That is a complete waste of time and is utterly misunderstanding the entire purpose of documentation. There is absolutely zero benefit in "describing what each of the models looks like". You need people who have devoted their careers to explaining things. Developers, project managers, anyone directly involved with the creation of complex software, has enough on their mind. I'm not sure how well we can describe what each of the models looks like.This is a prime example of what I am talking about. It takes a special talent, developed over years and decades, to translate technical language into something that is useful to users. But I am here to tell you that developers are the very dead last people who should be trusted with user-facing documentation. The underlying assumption is that teachers and writers are worthless, that developers can easily do those jobs in their spare time. The underlying problem is the lack of respect for qualified tech writers. So the statement "documentation is big and difficult" doesn't really address the issue. In other cases (Adobe, apparently) the tactic was to solely rely on user forums to do the work for free. In some cases (Autodesk), new people were hired who would work for less. In the early 2000s all of the experienced technical writers got laid off. This is a problem across the entire creative software industry. Thanks for the pointer.Thanks for your reply. It helps to know what pages/topics need more information, so we'll try to work on that.
It's just too much information that takes lots (and lots) of time to update. We've been going through and improving many places in the docs.
Would it help to put in a longer description for each? We do have example renders a bit further down the page to illustrate the appearance of each model. PRG Clear Sky – The VRaySky procedural texture is generated based on the Improved method which has enhanced sunrise andI'm not sure how well we can describe what each of the models looks like. method.ĬIE Clear – The VRaySky procedural texture is generated based on the CIE method for a clear sky.ĬIE Overcast – The VRaySky procedural texture is generated based on the CIE method for a cloudy sky. – The VRaySky procedural texture is generated based on the Preetham et al.
– The VRaySky procedural texture is generated based on the Hosek et al. Like we need to be told that this setting chooses the sky method, which is laughable to begin with, but then gives absolutely zero information about what the differences are between these options or why you should choose one over the other. This is another example of this idiotic practice.
0 kommentar(er)
