And you can always talk to the devs or implement features themselves if needed, something you can't do with proprietary software. Tools like Blender and Gimp require that their users have a different mentality - one can not just came from the Windows environment and try to do the do the exact same thing in the exact same way, those programs are based in a more *NIX philosophy and in order to achieve the same results you should work perhaps harder but also in a cleaner and more elegant (and efficient) way. Commercial alternatives have the Microsoft mentality that everything must be bloated and incredibly easy to use and there should be a million features added every new release. The limitations Gimp and Blender have lie within their users, not the programs themselves. Can you use Blender to make the next Avatar? Why not, if you have the expensive infrastructure required to make it and hard working people on your side. True, they require more hard work than the proprietary tools but in exchange offer you complete control over your end product, something which proprietary tools can never offer to you. There is hard proof that Gimp and Blender can accomplish many things. If more people used Blender and Gimp then it would mean more developers would work on them (also because sometimes big companies pay developers to work on Open Source project, see Google Summer of Code or Nokia Qt or even Blender itself) and they wouldn't "suck" compared to commercial tools. Why do you feel you have to ridicule the efforts of the FOSS community? Unlike Photoshop or Maya, those programs don't have million dollar budgets and are developed by people that feel people who want to provide cross-platform and Free alternative to a corrupt system. In my opinion the biggest problem of artists getting used to blender is 3ds max - both programs work very differently (personally i could never figure out max) and when someone expects from blender (or any other 3d program) to work like 3ds max, they will fail.īut why you do they suck? Gimp never tried to be a replacement for Photoshop and Blender never tried to be a replacement for Maya. I even had artists i worked with (some very talented 3ds max users) who said how much they liked the new Blender UI and how fast doing stuff with it was. It is so much more usable that going back to 2.4x (which you had to do in the first 2.5x versions because not every feature was ported to the new UI) feels wrong. The difference in 2.5x is huge from 2.4x - the whole UI was rewritten from scratch. With the new UI it wasn't even an hour - although i just had to find where the stuff i knew were now (their new placement makes more sense now but if you were used to the previous versions you'll need to find them). I spend nine hours learning Blender, before the UI revamp in 2.5x. That wasn't my experience with Blender (it was with Gimp though). Blender and Gimp expect you to become masters right off the bat. Good software is something you can pick up and learn quickly, over time you can master it. Which means they'll find no problem picking up our own proprietary software.' And we know they are willing to learn because they took the time to learn -nightmare- Blender. I think companies look at someone who knows Blender and says: 'Well they know Max and they know Blender, and can produce fantastic artwork with both. It is additional bonus points they can put in their CV, and artwork they can place in their portfolio.īlender is one of those packages that gives particular juicy bonus points, for its renowned difficulty to learn and master (which I have to say has been made easier thanks to the 2.50> releases, unlike in my day! (2.25)). What you might want to do, is tell him that it is beneficial to his career in the industry to have experience with other packages. It is not uncommon for companies to look for an artist with a deep understanding of multiple different programs like: Maya, ZBrush, Modo, 3ds Max, etc. Most companies that I have talked too, look for artists with a wide range of skills using a myriad of different packages. Specifically if it is your business, as you will be the one that gets it in the neck.ġ) Buy a legitimate copy for your artist.Ģ) Find a new artist that has a legal copy.ģ) Direct your artist to alternative software that is cheaper (within his or your price range). Content created using cracked software and then sold for commercial gain is always a no. Ignoring the open source alternatives and focusing purely on a business front.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |