Crystal Space
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 18, 2017, 11:10:16 am

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
9081 Posts in 2051 Topics by 80380 Members
Latest Member: Jertymasada3
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Crystal Space
|-+  Miscellaneous
| |-+  Article/Tutorial Discussion
| | |-+  tutorials quality X availability of info to users in despair
« previous next »
Question: Would you like that hard to read tutorials are allowed to be posted?  (Voting closed: May 01, 2005, 03:24:06 am)
no, I dont like wasting time reading them, I prefer to wait for a good tutorial to be prepared. - 0 (0%)
may be, if I am in despair I will surely try to read it! - 1 (25%)
I accept them, as long they are classified as hard to read ones so I will only try them after I am not able to find something usefull at well written ones. - 2 (50%)
I like any tutorials even hard to read ones. - 1 (25%)
Total Voters: 4

Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: tutorials quality X availability of info to users in despair  (Read 7336 times)
Posts: 11

View Profile WWW
« on: May 01, 2005, 03:14:18 am »

Sometime ago I was looking for info on how to create a CS sprite from a blender 3d model... I searched unsuccessfully for a long time at google and all related crystal space sites Sad

I read the requirements to create a tutorial at community articles, ok the way described will provide somewhat good tutorials to everyone, but to prepare them takes long time, requires us to prepare screenshots and create examples etc, so most ppl that have already studied how things work and are able to prepare a hard to read but reliable tutorial just give up on uploding them I think Sad

May be another person could also help who created that hard to read tutorial with examples and screenshots, I've seen that happen with some  other groups so ppl that was helped by the tutorial and think they can improve it to help more other ppl just give their help, but they need at least the hard to read tutorial to work on it at first I mean.

What I'd like to suggest is a quallity classification to tutorials, as the best ones that match all requirements described will be shown before other tutorials, but wont leave desperate users to their own to find out how things works...

Well I studied for a week or so, trying and failing several times til I was able to prepare to myself at least, a only textual tutorial, very clear to be read but with no screenshots at all.

I can now prepare .xml texturized sprites from Blender3D models but I still had no time to prepare examples and take screenshots etc etc.

So I'd like to know if I can make it available here or on a new thread as 'Creating CS sprite from Blender3D model', so other desperate users will be able to breath a bit, even if hardly as there is no screenshots on it Smiley

What about it?
Full Member
Posts: 149

View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2005, 06:56:27 pm »

My advice would be to wait until you had a finished product.

You could also offer revisions/changes/improvements to existing tutorials on the subject, such as
Posts: 11

View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2005, 01:22:42 am »

hi again Smiley

as someone voted for even 'hard to read' ones Cheesy,

by 'hard to read'  I dont mean badly written, just without screenshots and examples Smiley

I just uploaded a tutorial to
  Convert a Blender 3D model to Crystal Space 3D sprite

if you have any suggestions on it, to improve it cocerning steps and step description, you can mail me there or talk here, may be in PM dunno, up to you Smiley

If you liked it and are interested in providing examples/screenshots talk to me also, btw I have an arrow.blend model I will post someday at community free 3D models Smiley, this model I used to prepare and test the tutorial.
So I can someday post it at community articles (with the proper aknowledgements to ppl who helped on it Smiley).
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 7.224 seconds with 20 queries.