Hi Przemas,

re:
> Also I recall a video with one of the well known concept artists (I think it was Maciej Kuciara) that
> compared MoI with other packages and he pointed out that he prefered other packages as they
> were more interactive, gave him more visual feedback.

Yes, but that's normal and to be expected because MoI isn't a tool that is 100% focused on very advanced users sculpting things interactively in the 3D view like ZBrush for example.

That isn't to say that I think that interactivity is bad, just that in MoI it's not the single overriding goal and there are other things that also have a lot of weight like being easy to use, easy to learn.

There's also kind of an overall concept that MoI is focused on that when you know what you want it should be quick to get that. There's also quite a bit of weight on trying to be able to drive things using 2D a lot if possible.

But one thing I don't like about the current revolve too much is that usually commands in MoI that do point picks and have numeric input fields do put the numeric input as a separate stage after doing the point picking. Revolve doesn't do that to avoid the additional stage in the command but it is also good to have consistency between how commands operate generally as well.

I'm pretty conservative about adding in additional stages but increased consistency and interactivity together does sound like a pretty good payoff... I'd need to let it settle it a little more. I'm not really able to work on that right now with finishing v4 taking up all my time currently but if you bring it up again during the v5 beta time period that would probably be a good time to dig into it. There will probably be a few other cases in v5 where commands will need an extra stage added to give some additional functionality so it might go well with that.

- Michael

@Prezmas

You should then use the tools the artist preferred. Why try to make MoI something else?

Michael is doing an excellent job, and I can't wait to see how this prefect program evolves. (As long as it doesn't become some other company's clone, cause I could have bought that instead)

The ease of use and low number of clicks and menus make this the most efficient 3D modeler I ever worked with.

So far I think this is the best program ever!

@Death:
you misunderstood my intentions. No ill will on my behalf :). And I don't want MoI to be something else - quite the contrary. I'm trying to think about MoI strengths and how they could be improved. For me MoI is awesome as an easy to use NURBS app, that works great for sketching out 3d designs and concepting (among other things).
But such uses IMO need to give the user some sort of visual feedback, so the better design decisions can be made. And some (mind - some) commands like revolve IMO do not do that (especially when you compare with other apps that fall into this category).

@Michael:
from what I remember Maciej Kuciara wasn't looking for Zbrush either. He specifically switched from sculpting apps and poly modelers to solve issues that are tricky in those. He found out that CAD apps are much better for some of the designs he often works on.
I found the same thing - that's why in my workshop I and my co workers, we're using multiple apps and try to play their strengths. Just so we can chew through projects faster (sculpting apps for organic shapes with local micro detail, cad for hard surface, poly/subd for things that fall in between - and one of the reasons I'm investigating MoI as it is nurbs app that can work under Linux quite well).

I understand that designing a consistent UI is a tricky thing. Maybe adding the extra button in the first stage, a one that would start "interactive" mode would be solution? It would make revolve work identically for those that want to do 360 revolve and are used to it, but would also give the option for those that need that extra visual feedback (especially if there would be a way to tweak the tool file to make it default option ;) ).

Hi Przemas, well for the consistency issue sorry I wasn't clearer - I meant that it's actually the current command that isn't really consistent with how others work, it would probably be better for consistency to add a stage where you could either type in an angle value or use the mouse to do it interactively.

- Michael