt da natürlich immer ein für und wider - auch ich habe lange Zeit pausiert, da es manchmal umständlich war.
Das Node-System ist eine grafische Darstellung des internen Aufbaus dieses Programms. Ein 'Powerfractal' zum Beispiel hat einen Input, und einen Output. Solch ein Node kann von einem anderen Shader die Daten bekommen, aber an beliebig viele seine Daten weitergeben.
Mit anderen Worten Du bastelst Dir einen schönen Shader (Node) und versorgst damit nicht nur einen, sondern gleich mehrere Shader.
Es lässt sich wörtlich schlecht beschreiben, ein gutes Beispiel von mir kannst Du Dir hier: http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1858.0 (http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=1858.0) anschauen.
In der Datei habe ich eine Gruppe mit Nodes, die alle anderen Shader mit Daten versorgt.
Die Oberfläche, die TG2 hat soll zweckdienlich sein, die schicke Oberfläche soll erst zum Ende des Jahres 'raufgepackt werden.
Wie Du selber sagst, wenn man eine Software entwickelt, gibt es immer jemanden, der etwas dagegen einzuwenden hat - und diejenigen schreien immer am lautesten. Und dann gibt es noch eine große Gruppe von Ja-sagern und Schweigern.
Das Manko, das ich Dir eingestehen möchte, ist, dass TG2 ohne Presets ausgeliefert wird. Es wäre hübsch, wenn man gleich schon ein paar Wüsten-, Moor- oder Highland-shader und ein paar gute Atmosphären hätte. Das würde vieles am Anfang einfacher machen. Dies wird (soll) mit der fertigen Software dann aber auch geschehen.
Ich wünsch Dir was, Volker
"Vielleicht bin ich ja auch nicht die eigentliche Zielgruppe? Vielleicht wurde die Software ja wirklich NUR für Profis und die absoluten Render-Cracks entwickelt (fände ich jedoch schade)."
("Maybe I'm not the actual target group? Maybe this software has been developed only for Power Users and the absolute render geeks. (which would be a pity)")
That's true for the tech preview, as stated on the website:
Quote from: http://www.planetside.co.uk/terragen/tg2/tech_preview.shtmlPlease note that the Technology Preview release is aimed mainly at high end users. It has a powerful and flexible graphical node/graph editor which is used for creating networks of shaders and scene elements. The Technology Preview features a number of high level shaders which create more complex scene elements, such as clouds or rocks, as well as a low level function node system which allows you to create shaders from "first principles", using functions and methods that will be familiar to shader writers. The node editor can be used to unlock the full power of the TG2 rendering engine.
The node network isn't useless as you might think, but gives you more precise control over things. You can actually plot three-dimensional functions with it or build your own shader. Plus, there are things you can't do without using the node network.
btw: I don't know how the rest of the users think, but you really should write in english here.
Quote from: ThinkPink on July 20, 2007, 04:07:57 AM
Was ich mit meinem 'slider-Beispiel' und dem posting sagen wollte war folgendes: Die Software TG2 ist grundsätzlich sehr sehr gut!!! Da gibt es nichts zu meckern.
Thinkpink points out that TG2 is a very very good software - and there is basically nothing to complain about.
Es gibt jedoch aber auch einige Dinge, die sind (bislang) unglücklich gelöst und die verwirren. Zumindest eine so neuen und unbedarften user wie mich, der seine ersten Gehversuche auf dem Gebiet der Rendersoftware macht. Vielleicht bin ich ja auch nicht die eigentliche Zielgruppe? Vielleicht wurde die Software ja wirklich NUR für Profis und die absoluten Render-Cracks entwickelt (fände ich jedoch schade).
Translated by Nikita
Das Problem der freien Vorab-Bereitstellung von Software ist, dass man aufgrund der enthaltenen Bugs einen sehr großen Teil potenzieller User (und Käufer) abschreckt, da sie mit der Software fast nur Frust erleben und nicht zurecht kommen. Ich bin auf meiner Suche nach Tutorials in Internet immer wieder über Aussagen über TG2 gestolpert: "Zu komplex.", "zu fehlerhaft", "Rückschritt gegenüber TG09", "chaotische Handhabung" etc. Nicht gerade eine gute Werbung. Vielleicht hätte man die Alpha- und Beta-versionen erst mal einem ausgewählten Nutzerkreis zur Verfügung und nicht gleich frei zugänglich ins Internet stellen sollen.
About releasing a Tech-Preview, its bugs and user complaints
Ich selbst habe mir TG2 als Preview heruntergeladen und kämpfe seither damit - sowohl mit der Software als auch mit der Entscheidung, ob ich sie kaufen soll oder nicht. Ich habe mittlerweile (ohne Handbuch, nur mit zusammengestückelten Tutorials) Stunden und tage damit verbracht und hatte mehr Frustmomente als Highlights. Was das tolle an dem Node-System ist, habe ich bis heute nicht begriffen. Vielleicht kann es mir ja mal einer erklären. Ich benutze es jedenfalls fast nie! Die Einstellungen kann/muss ich auch in den normalen Eingabefelder machen. Und das bisschen Drag&Drop von Input/Output kann ja jetzt auch nicht der Brüller sein. Aber wahrscheinlich habe ich was übersehen .... :) Ich bin ein sehr ruhiger und geduldiger Mensch. Aber in den letzten Wochen war ich hinsichtlich TG2 wirklich mit den Nerven am Ende. Deshalb konnte ich auch den allerersten Kommentar hier sehr gut nachvollziehen. Auch ich war schon kurz davor, nach dem 5. Absturz in Folge, die maus gegen die Wand zu werfen .......
The decision whether to buy or not to buy the software is not easy for Thinkpink. There were more frustrating moments than highlights. The node network is nothing whith sense for Thinkpink, and the crashes are very annoying (throwing the mouse against the wall)
Auf mich macht TG2 den Eindruck, als wollte jemand eine schicke Oberfläche gestalten, weil es andere auch machen. Um dann diese schicke Oberfläche als genial einfaches Instrument zu verkaufen - das sich natürlich nur den wirklichen Profis in seiner Genialität erschließt. Der Rest - so wie ich - bleibt dumm, weil er's nicht versteht oder verstehen will.
Ich spreche ein bisschen aus Erfahrung, da ich fast 20 Jahre Softwareentwicklung, Softwaredesign und Softwaretest hinter mir habe - allerdings auf einem anderen Gebiet. Ich habe einiges an Software gesehen und selbst entwickelt (die ich selbst genial fand), die aber bei den Anwendern nur Unverständnis auslöste. Da musste ich lernen, dass sich Softwareergonomie nicht am persönlich Geschmack oder an dem einiger weniger eingefleischter User ausrichtet sondern an der Tauglichkeit in der Masse.
Thinkpink has been developing software for 20 years and has experience with user-complaints. Still thinks that TG2TP has just a polished UI to be sold as an easy to use tool
.... oder kurz gesagt: ich wünsch mir einfach nur eine Software, die absturzfrei läuft und von solch Laien wie mir intuitiv bedient werden kann und die tolle Ergebnisse liefert ..... einfach eine Eierlegende-Wollmichsau ..... ;D
Ending with a joke - Thinkpink just wants to have the ultimate easy one-klick wonder rendering software
Volker: Danke für die Infos. Ich komm mir ja schon selbst etwas blöd vor, denn unkonstruktiv ummeckern ist nicht mein Ding. Ich will's ja einfach nur verstehen! Andererseits kann ich in zwei Monaten auch nicht sämtliche postings der letzten 3 Jahre zur Entwicklung von TG2 durchlesen :)
nikita: Yes, next time in english .... but .... :) .... my last posting in this thread in english brought us back in an already ended discussion with many postings in a few hours ..... and there are some answers to things which I haven't thought in this way ....... and to your last posting: Yes your right ...... I had to read some things and it would be clearer ... but on the other hand ..... in two month (since I try to work with TG2) , I could read the whole history of developement von TG2 of the last three years :)
have a nice weekend!
Yes, I am an intelligent believer also. /Grins
Planetside has my vote and my $$ when I get the duckets no problimo here /smiles.....
QuoteI also wanted to say that I am now working on improved transparency and reflections, and when that is completed the water shader will be given many new options to control its appearance at various depths.
Matt
Very Cool Mat, I see you have been watching our posts on the water issues we have been playing with and talking about on the Forums. Thanks my brother, your awesome. I can wait for the update as I know it will be awesome and awe inspiring.
Suggestion: Maybe you guys should sign some NDA's and talk about this over coffee between just you programmers so Cajomi does not get so frustrated :-\. Maybe you guys can both help each others Dev some after all. I find it strange that he has not contacted you guys privately by now actually and talks about this in regular posts, so if you guys did get together, I bet you can find some of those solutions working in tandom, but hay that's just me. I use L3DT for the most part myself, and Aaron is working on all the same features or has finished that Cajomi is, but many other people I am sure like Caj's program and would love to see these 2 work together when you both have releases. anyway that's my 2 cents worth /smiles... Good ideas and needs in this post.
DT