/3/ - 3DCG

>>577613
>implying this is better than okay?

By a 16 year old artist, no less.
What are you doing with your life?

>>577619
18* ignore me, I can't math

>>577619
i don't count on becoming a 3d artist
if there is a light in the end of the tunnel, id rather work a normal job then getting chewed in and spit out by this vulturous industry

>>577613
I mean it's quality, I agree. But compare the ratio of talent from Autodesk/zBrush programs to Blender, there is a stark contrast in the proportions of professionals and quality in each community. Blender has less, and that's why Blender gets shit, because more fetish and beginners use Blender. Blender is a great program, and I do think people will continue to take it more and more seriously as the years go by. It's just that your community only contains a small number of the professionals and quality users, compared to you having the most blatant freak tier artists on the planet. You just have to visit Deviantart for your usergroups.

>>577622
how much bitterness and anger was in this post?

>>577624
None, because I respect good, quality Blender users. I just dislike shitposting like OP is doing. How much anger do you hold because someone criticized your userbase? It tells when you respond the way you do.

Now you don't get any more (You)s from me troll.

>>577636
what troll idiot? im being genuine here. the community have thousands of good artists but your'e not made aware of them

>>577622
>Blender has less

Blender apparently has enough to make that in the OP. I think the ratio of talent is largely because Maya just dominated first in the industry before Blender so a lot of people trying to break into the industry has to learn programs that the industry uses. I do agree that Blender probably does have less, not that I can comment on that but I think it's overstated just how lacking Blender is.

Blender is like that kid in highschool that tells you how cool he is for using linux is, and then also tells you that he has to has a dual install of windows on his PC to actually get anything done, because literally no relevant programs work on linux.

>>577650
too bad its not the case, blender is compatible with pretty much anything.

>>577653
Except the job market.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>>577664
i love those "perfectionists" that think everything should bend to their analysis.

its easy to laugh at others when all you can do is jumping boxes with anime faces

>>577665
>Someone elses ugly face entirely
>i-it might not be perfect guise
It's just cringeworthy to see you try to defend pure dogshit like this with slinging ad-hominems.

>>577666
you are just being ridicules with policing art around here like you have some kind of credibility.

your'e a fucking nobody

>>577654
If you know one program you know them all. Except Houdini

>>577654
Savage

>>577669
>policing art
He's just criticizing it. Is that a crime you autist?

>>577674
well you don't tear down art that is objectively good. its unwritten rule but no need to be disgusting

>>577675
>objective
Stop. Art is subjective, though in terms of standards and education systems, art has fundamentals and processes that must be met. OPs specific piece can be interpreted as being shit for photorealism but good for a stylized look. >>577664 was mocking it because not only did they fuck up the anatomy, I am assuming that they're implying it's not photorealistic - which is true.

>>577676
if you tear down anything because its not strikingly realistic you have some kind of mental illness, i don't care how you will rationalize it

>>577678
It's subjective taste. Some people only love modern art. Some people only love traditional art. There are those that despise computer created art, and there are those that say that Anime is better than Western Cartoon look. Art is subjective, and you can stop being a crying little baby when somebody says it looks like shit - because taste is subjective. No more (you)s for you little babby.

>>577679
i can criticize art when i feel like it, i don't refrain from doing it. but claiming that all art is subjective is wrong. if you can't see the difference between a mspaint doodle and a AAA character then i feel sorry for you. i don't know how you ended up like this but you should seek help

>>577622
I only use blender because its free and I am a poorfag so I take what I can get rly

>>577680
That's a strawman of his argument and you know it. Stop shitposting.

>>577682
i asked you why you'd tear down good art and you said its because subjectivity. i mean you obviously said it for a way out of this argument because you know your'e wrong and you engage in long term baiting n stuff but i just go with the flow and see what you can come up with

>>577683
He said there are standards in terms of objectivity. But like >>577664 and >>577676 says it's not correct in any terms of anatomy and is definitely not photorealistic. You even said you can't criticize art that is "objectively good", which is by default 100% wrong. Fuck off blenderfag.

>>577684
aesthetics are set in stone. i don't care how many vertexes he needed to manipulate but i can at least admire his attempt at such ambitious piece, shitting on it just reeks of jealousy

>>577669
>ill call it policing to discredit any criticizing
Art is as good as how people judge them, and this is complete garbage. You don't have any credentials to discredit shit.

>>577664
god thats horrible

>>577613
>op the blender shitposter acts smug
>shits his pants and cries when people criticize his picture
I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a false flag shitposter who just wants to stir up trouble. But the autistic responses I've seen in this thread clearly show a literal sperg.

>>577664
So this.... is the power... of Blender.... whoah....

>>577613
I don't know which is worse. To assume he took some face model from the internet and treid to make it look like her, or just shit out that model, thinking it looks like the actress.

>>577700
the face didn't match exactly but he did it from a cube, is one of the few good sculptors in Blender, older wip from him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQMpvWEQgc0

>>577613
>modelled entirely in blender
It shows

>>577666
come on now its not pure dogshit.... but its true that:
>likeness is way off
>details are different
>material definition sucks
>lighting is flat
>if the goal was realism, well, its not

but its not a terrible piece in any way, especially considering what /3/ is used to

>>577726
well maybe I went overboard but that face is too annoying compared to the pretty face of gal gadot. and the materials look too unrealistic

>>577727
hehe yeah, that we can agree

>>577613
This is overall a good piece, I watched this dude work on it for the last 3 months. It's such a shame he fucked up the likeness and the materials. Definitely not perfect and not on par with what the top artists put out but it is one of the best things to come out of blender as far as character art goes.

>>577727
>materials look too unrealistic
had that generic zbrush illumination that you usually see in all the turntables wich is far from realistic, don't know if is intentional

>>577684
>it's not correct in any terms of anatomy

You're literally throwing around words you don't understand. Anatomically it's perfectly fine, he made a "mistake" in creating likeness which anyone could have made in every other program.

It's shocking how people here think spending a bunch of money will make your art look better.

>>577664
When will people take 3d as an artform instead of a 3d scanner for photorealism bullshit?

>>577749
Not him but the anatomy of Gal Gadot is objectively off. How about some reading comprehension.

>>577753
You have some really bad understanding of what anatomy is. No one in the art industry in either 2D or 3D uses your obtuse definition of anatomy. The inner working of what constitutes the human body is perfectly fine. If this artist, lets say for the sake of argument, deliberately did not want his character model to look like Gal Gadot would the anatomy be off? No. Would the model he made not constitute what a human could look like?

I have no doubt in my mind that the source of your criticism is your jealously. No one with any skill or experience would make such strange stretches in the definition of anatomy which is fundamental to understanding art.

>>577757
He specifically stated he modeled it after Gal Gadot though, so objectively the anatomy is off. Just because you're angry over a semantics argument doesn't mean that it makes it any less true. Anatomically speaking, Gal Gadot is not represented in his model and as such the anatomy is off. Just so you know, I think this artist has done a very good job, but the anatomy is OBJECTIVELY OFF and you can remain incredibly buttblasted over a false semantics argument which is true anyway. Begone thot, you will receive no more (You)s from me and I won't be reading your reply. Enjoy being anally anguished. :).

>>577757
>face is not a part of the body
>no its perfect and ur just jealous >:'O
Do you think he's jealous of the completely horrendous looking character model or the terrible texture work?

>>577762
The semantics, even though you think is trivial, is an indication of the fact that you or the guy making the comment has no experience in understanding fundamentals whatsoever. I have literally seen no one with extensive experience understanding anatomy make such an argument. I don't think you understand that the argument that this idiot was making was that, had this artist not used Blender, the likeness would have been more accurate. Why else would he criticize the use of Blender by comparing likeness?

>>577757
>IM GOING TO ARGUE SEMANTICS BECAUSE YOUR A BIGOT LOSER WHO IS JEALOUS
Whoa there neddy, calm down you autist.

>>577613
>generic women body
>garbage looking materials
>a face model that resembles nothing of what it was intended for
>y-you guys are jealous
Aren't blenderp fags got tired of getting BTFO every single day?

you guys are way too hard on some image that's not even worth 5min of debate

its average and nobody cares it was done with Blender

>>577613
Being a better artist is more beneficial than knowing a 3D App really well. More art less worry about what program is being used, unless you want a specific job. Just fucking be better at creating something attractive.

>>577757
>cheek and jaw structure isn't anatomy
Holy shit. Stop any time you dense retard.

>>577871
Yes the cheek and jaw structure is a part of anatomy an anatomically speaking it is correct. The pic in the OP does not have incorrect anatomy but proportion. If you've ever done a single anatomy study in your life you'd know the goal is not to get a 1:1 proportion but to understand how the body works via the bones and muscle structure.

pic related. Do you see any human that looks like this? No. No such human like this exists, it's a stylization with correct anatomy.

Goddamn maybe I should fuck off to /ic/. This board is filled with retards.

>>577871
>Grasping this hard
Learn to read or fuck off.
Off Model != Bad anatomy. Humans can look different from one another, anon.
Let me guess, pic related is also bad anatomy?

>>577909
If you were trying to model Jonah Hill and you end up with John Goodman, then your model is anatomically incorrect. This is a very basic concept that even a 40 IQ retard like you should understand.

>>577910
For one, does the artist even say they were aiming for that actor?
For two, that is not what anatomy means.
Isn't summer break over, shouldn't you be in bed preparing for tomorrow's school day young man?

>>577911
>h-he wasnt trying to do wonder women guise
Now it's just getting pathetic.

>>577910
Here's an analogous example:

Let's say I wanted to model prism A in a different angle and space and I produced prism B. We can obviously see that prism B is not the same as prism A. By why is this?
is it because:

a) the perspective is wrong
b) the proportion is wrong

If you picked a) then you have no understanding of fundamentals. The perceptive is correct.

and so like the analogy, the OP model:
- anatomy is correct
- proportion is incorrect

yes, these concepts overlap and depend on each other but that doesn't mean you can just throw them around while trying to fool people that you have any talent.

>>577913
Yes, you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy
Do some reading and come back once you have a brain, anon.

>>577916
>anatomy
>the branch of science concerned with the bodily structure of humans, animals, and other living organisms
Are you still saying the face isn't a part of human body ?

People are allowed to make any deviations from the source material if the artist feels like it or maybe it was a mistake. Why does everything have to be either a complete carbon copy or a full blown stylization?

>>577917
What you posted
>anatomy
>the branch of science concerned with the bodily structure of humans, animals, and other living organisms
What you meant.
>anatomy
>the branch of science concerned with the bodily structure of Gal Gadot, Gal Gadot, and other Gal Gadot organisms

>>577918
Checking out the website on the image, which our autistic friend clearly hasn't done...
The artist never mentioned using any actor for reference. He states that he was inspired by two sources, but never mentioned or tagged any actors.

>>577919
oooh so he didn't mean to do wonder women. he tried to do someone else entirely but in the same outfit of gal gadot in the movie. Is that what the artist claimed he was doing?

>>577915
Just an addendum to this:

The reason why it's useful to separate the concepts of anatomy and proportion is that many of the best stylistic works respect anatomy; while some of the worst stylistic works neglects it. so you can have a fairly correct anatomy while having stylistic proportions.

>>577922
Maybe he liked the outfit but thought your waifu was shit ugly, anon.

>>577924
>still denying how he shit out a fuck ugly face and failed to do the actress like he was trying

>>577664
>>577762
>>577927
And if you're going to go full autism, I guess I will too.
Stop pulling shit out of your ass and go to bed.

>>577928
Stop stalling with your bullshit and post the reference he used for wonderwoman. Let's see how close he got was trying to do.

>>577928
Stop stalling with your bullshit and post the reference he used for wonderwoman. Let's see how close he got to what he was trying to do.

You know it's been awhile since I've seen a dedicated autistic child on /3/ (I just came back a few days ago)
Kinda reminds me why I stopped coming here in the first place.

>>577920
he posted twice on 10k hours asking for advice and he had Gal Godot as references. He also posted wips numerous times on his FB profile and he was also using Gal Godot as reference for both her face and her body. Doing a good likeness is just one of the hardest things you can do, the guy probably just doesn't have the skill for it yet. IMO the bad likeness is more understandable than the very bad looking materials. Even Cycles can do realistic looking materials. But to be fair, it's not the first model he butchered. Pic related

>>577955
Well atleast with this one you can tell he tried to make it look like tom holland.

>>577956
You can tell he tried to make Gal Gadot too. He just butchers them, period. This is why people are criticizing him, and all these Blender retards need to stop being angry that one of their ilk is being talked about negatively.

it's the specific notion that for some reason, a Blender artist shouldn't be called out when he does wrong. That's not how this works, and if you want to be seen as professionals you must be allowed to be criticized. This artist specifically had Gal Gadot references and stated he used her, so as such the criticism is just and true. She is off character. Also to that retard crying about semantics - grow up. She's off character period and you bitching about a pathetic semantics argument helps no one, especially since the cheek bones are not the anatomy structure of the face is not really on par. You can interchange these and as a character artist myself, your semantics argument is really pathetic because you know that he's right - it's shit.

>>577676
>Art is subjective
Lmao you actually went there.
Pathetic

>>577984
kek, yep!

>>577676
>>577984
art is subjective when it comes to abstract stuff, or lets say preferring Classicism to Neo-romanticism, but when it comes to realism, it is what it is. either it's realistic (well made), or its not. OP's pic is not, though not absolute shit.

>OPs specific piece can be interpreted as being shit for photorealism but good for a stylized look
throwing the word "stylized" is so easy to justify anything...... in this case, its too in-between to be impressive in either category. understanding the medium is important too - for example, it could be great for a PS3 game main character, where the limitations on realism are totally understandable

>>577984
>>577992
Samefag for one of these posts. We had 18 posters and now it's 19, with these two added. Stop replying any time.

>>578000
nice try fggt
im this anon >>577992 >>577726

>>578003
So why not post in the same post about the response above yours? Didn't read the thread like a retard? Just so you know, I'm >>577977 and I'll say right now that you are strawmanning that dude. He's specifically talking about Art in a stylized manner on being subjective, not that realism is subjective. The fact that his post points out that there are standards and "processes", whatever the fuck that means, shows that he's not saying all art is subjective. Your strawman and potential same fagging is obvious. Art is subjective for the most part, realism is not.

>>578004

>>577992
I'm going to respond here instead of >>578005 because you're just a baiting retard.
>OPs specific piece can be interpreted as being shit for photorealism but good for a stylized look
That anons specific post states that it's not realistic and confirms realism is not subjective, it's objective. The fact that you acted smug when he basically said the same thing shows how little reading comprehension you have.

>>577992
I'm going to respond here instead of 578005 because you're just a baiting retard.
>OPs specific piece can be interpreted as being shit for photorealism but good for a stylized look
That anons post states that it's not realistic and confirms realism is not subjective, it's objective. The fact that you acted smug when he basically said the same thing shows how little reading comprehension you have.

>>577977
The anatomy posting was done by me, another poster. Of course, you avoided directly responding to any of my posts in particular because you have no argument. I clearly refuted your dumb point about how anatomy vs proportion is all semantics. Proportion and anatomy are not necessarily interchangeable concepts and it shows your weakness in understanding fundamentals.

Anyone with a reading comprehension and attention span here will know that the original criticism was that the artist was lacking because he had used Blender. Meanwhile the OP's point was that a free program was capable enough to make that picture in the OP.

If you honestly think that spending money or time on a shiny cool on industry standard software will make you a great artist, you will never get anywhere.

>>578016
>strawman the post

>>577613
In 2010, people using industry standard software were doing this(pic related). Almost a decade later blenderfags are doing this>>577664
>How will /3 ever recover?

This shit right here is why people think blenderfags are retarded

>>578940
>Almost a decade later, someone bumps the thread
Please stop.

>>578949
>yes let's not let blenderfags be any more embarrassed about their shitposting
You reap what you sow, bitch.

>>578957
>Assuming I'm a blendfag because I don't want to shit on blender for the 100th time today
Please just fuck off for once you retard.

>>578965
Not even that guy you originally responded too. I just know butthurt when I see it.

>>577681
You do realise that Autodesk programs have been available for free for 3 years to student for several years now and literally all you need to do to get them is fill in a form and pinky promise that you wont use them commercially, right?

>>577622
This is not how you should measure.
What you should do is measure market share * dedication (dedication being some measure of if the average user just fucks around or if they're serious) then divide the amount of 'professionals' or accomplished people by that.

It's difficult to evaluate. I'm a programmer we have similar issues with people evaluating tools incorrectly. We also have fairly ok stats though.

I'd be interested to see /3/ get gritty with comparing details rather than these broad comparisons ad nauseum.

>>579053
I would argue the Market Share is in the majority favor of Autodesk and zBrush, along with the dedication being majority towards Autodesk and zBrush, because of the amount of professionals and students using the software who need to dedicate the hours towards getting into the industry. No matter how you look at it, Blender is inferior in the regards to holding market share, and professionals in quantity. You can argue which program is better all day long, but these specific results are not debatable, not by a long shot. Equations mean nothing if the end result is the same, you just get a more specific amount to satisfy your autism.

>>579048
>forcing you to promise to do something
lmao, software should be totally free, like blender and gimp

>>579060
>no matter how
Anon I think you're missing my point. If the dedication is lower for blender. Say 10% vs autodesks 100% or something.
Then for every 10 accomplished artists in autodesk we'd expect 1 in blender (if they have the same users).
We then divide by their actual market share to remove the market share concern. We now have an index measuring how capable the software is for facilitating good artists.
The way this would be useful is that if we assume people switch software when they get good enough to find blender inappropriate (for instance) we'd have blender give a much lower index than autodesk products.
>results
We haven't and can't make objective (artists goal vs result) measurements of the results from artists across all models. It's very difficult to get a decent sample size for this.
The alternative I presented is also difficult to get but it's far easier to find quantifiable user stats on hobby vs pro and usage numbers. Most companies like to track that because they need to know their users to put effort where they have effect.

>>579065
The point is that you are trying to equate different questions as the same. The initial person you quoted wasn't ever talking about if Blender was inferior or not. Their entire point was that the Blender community is inherently worse than Autodesk and zBrush users on majority. If we were to use a per capita, you would find more professionals on average, and that's because the Blender community is filled with more beginners, weirdos, and freaks. Sort of like the Daz community, but that's getting off topic. The point is that you can figure out your own hypothetical never answered equations because you're surely not going to get the data to begin with. So why are you falsely equating two separate points as the same? No one was talking about whether Blender was inferior, just that the community was. And in my opinion, it's because Blender obtusely states it's free to use for both private and commercial use. There will obviously be other factors but that is the biggest one, such as industry standard stigmas.

Figure out your own x variables by asking the companies, but from a pragmatic point of view it's just a circle jerk of hypothesis because you really won't be able to get that information anyway, which means you're just fellating your ego.

>>577676
Well in the case of anatomy, that's the sculptor's fault for not understanding that basic part of 'Art 101'. In terms of it trying to be photorealistic. I won't lie when I say I don't know exactly WHAT it's trying to be passed off as here.

>>579064

Are you retarded? There is a difference between inferior open source software and pro software made by a team of skilled people. And these people don't work for free.

>>579064
>CARS SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREEE
>VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREE
>EXPENSIVE, EXOTIC FOOD SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREEEEE
>LUXURIES SHOULD BE TOTALLY FREEEE
Can you stop using retarded logic commie?

>>579070
don't bother arguing with those retards. some guy here stated that maya have more tools but refused to accept the tools that blender have over maya.
i already stated that maya is lacking a clipping option in the mirror modifier, but people here keep dismissing it like its a none factor, only an artist that works with 3D daily knows how serious this is.
so at first we started comparing blender, then we started blaming the community, then we called the blender foundation a cult, then we argued whenever the tools are of high quality or not (back to the original discussion).
lots of lies and provocation is spread here, don't waste your time with these retards

>>579113
You are the retarded here.
What do you think the "Cut Geometry" option does?
Also where is the "Bridge Border" option in Blender's Mirror tool?

>>579132
we have bridging, but im not sure we are talking about the same tool.
are you here to hate on something because you resent it, or you are willing to have a discussion? so far there are two tards - one of them harp about some cult shit, the other is about the industry. none of them address any points

>>579048
Your 3d models have a noncommercial key embedded in the file if you do it that way. While your chances of getting caught are extremely slim, I don't see why you would risk it as a hobbyist.

If you intended to learn it to go onto the industry, thats different and its definitely worth it to learn Maya.

>>579134

The "cut geometry" should do the same as the clipping option.
Bridge Border, as the name suggests bridges the edges if there is space in-between. Both are options inside the mirror tool.

Last time i modeled in Maya was like 7 years ago, so i can't tell you how comfortable these tools are in production, since i use Blender or Modo or Max, even C4d before considering using Maya. Maya is for animation.

Btw i am the industry guy, and i do address points.
It's just confusing to keep Anons apart.
I am not resenting Blender, i use it as my main modeller OVER Maya because its faster and more comfy.
I love and hate all 3d programs. Not one is perfect.

I am resenting Blender-fanboys who pretend Blender has Feature parity with Maya without studying the tools and imply Blender can replace Maya in an high end studio environment.

Can it be used in production: Sure.
Could it be used in any production: Nope.
That is my central point.

The other point i am trying to make is that you need to use more than one tool, since no one is perfect, you have to use the best one for the job.

If there are 2 artists, who are equally good, the one who knows and uses more tools wins. Because he is most likely faster, which means he makes more iterations, which equals better end result.

If you doing this as Hobby, do whatever you like and is fun.

But please stop blaming everybody who dares to criticize Blender as a blind hater. Not only is that a fallacy, it keeps you in your echo-chamber/comfort zone and you learn nothing.

I can proudly say i did pic related with Blender, Substance and Unreal.

>>579162
>But please stop blaming everybody who dares to criticize Blender as a blind hater.

that's because most arguments against blender are too generalized. the explanation is often "industry" and "pipeline" which i don't understand. you can have a pipeline in blender with appending,groups,linking,scenes etc. no one is preventing you from having a pipeline in blender, but people here thinks pipelines are exclusives to autodesk because that's what is globally used in the industry

>>577871
Retard. Please, do not reproduce.

>>577913
Woman*
Idiot.

>>577922
Woman*
Are you really this stupid?

>>579173
You are right there IS a lot of blind hate going on.
My explanation....
People who hate blindly on Blender are the other side of the coin of blind Blender-fanboys.
You know like in: for every force in the universe there is an equally strong opposing force.
Who was there first? Idk and i don't care.
Both are cancerous pack of morons who should be locked in a portable toiled and set on fire.

>>579180
>>579182
Can you please stop being autistic and correcting grammar on a Cambodian basket weaving forum? Makes you look immensely childish. But I forgot, 4chan is filled with children.

>>577884
>Using drawings in anatomy discussion
ayy lamo
so this is the power of autism?

>>577622
Blender is the Unity of modelling. It gets shit on for not being professional enough because too many people have access to it and therefore too many shitty projects are associated with it.

Everyone here says they hate blender's community because of fanboys but coming to /3/ makes it seem like it should be the other way around. /3/ board has been more hostile against Blender than I have seen Blender fanboys. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

>>579448
They also love to hate on zBrush for some reason.

>>579448
/3/ is frequented by Autodesk employees who spew shit on blender for obvious reasons

>>579729
I get that one. Zbrush is fucking amazing but insanely garbage at the same time. If you can survive the absolutely retarded UI and controls ( to this day the camera movement makes me want to punch my fucking screen) then the doors open to an insanely good app.

>>579743
ANd if you can not get over camera controlls. Which is good if you use pen and tablet, you really don't care about getting good. Just dedicate one week to learning software's ins and outs. It has souch good stuff. I use almost everything.
And people amaze me when they can not learn couple of shortcuts.... just give up already, this is not the thing you should be doing.

>>579448
I'd say the open hostility has driven most of them away.
But they are on Youtube and everywhere else.
Only this guy >>579731 is left.

>>577613
>1 piece vs. thousands of comparable pieces

Gee I wonder

>>579189
>blind hate
Considering the OP started with a literal shitpost I'd say the cancer is on both sides. Don't shitpost and perhaps people will receive you much easier. Fanboys are the lamest asshats, and it doesn't matter what software you use, shitposting is shitposting. OP starts with a blatant troll shitpost and you expect people to be respectful and kind? I'll defend Blender because it's not a bad program, but don't for one second pretend people don't continuously bait here from both sides, as if somehow only one side is "hating". Try again.

>>579765
>Try again.
How about you try reading my post again you fucking retard.

it doesn't matter what tool you use. It helps to have nice tools, but you can draw masterpieces using MSPaint if you tried hard enough.

>>579747
FYI, you can be capable of using a program and still fucking hate how it works, which most of the people debating your easy to identify, broken-english-speaking ass do. So you can stop clinging onto the "If you don't shut up and enjoy eating the shit that means you don't want a 3D career bad enough!" dismissal: the way you interface with ZBrush is absolute shit any way you spin it and many of the people criticizing it for that are professionals who have been using it for years.

>>579770
You can cut down a tree with a hammer. Doesn't mean you should though

>>579771
people panic over UI too much. every person that dedicate at least 30 minutes to 3D a day will get through a shit UI not matter what.
this is why i dismiss those posts, a 3D package is not meant to be "comfy", its not like a drawing app. you have combine technique and mastery of the UI to get results

>>579773
How many mental backflips are you seriously going to do to excuse ZBrush's shitty UI? The software isn't going to come alive and try to fuck you if you're just super nice to it, you know.

>>579773
>this is why i dismiss those posts, a 3D package is not meant to be "comfy",

You absolute fucking retard you really think developers wouldn't want the packages to be as easy to navigate as possible?

>>579790
ZBrush UI devs break new ground in putting jacking themselves off about how unique their "UI solutions" are over actually improving ease of use, following any one of the already good existing 3D UI standards or doing anything else a competent UI developer would do.

>>579790
>developers wouldn't want the packages to be as easy to navigate as possible?
oh cut it with your shitty protesting, i don't think stuffing 10,000 functions in 1 software is easy to begin with.
put things into perspective, its not like we could be in charge of developing a software like this. we are just enjoying it

>>579797
There's this thing called a "Design", dunno if you've heard of it but some developers use it so that important features like interfaces are planned in advance.
Like the implication that the ZBrush developers just slapped in a bunch of functions without even thinking about how the user is going to interface with them in a sensible way is a bigger condemnation of the dev team than anything I'd even reach for.

>>579767
>posting demotivators in current year
Gee grandpa when did they hook up the nursing home to the internet?

>>577613
uncanny valley uptalk girl

>>579340
>Blender is the Unity of modelling
Nope. Unity has a significant share in its market.

>>579731
>implying Autodesk have the time and resources to waste on a Cambodian basket weaving forum

>>579918
Considering the lack of features of the 2018 releases of Maya and Max, they certainly have the time.

>>577613
When will people accept that more depends on the skill of the artist than the program used?

Someone could get the fanciest, production standard software and still produce shit while other could get a hobby-grade software and make good looking stuff. Stop the circlejerk please

>>579918
With the amount they charge, I'm more than certain they have the resources

>>579915
Unity is popular between indie and amateur people, the first thing when you open one of these indie shit is the unity logo and that's bad for the brand between the players, ofc no between the developers, the only thing that is fucked is to focus on C# as scripting language, other than that is a good alternative to unreal

>>580142
>bad for the brand between the players
Why? I can't really understand what you wrote.

>>580151
>Why?
because most of the people think that Unity can only produce bad games because of that

>>580158
Unity is tipped disproportionately towards the sort of shit that makes bad games happen, see: asset store, development-by-wallet.

>>580159
>>580158
>>580151
The problem is that if a game is cheap and shitty they likely have the free version of Unity which requires you display a splash screen, whereas the nicer titles made by larger/better devs often have the paid license and don't have to display the splash. This leads to the Unity logo being almost exclusively associated with garbage games.

>>580174
Actually kinda ironic how that marketing strategy of them went sideways and created that negative image problem.
>>580159
I don't think i can follow, a good team doesn't need the store, and development-by-wallet is a condition unrelated to used engine.

>>580194
Unity was the first 3D engine where a retard with cash to blow could open up the engine and drop paid content into it, make something that sort of halfways works and then legally sell it and was also the first engine to build their business model around this.
Yeah, a good team doesn't need the store: The store is a piece of shit. The store is responsible for bad games, and responsible for nobody being able to take Unity seriously.

>>580158
>>580159
>>580174
>>580194
>>580204
Believe me, your average player doesn't give a shit what engine the game is made in, only how it looks in promotional material or on the steam store page.

>>580174
that's like literally what some guy on yt said in movie called "Unity good enough for bad games" or sth

>>580174
Sure just look at Pillars of eternity, Firewatch or Ori, people don't know those games are made with Unity, people only know that each time they see the Unity logo will be amateur shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAw4v6JbCBI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d02lhvvVSy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cklw-Yu3moE

>>577622
if sigourney weaver and steve bushemi had a daughter