I know that everything is debatable, but I would have preferred that this energy focused on the aesthetics of the site be directed to make once and for all a user manual for your software (blue node etc.).
You would earn more money by explaining your software and we would be better informed customers.
I am convinced that many like me have become demotivated due to a lack of specific information. There is a limit to waiting for your customers to arbitrarily learn how Terragen works. Almost all the tutorials presented here are made by amateur clients (hobby).
100% agree with you Jo.
Quote from: Jo Kariboo on August 06, 2019, 09:06:12 AMI know that everything is debatable, but I would have preferred that this energy focused on the aesthetics of the site be directed to make once and for all a user manual for your software (blue node etc.).
You would earn more money by explaining your software and we would be better informed customers.
I am convinced that many like me have become demotivated due to a lack of specific information. There is a limit to waiting for your customers to arbitrarily learn how Terragen works. Almost all the tutorials presented here are made by amateur clients (hobby).
I will defend Planetside here, that the forum upgrade was necessary. There are necessary modern security changes that should be observed, and 2.1 RC2 incorporates these changes. So that's a good thing. The aesthetics of the site is just the default theme that came with the forum software, which also came with some new features.
I'm sure Oshyan did not spend too much time on installation of the new version, or migrating it's Database. In fact it seemed like a quick process (I was watching).
But I do agree that we desperately need the documentation written and released, but I don't think this should be taken as some sort of deterrent from those things.
The forum update was not something that particularly interfered with doc updates or was done "instead of". It literally took less than a day of work, in which time not much could have been added to the docs instead.
We certainly agree that the documentation needs work, and we're investing time, energy, and money into that. Everything always seems to take longer than we'd all like, I think, but it's progressing.
- Oshyan
100% agree with Mr Kariboo. Even if it only took a few hours, a tutorial could have been made or a wiki page could have been updated during that time. This forum has 10+ years of the same complaint that hasn't been addressed at all. Very confused as to why that is. It doesn't add up to me. I had to say it ...
Quote from: Dune on August 08, 2019, 02:10:49 AMNever noticed that button either, always using this one. Not skipping any new post.
Same here. Every forum has it so sorta just got used to it I guess to look anywhere else. But that is convenient for like the image thread where there may be lots of new replies mixed with viewed topics and want them to list nicely.
Quote from: DannyG on August 07, 2019, 11:27:49 PM100% agree with Mr Kariboo. Even if it only took a few hours, a tutorial could have been made or a wiki page could have been updated during that time. This forum has 10+ years of the same complaint that hasn't been addressed at all. Very confused as to why that is. It doesn't add up to me. I had to say it ...
Hopefully we see documentation and some high quality tutorials in the future. I can't wait. I do hope the redesign isn't taxing or take away from areas that need focusing... I've offered to help.
I's been said before, but documentation is SOO hard to do, because there's so many ways to achieve something, all interdependent on eachother. I've been working in TG since 2008 I believe, and still find new things/combinations, and still can't comprehend it all.
But I'm very curious what will come up.
I am playing with TG since 6 years. When I bought my first copy I asked whats up with the docs? I heard numerous times from PS how they making it. Now 6! years passed by and the Docs are still...
Since PS is only a 2 man show they will never have the time to make the Docs unless they hire a Professional user to make it. Sorry but lets face the truth here. Or we will have Docs if the TG community comes together and start writing it piece by piece, shader by shader.
Sorry if it's all sounds negative but 6 years passed by and no product. This fact is an indicator and it is a bad one. Blender is a very successful product and it is spreading like wildfire. Look at the amount of people who contributes there with literally hundreds of free tutorials and write ups! This is a big part of the success.
Matt will undoubtedly need to write the documentation for it to it be really a good interpretation of the software. Just like documentation for other software, it's written by people aware of the code. It is most certainly not written like a tutorial and based on consumers opinions of features or results.
This is really probably why we haven't seen one. They can't just hire someone to write a documentation without it becoming a word by word proof read by Matt anyway to ensure there is no miscommunication of the software, if any user could achieve this level of understanding. Like
@Dune said, he's still learning new stuff. Says all there needs to be said. Even by users I know very familiar with algebra and blue nodes coming up with me ways, better performance in their work, etc.
Without forking over the whole code base for some stranger to dissect I don't see any good documentation coming from anyone by Matt.
It
would probably take years to write the docs by just trial and error of mins and maxes and dos and don'ts of everything in TG without referring to source.
Sure Matt would be the best for the job but lets face it. He is full time coding and fixing/upgrading things to make sure TG stays in the race. And since this is a pretty though race he cannot stop otherwise other software packages will take over and sales goes down. This is pretty black and white.
As I said I am waiting since 6 years for the Docs and probably will wait forever unless we all do something. How about each of us takes a node and updates the Wiki with pictures/screenshots or a small tgd file that show what EXACTLY what the bloody node is doing.
Or why some of the users are not doing video tuts for money? I would buy it for sure. For example you could do some WAS. I can see you have a great understanding of TG/nodes and in general 3D. I am sure people would buy it.
Quote from: archonforest on August 08, 2019, 03:32:32 AMSure Matt would be the best for the job but lets face it. He is full time coding and fixing/upgrading things to make sure TG stays in the race. And since this is a pretty though race he cannot stop otherwise other software packages will take over and sales goes down. This is pretty black and white.
As I said I am waiting since 6 years for the Docs and probably will wait forever unless we all do something. How about each of us takes a node and updates the Wiki with pictures/screenshots or a small tgd file that show what EXACTLY what the bloody node is doing.
Or why some of the users are not doing video tuts for money? I would buy it for sure. For example you could do some WAS. I can see you have a great understanding of TG/nodes and in general 3D. I am sure people would buy it.
I've asked for the wiki issue to be resolved or switch to a better system before so we can make edits (maybe make accs for us users by request), but In reality, as I mentioned above, it won't be true documentation. At least not like I read from languages/software elsewhere done by development themselves or the best in the fields that know the base code they are working with like the English language.
But perhaps we are off topic and should create a new topic in discussions. I would love to work on a TG wiki but I'm not sure id call it real documentation unless it can convey the working limitations and logic of the functions that drive TG. Like blender and other software you mention.
And as busy as Matt may be, this is a part of the game and keeping up. Especially from a b2c standpoint.
Still, even taking one node, you can't write everything down that can be done with it. As said it all depends on connected nodes, and one extra misconnection by some user and the description fails to deliver.
Trial and error, experimentation, and (un)educated guesswork are the keys to understanding the software. I have actually hardly ever read anything in the wiki.
Quote from: Dune on August 08, 2019, 02:35:58 AMI's been said before, but documentation is SOO hard to do, because there's so many ways to achieve something, all interdependent on eachother. I've been working in TG since 2008 I believe, and still find new things/combinations, and still can't comprehend it all.
But I'm very curious what will come up.
Ulco this is not personally directed towards you, it is to the subjects you touched on in the quote - I understand docs/tutorials are a challenge due to the node based interface. But there are tons of programs out there that are node based and have the same flexibility as TG if not more yet there are hundreds of hours of video tutorials with extensive documentation addressing fundamental to advanced subject matter. I don't think any one of the requesting Terragen users are expecting a "Terragen Bible" explaining everything. How about something simple like taking the example tgds that ship with Terragen? You already have varying complexity scenes created and available to users. Take them have Planetside break it down into pre-recorded videos and release it on YouTube. That's a couple hours of someones time to record it. Do you know how tremendously helpful that would be to the Community? This late in the game I am beside myself as to why this or something similar has not been done. Terralive was great, NWDA's TU & Frank B were exceptional in what they were presenting, Intro to Terragen's UI, World Machine integration, overview of v2's Populations and of course Frank's v2 Cloud tutorial. That was 7 years ago. To PS's defense there were a couple v3 update videos 5 years ago. However these were not tutorials. They were basic intros to new very cool features at the time. I don't want to sound like a jerk bringing this up again but as Jo Kariboo said these voids are really hurting people's creativity and frankly forcing them to look elsewhere.
Quote from: Dune on August 08, 2019, 06:01:07 AMStill, even taking one node, you can't write everything down that can be done with it. As said it all depends on connected nodes, and one extra misconnection by some user and the description fails to deliver.
Trial and error, experimentation, and (un)educated guesswork are the keys to understanding the software. I have actually hardly ever read anything in the wiki.
I mean, that's how it goes for anything..... Think about a programing language. You can do whatever with the code, even make a Terragen, but each piece of code has a specific function. Even the PF with it's finite seeds and mapping has a specific function and most certainly can be described. What people do with it, or fail to comprehend and make mistakes is all on them.
What you are describing doesnt relate to documentations. A tutorial maybe.
And that's another issue. In today's world people don't seem to even understand what documentation is compared to reference manuals, and than teaching tutorials which are more cirriculum after a basic understanding of functionality and logic. This is why some software I refuse to touch because they couldn't even write a documentation without it being bits and pieces of tutorials and vague reference denotions
I don't see many users here who crave for video's, the 'community' consists of only a handful people. If anyone is interested in making a video about the shipped tgd's (I don't even know what ships with it actually), feel free. I won't do it, I'd rather stick to answering specific questions, and once in a while make a tgd with (extensive) notes of some subject. Like the latest (free) beach. But even that feels like wasted time, as I never see anyone responding, or showing its use.
But I think this goes beyond the subject of this thread. :-X
Quote from: Dune on August 09, 2019, 02:49:19 AMI don't see many users here who crave for video's, the 'community' consists of only a handful people. If anyone is interested in making a video about the shipped tgd's (I don't even know what ships with it actually), feel free. I won't do it, I'd rather stick to answering specific questions, and once in a while make a tgd with (extensive) notes of some subject. Like the latest (free) beach. But even that feels like wasted time, as I never see anyone responding, or showing its use.
But I think this goes beyond the subject of this thread. :-X
I would do videos but I have too much background noise. I have sat down 3 times and each time was interrupted. My kid crying cause it's silent, yanking headset off, random rangers coming by to drop off food my fiancee sent home. Lol I do better just answering and showing example for now. Plus I really hate to do the editing part. Lol I don't have after effects, which I know, so HitFilm is just trial and error for me. Haven't sat down to learn it.
Quote from: Dune on August 09, 2019, 02:49:19 AMI don't see many users here who crave for video's, the 'community' consists of only a handful people. If anyone is interested in making a video about the shipped tgd's (I don't even know what ships with it actually), feel free. I won't do it, I'd rather stick to answering specific questions, and once in a while make a tgd with (extensive) notes of some subject. Like the latest (free) beach. But even that feels like wasted time, as I never see anyone responding, or showing its use.
But I think this goes beyond the subject of this thread. :-X
Understand your point of view Ulco, I have seen & heard from many users asking for videos on social media outlets as well as in my NWDA inbox. That's why I proposed the video tutorial approach. Also PS has done a few videos in the past, so that's at least something they are willing or are able to do for the community. Lets face it we are not going to get any documentation. It's not going to happen. Ulco what you do for the Community is priceless, your technical knowledge and continuous support has helped many over the years. I am sure I speak for many users by saying thank you for your time on that.
Quote from: Matt on August 09, 2019, 04:35:26 AMThanks for changing the subject, guys. ::) Now we might have to split this topic, which is a messy business when some replies refer to a mixture of both subjects. :'(
There's nothing wrong with asking about documentation but it would be better in its own separate topic.
Considering the subject matter I am completely surprised at selfish nature of this reply. Some of us spend a ton of our time supporting & prompting this software and you're going to drop in not to address the issue but to complain about about a split thread? We deeply apologize for the burden ::)
Quote from: DannyG on August 09, 2019, 10:30:12 AMQuote from: Dune on August 09, 2019, 02:49:19 AMI don't see many users here who crave for video's, the 'community' consists of only a handful people. If anyone is interested in making a video about the shipped tgd's (I don't even know what ships with it actually), feel free. I won't do it, I'd rather stick to answering specific questions, and once in a while make a tgd with (extensive) notes of some subject. Like the latest (free) beach. But even that feels like wasted time, as I never see anyone responding, or showing its use.
But I think this goes beyond the subject of this thread. :-X
Understand your point of view Ulco, I have seen & heard from many users asking for videos on social media outlets as well as in my NWDA inbox. That's why I proposed the video tutorial approach. Also PS has done a few videos in the past, so that's at least something they are willing or are able to do for the community. Lets face it we are not going to get any documentation. It's not going to happen. Ulco what you do for the Community is priceless, your technical knowledge and continuous support has helped many over the years. I am sure I speak for many users by saying thank you for your time on that.
Quote from: Matt on August 09, 2019, 04:35:26 AMThanks for changing the subject, guys. ::) Now we might have to split this topic, which is a messy business when some replies refer to a mixture of both subjects. :'(
There's nothing wrong with asking about documentation but it would be better in its own separate topic.
Considering the subject matter I am completely surprised at selfish nature of this reply. Some of us spend a ton of our time supporting & prompting this software and you're going to drop in not to address the issue but to complain about about a split thread? We deeply apologize for the burden ::)
I totally agree!
Something seems to me missing above. Perhaps a glitch in the new forum software it's now removing posts? :o
Hey guys,
I felt that splitting the topic was necessary before I replied. I guess I was asking for trouble by complaining about that before replying to the subject itself. Sorry about that.
At the moment our documentation is the Planetside Software Wiki: https://planetside.co.uk/wiki/
We are making improvements month by month, year by year. Over the last couple of years we've made hundreds of edits, cleaned up or finished dozens (maybe hundreds?) of old pages, added a substantial amount of new information. We've worked with a professional writer to finish some of these documents, reorganize a lot of the older material and write new user guides. Right now we are working with Terragen user and VFX artist Kevin Kipper (@RedMaw). He is writing new user guides which will be linked into the Wiki very soon. And we continue to edit and add to the existing content on a semi-regular basis. There is a ton of material in there and we do what we can with time and money that we have, while balancing that with providing support, maintenance, bug fixing and developing new features on the software itself.
So far the Wiki has:
User Guides (16). These range from Getting Started to more Advanced topics. More are being written right now.
Node Reference. For Function Nodes I believe this is mostly complete. When you find unfinished entries, please let us know. I know that there are still gaps in many of the entries that are not function nodes, but again, please call out specific pages where you wish the information was complete.
References for: Input Settings, Menus, Windows, Animation, Import/Export, Global Illumination, Render Layers/Render ELements, Preferences, Command Line.
There's a lot of material in there, but we know it's not finished. I think it would help us to hear from you which parts of the documentation are most important for us to finish first, so please point us to specific things you want to see first.
So let's get down to figuring out what needs to be done next, and we'll focus on those things.
Quote from: DannyG on August 09, 2019, 02:18:53 PMSomething seems to me missing above. Perhaps a glitch in the new forum software it's now removing posts? :o
If you mean my post, I thought it was a bit odd to include it when it was talking about doing a split which already took place by creating this thread.
Quote from: Dune on August 08, 2019, 06:01:07 AMStill, even taking one node, you can't write everything down that can be done with it. As said it all depends on connected nodes, and one extra misconnection by some user and the description fails to deliver.
Trial and error, experimentation, and (un)educated guesswork are the keys to understanding the software. I have actually hardly ever read anything in the wiki.
I quite agree, that's what makes TG so much fun...the "easter eggs" you find while messing around.
Quote from: bobbystahr on August 09, 2019, 03:37:17 PMQuote from: Dune on August 08, 2019, 06:01:07 AMStill, even taking one node, you can't write everything down that can be done with it. As said it all depends on connected nodes, and one extra misconnection by some user and the description fails to deliver.
Trial and error, experimentation, and (un)educated guesswork are the keys to understanding the software. I have actually hardly ever read anything in the wiki.
I quite agree, that's what makes TG so much fun...the "easter eggs" you find while messing around.
It is fun to mess around, but it's no different than any other software... Especially node based with sound competent documentation. User error is just that. You can not factor that in... Lol Documentation covers each components itself. Not the plethora of uses. It allows you to understand what a node can accept, output, it's setting limits if there are any, and possible quirky behavior you may get exceeding any possibile maximums, etx. It than shows you usage in a simple way... Not going into anymore detail beyond that one basic usage. That's for How To books with specific goals.
A competent reader would than inherently know much more about the shader and all the possible uses they could attempt, which leads to possible user error.
And continuing to make these excuses on behalf of user mistakes because they're not being coddled in a How To Tutorial book which is not documentation, will not help documentation get written... as it makes it exponentially more complex and off-topic from a docu. How To books covering tons of areas of use are written by users familiar with the in and outs of a software through documentation and experience with it [after reading docu and working with the software].
Things are so out of perspective here with users having spent years doing trial and error which is not standard and should not be assumed to be that it's getting way off track from software documentation...
If we really want to help we need to think like an end-user consumer that works in these fields and what they're used to in documentation
outside community space, which covers the softwares basic use, which than allows them to pick up any tutorial and follow along without being confused by the user using macros and complex techniques not covered, or covered in tutorials past. This is NOT proper learning of a software, and why I don't even use tutorials. Learning a software by tutorial alone is where all that user error comes from with no real grasp of the functionality beyond "We're doing this to do this"
I wouldn't state it in such black-and-white terms. I think different people learn in different ways. Some want tutorials, some want pure reference manuals, others want a form of documentation which is something in between. Ultimately we need to provide all of these things.
Quote from: Matt on August 09, 2019, 04:52:56 PMI wouldn't state it in such black-and-white terms. I think different people learn in different ways. Some want tutorials, some want pure reference manuals, others want a form of documentation which is something in between. Ultimately we need to provide all of these things.
Than you have people which are technical minded (like most the industry of active people, not learners) are blocked out with redundant information just to get to what they need. Documentation should be documentation. Tutorials should be tutorials. Reference manuals should be reference manuals. There's no reason to blur these lines and create chaos and confusion.
Take Blender and other docuemtation. They have their own websites for community driven tutorials, while there manual is black and white, as you put it, in order for the information to be conveyed in a straight forward and interpret-able way.
Look at their Perlin 2D page for example: https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/freestyle/parameter_editor/line_style/modifiers/geometry/perlin_noise_2d.html?highlight=perlin
Already, from what people are saying here, this page should be like 5 pages long, encompassing "dozens" of possibilities.
That's simply not appropriate! We should assume people have some technical background to be picking up the software, to begin with, and not assuming you should be educating them there. Same for things like complex function usage. Teaching people Math is not Planetsides job. xD
And yes, Perlin Noise is gone into more detail, in the
community space, through tutorials, and forums.
Because people take this information and apply it to ever come up with new methods, or even standard methods we use today.
I think this example from the Blender docs is interesting and instructive. We actually have this and more in the equivalent wiki docs page:
http://planetside.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Power_Fractal_Shader_v3 (http://planetside.co.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Power_Fractal_Shader_v3)
WAS is right that official docs are not necessarily the place for a ton of very specific individual examples of use. That being said we'd like to work to accommodate something like that if there is indeed demand for it and people ultimately find it helpful. Matt and I are in discussion about that now.
I also want to address a few other specific things:
First and most importantly, money and time are being spent on the docs problem. It turns out to be a more time-intensive and costly thing than you'd hope. But progress is being made. As Matt mentioned, there is new content and updates over the last few years, and the articles from Kevin Kipper are coming online soon and will be a nice infusion of valuable instruction and content. There will also be some resulting videos oriented more toward inter-application workflow down the line.
We have also tried to work with various people and even training companies over the years to create video tutorials in particular, but it hasn't seemed to work out so far. I honestly don't know exactly why this is the case, perhaps there just isn't enough money in it, but I think it's important you all be aware that the lack of output is not for lack of trying! We've been in touch with Gnomon and others in the past and it just hasn't panned out. We still have some active discussions going on and hopefully they'll bear fruit at some point. In the meantime if you'd like to see such content from an established training provider, let them know, request it! It will probably help us move these deals along.
Another point worth mentioning is that recording good video tutorials is actually (from my experience) harder and more time consuming than it seems. Some people who are very experienced at it probably can do it much faster than I or some other people can. But for me it takes hours to produce 10 minutes or so of high quality video, from writing a script (even a basic outline) to testing to recording and re-recording (because there are inevitable mess-ups), to editing. To create a full scene breakdown workflow generally takes a good deal longer.
Blender's community is absolutely amazing. Perhaps it is in part *because* it's free that there is so much contribution and giving back. It's also just a much more broad appeal software, which means lots more potential (and actual) users vs. Terragen. Our own much smaller community contributes wonderfully too, but there are just fewer of us, it's a lot harder to spread the load. I will say though that from what I've seen there's a lot less snark and better attitude toward new members (newbs!), etc. here, so we have that going for us (i.e. a nice[r] community). :D
Finally, the Wiki had to be closed to general edits because of massive amounts of spam. But we are happy to enable edit access to individuals who demonstrate an ability for and interest in contributing. Just email us and we can discuss what's involved.
- Oshyan
I am surprised it took a business manager this long to estimate or "figure out" what the cost would be as this should have been #1 on your list of things to do as the community has been decimated because of this. From a business standpoint that is a serious problem. Also leaving everyone in dark over the years with empty promise after empty promise is not fair to the customers, its not like we haven't been inquiring. That said I personally do not have anything positive to contribute to this as I will believe it when I see it. Right now this is just filed under the dozens of other threads exactly like this. Sorry for my bitterness but at this point a bit of bitterness from everyone is justified.
I'll have another short say in this. I can understand everyone's view, but bitterness and harshness is a bit too much, I'd say. From what I just saw (and occasionally checked) on the wiki pages, it's pretty indepth and comprehensive, and there are quite a few good tutorials. Enough to be able for a novice (after having read and understood the basics from those pages) to get a good landscape out of TG, and take it from there.
Of course some areas may need a bit more indepth explanation, but that's also what a dedicated forum (and I'm not talking about FB of Twitter or whatever) is for; asking, and checking whether some problem or trick has been covered before.
And with limited manpower and financial grounds, what more can be expected than there's available now.
Ugh, editor ate quotes and mangled reply, need to try again from start, sorry. What's up with the post editor?
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 08, 2019, 03:44:11 AMI've asked for the wiki issue to be resolved or switch to a better system before so we can make edits (maybe make accs for us users by request), but In reality, as I mentioned above, it won't be true documentation.
However, it would likely provide a strong reference base from which more thorough documentation could be derived, and because of its peer-reviewed nature, might not even require as "deep" attention and review from Matt in the process -- not every issue is a technical monster, after all.
Quote from: jwiede on August 11, 2019, 05:58:17 PMUgh, editor ate quotes and mangled reply, need to try again from start, sorry. What's up with the post editor?
Uhh I'm not sure why the quoted message has nothing to do with the message I quoted. You may have edited it when I hit quote...
Quote from: undefinedHowever, it would serve as a strong reference base from which it would be much easier to derive actual reference documentation. It could even significantly reduce the need for word-by-word review by Matt, because the more experienced users would be in a position to peer-review entries (which may not be as in-depth value, but still brings significant value nonetheless -- not every issue is a low-level complex nightmare, after all).
Yeah, I think that was the original initiative behind the Wiki, and us being able to edit, so information can be as accurate as possible. I think the problem there was the system in place. I needed better spam prevention measures. In general though, considering we're not Wikipedia with however many millions of users, let alone editors, we probably should limited access to the wiki if it gets sorted. Though I think
@Oshyan mentioned allowing access to people now if they want.
Quote from: WASasquatch on August 11, 2019, 06:05:02 PMUhh I'm not sure why the quoted message has nothing to do with the message I quoted. You may have edited it when I hit quote...
The post was properly-formed valid bbcode (I tend to work in source view, your quote had valid {quote author=<author> link=msg=<link> date=<date>}...{/quote} structure, square brackets swapped with curly brackets to prevent parser trigger), and looked fine in preview, but then upon posting the entire quote from you disappeared altogether. No clue why, but attempting then to edit it caused even further corruption of the post. I quickly gave up and started over.
I suspect there's a bug hiding in the post editor w.r.t. how it maintains quote references, and what happens when the nested levels of quotes (and references) are altered/removed, but not interested in debugging it at this moment (debugging other code already).
Quote from: jwiede on August 11, 2019, 06:13:44 PMQuote from: WASasquatch on August 11, 2019, 06:05:02 PMUhh I'm not sure why the quoted message has nothing to do with the message I quoted. You may have edited it when I hit quote...
The post was properly-formed valid bbcode (I tend to work in source view, your quote had valid {quote author=<author> link=msg=<link> date=<date>}...{/quote} structure, square brackets swapped with curly brackets to prevent parser trigger), and looked fine in preview, but then upon posting the entire quote from you disappeared altogether. No clue why, but attempting then to edit it caused even further corruption of the post. I quickly gave up and started over.
I suspect there's a bug hiding in the post editor w.r.t. how it maintains quote references, and what happens when the nested levels of quotes (and references) are altered/removed, but not interested in debugging it at this moment (debugging other code already).
It may also be cursor location. Sometimes it gets nested in the quote, and you type, and even though you delete, the parser tries to handle it and breaks the actual source.
I have to often click at the end of the post cause it just starts editing inside the beginning of the quoted text.
I hate dealing with other people's JavaScript or jQuery but may poke at it. Could find something.