Talk:Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Team

Development required
Every Tutorial in Unit 2, 3 or 4 with a status/stage short under the 100% has to be taken care of. Unit 1 is very good and Unit 4 has some good sections but also very bad or non-existent sections. The points given below are too outdated to even read.Animajosser (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all
I've been a software developer for decades, a video game junkie my whole life, but have never modeled in 3D. I downloaded Blender last night and quickly found this impressive tutorial. This has to be one of the most fun and complete tutorials I have ever come across, especially considering some of the commercial products charge their customers for this type of material. I didn't go to bed until 7am, working away on my 3D man with a head shaped like Epcot Center! To all the contributors, thank you for such an amazing effort. I may never be a great 3D artist, but I love spending my free time learning new software, and without this walk-through I think it would have been impossible to get started. Avaktar 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

team members
Do contributors count as team members? If so, the Contributors section should be a subsection. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

your absolutly right... it was overlooked when I merged the two original pages, one with team members, and the other with contributiors... Pearts (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the matter. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible style change
Colleagues:

Thank you all for this book. It is extremely useful in its present form.

I have been working through the book, mostly from front to back, but with some diversions. One thing has struck me as a problem, and I think I can see a path to a solution.

The problem is that it is essential to provide detailed instructions to the Noob, but these detailed instructions become repetitious as the reader gains experience, and in the more advanced and complex examples they can interfere with the flow of the higher-level explanatory text to the extent that a user can lose the thread of the narrative. So when I read a section that says "create a vertex," I want to know exactly how to do it if I do not know or if I have forgotten, and if I am trying to actually follow along in my Blender window, but I am very distracted and irritated if the method is repeated inline and I already know it, or if I am reading to get an overview.

I think the solution is to create a footnote (like a reference on Wikipedia.) the text will still say "create a vertex", but the exact keystrokes will be given in the footnote. for more complex operations, the footnote will also give a link to the earlier location in the book where the technique is explained.

I think this solution has several advantages, one important advantage is that it takes advantage of linking while still remaining viable when the book is printed.

Clearly, In an article that is intended to explain the technique, all of the keystrokes should be inline. They should only go into footnotes when the technique has already been explained in an earlier article and is being used as an element of a more complex technique.

Please comment. -Arch dude (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good approach to me. Well in keeping with Wiki standard practice. Sendoshin (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)