When you read a tutorial, you want to understand the concepts behind the code, and not only read code. You want to be able to implement what you study on other things... In NeHe''s tutorials it''s not like that. They *ARE* good for a start, when you just want to see something on the screen, but NeHe doesn''t explain the theory, the aspects that behind the code. He takes the way of "Code and *THEN* Understand". Let''s take for example, the NeHe''s "Moving Bitmaps" tutorial. In this tutorial NeHe is trying to explain how to use the Blending option of OpenGL in order to create transparent polygons. But he doesn''t explain the many options of using the Blending in OpenGL. You can use glBlendFunc(.....) for many uses. But he explain *ONLY* how to use this for transparency. Too bad. After reading the tutorial you will *NOT* be able to use blending in it''s full power. (BTW: The way he shows to use blending make many problems, one should use the Alpha option of the blendig instead...). I am *NOT* saying that his tutorials are not good. They are. But I from my point of view, a tutorial should be more than just a piece of code... I guess I can bring more examples... Anyway, it IS a discussion, and not a monolog, so... share your thoughts! _______________________________________________________ "In C we had to code our own bugs. In C++ we can inherit them."

If you want to discuss the NeHe tutorials is the NeHe forum the right place.
I do not think that it is any "best" way to learn. The approach in the tutorials has been very sucessfull. It seems like you have confused the samples with an OpenGL book like the red book. He explains the actual code not the theory and this is how it should be.
Yes, you must sooner or later combine the study of the tutorials with some book. Perhaps should you look on the NeHe pages again he is very clear about this.

Well I got your point but there is also a lot more to learning than just understanding. Learning involves a lot of try and fail, and a good amount of research.

NeHe''s tutorials are not perfect as he claims himself, but they give you good basis. Once you''ve got one of them running, check his links, look in the red/blue book and try to find another, maybe more efficient, way to achieve the same results. Check all the new stuff you found in the tutorial and see if they can be used for something else.

Maybe I''m wrong but I think that''s what NeHe wants : give a direction, a pointer to what we can do and how we can do it.

Btw I''m not an openGL expert, but I think NeHe''s tutorials got me started pretty fast. Some additionnal books don''t hurt of course.

You must see...
I used his tutorials for a start, and all I''m saying is that you can''t learn how to write a 3D engine from just reading such a tutorials...

You must know the theory ("Real Time Rendering" is the best...),
then you need to know your API, that OpenGL in our case. The first part CANNOT be learn by reading NeHE''s tutorials. The second part can be only partially learn by reading his tutorials.

Anyway, he is doing a very good work on arranging a tutorial that other wrote...

_______________________________________________________
"In C we had to code our own bugs. In C++ we can inherit them."

personally i dont think his tutorials should be to verbose they are meant for learning opengl after all if u want more in depth info buy the red book

http://members.xoom.com/myBollux

Quaternion seems to belive that it is something like a correct way one must follow and that he knows how.

If someone does not get proper credit so please tell NeHe so that can be changed.

Well.. Sure NeHe''s tutorials won''t teach you how to build a 3D engine. But, to my knowledge, no tutorial will ever teach you such a complex thing.

Knowing your theory about 3D graphics (maths, physics, etc) is of course of the utmost importance. Knowing a 3D API such as openGL or D3D is also important. Both can probably be learnt in a book.

However, I think that the most important thing needed to design a good engine (3D or not) is a good architecture. Something that can''t really be learnt in any tutorial/book (unless, of course, they give you the full architecture of an engine, but then you''re not learning, you''re mostly copying).

So, if you''re reading NeHe''s tuts (or anyone else''s for that matter) in order to find out how to build a 3d engine, you''ll sure be disapointed (sp?). That kind of thing can only be acquired through a lot of practice and thinking (and by looking at others'' code when stuck ).

Anyway, that''s my 0.02$.

I don''t think Nehe''s tutorials are meant to tell you everything, or show you the right way of doing something. I think they are meant to help you get something on the screen quick and start playing around with it. Then if you want to know more about it you can look in a book or more places on the web. If you find problems with them or think they don''t show enough stuff, why don''t you write a tutorial and post it yourself or give it to NeHe to post. I think his tutorials do a pretty good job for what they are there for.

--Fuel

quote: Original post by Quaternion

When you read a tutorial, you want to understand the concepts behind the code, and not only read code. You want to be able to implement what you study on other things...

In NeHe''s tutorials it''s not like that. They *ARE* good for a start, when you just want to see something on the screen, but NeHe doesn''t explain the theory, the aspects that behind the code. He takes the way of "Code and *THEN* Understand".

IMHO, NeHe''s tutorials and RedBooks is a great combo. With Nehe''s tutorials, you can quickly get something work and learn the basis about some stuff. Then, reading (and understanding) the RedBook is much easier.

I agree, I''ve actually felt this way for a while. There''s way too many people here who fall into the trap of making a cube rotate but don''t know why it rotates. That''s why soooo many people think they "know" OpenGL. This is not by any means Nehe''s fault. For example, you should learn about transformation, rotational, and all other kinds of matrices instead of "just call this function and don''t worry about it." There''s a lotta code-copying losers who don''t know what the heck they''re doing. Many questions could be avoided if people had an understanding of what they were doing. Any attempts at implementation without understanding are futile.

quote:
Then if you want to know more about it you can look in a book or more places on the web.

The sad thing is that few people do this. I''m just trying to get my feelings across in words. Sorry if they don''t make sense to anybody else besides me .


"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams."
- Willy Wonka