XYZ symmetry options: unclear release notes #84518

New Issue

Sybren A. Stüvel · 2021-01-08T13:48:58+01:00

Sybren A. Stüvel commented

2021-01-08 13:48:58 +01:00

The 2.91 release notes for 5502517c3c are lacking, both in clarity of the description and the discoverability of that change for the people it impacts.

The change is described in the Sculpting section, under "Sculpting Workflow with multiple objects". However, it is much broader than just that. Since this change also impacts weight painting, it is relevant to riggers as well. It should be described in a place such that riggers can find it.
The only description is "XYZ symmetry is now a per mesh settings which is shared between all painting and editing modes". This doesn't convey what this change means practically, it doesn't show the changes in the UI, and doesn't tell riggers how they have to change their workflow to account for this change.

As a side-note, the #animation_rigging module should have been involved in design task #79785 and the review of D8587, since this change impacts workflow of riggers. Instead, it went completely under the radar.

The 2.91 release notes for 5502517c3c are lacking, both in clarity of the description and the discoverability of that change for the people it impacts. - The change is described in the Sculpting section, under "[Sculpting Workflow with multiple objects](https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/Release_Notes/2.91/Sculpt#Sculpting_Workflow_with_multiple_objects)". However, it is much broader than just that. Since this change also impacts weight painting, it is relevant to riggers as well. It should be described in a place such that riggers can find it. - The only description is "XYZ symmetry is now a per mesh settings which is shared between all painting and editing modes". This doesn't convey what this change means practically, it doesn't show the changes in the UI, and doesn't tell riggers how they have to change their workflow to account for this change. As a side-note, the #animation_rigging module should have been involved in design task #79785 and the review of [D8587](https://archive.blender.org/developer/D8587), since this change impacts workflow of riggers. Instead, it went completely under the radar.

Pablo Dobarro was assigned by Sybren A. Stüvel

2021-01-08 13:48:58 +01:00

Sybren A. Stüvel commented

2021-01-08 13:48:58 +01:00

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Sybren A. Stüvel commented

2021-01-08 13:48:58 +01:00

Added subscribers: @dr.sybren, @brecht, @ideasman42

Alexander Gavrilov commented

2021-01-08 13:58:21 +01:00

Added subscriber: @angavrilov

Alexander Gavrilov commented

2021-01-08 13:58:21 +01:00

My opinion that I expressed in chat is that the way symmetry currently works in Weight Paint is completely unacceptable.

The change was obviously designed viewing things from the code side, rather than the user's point of view. As a result, it 'unified' the techical thing of how the common symmetry options are interpreted in painting, without considering the implications of weight paint having its own different X symmetry implementation.

The consequence of that is that you have to toggle the 'common' X symmetry option whenever you switch between Weight Paint and Sculpt/Mesh Edit. This is the anthisesis of unifying and is inviting user error consisting in forgetting to toggle this one time, and thus breaking intended symmetry.

The way symmetry should work is that the common option should toggle any kind of X symmetry, while the weight-paint specific checkbox should switch symmetry between the weight paint specific and the generic one (in case anybody ever wants it). I don't see any reason anybody would want to use both at the same time.

My opinion that I expressed in chat is that the way symmetry currently works in Weight Paint is completely unacceptable. The change was obviously designed viewing things from the code side, rather than the user's point of view. As a result, it 'unified' the techical thing of how the common symmetry options are interpreted in painting, without considering the implications of weight paint having its own different X symmetry implementation. The consequence of that is that you have to toggle the 'common' X symmetry option whenever you switch between Weight Paint and Sculpt/Mesh Edit. This is the anthisesis of unifying and is inviting user error consisting in forgetting to toggle this one time, and thus breaking intended symmetry. The way symmetry should work is that the common option should toggle any kind of X symmetry, while the weight-paint specific checkbox should switch symmetry between the weight paint specific and the generic one (in case anybody ever wants it). I don't see any reason anybody would want to use both at the same time.

Brecht Van Lommel commented

2021-01-11 12:14:01 +01:00

We can indeed involve the animation module in future changes to weight painting. At the time the module was not as active and @ideasman42 has been the main maintainer of weight painting, so it was not as obvious this was needed. The release nodes also should have been more complete.

As far as resolving this problem goes, I guess the animation module and @PabloDobarro can figure out the correct solution in {#84520}? And then if you need additional help with the design, involve Campbell and me. And if it's unclear who will implement the solution, involve Dalai.

We can indeed involve the animation module in future changes to weight painting. At the time the module was not as active and @ideasman42 has been the main maintainer of weight painting, so it was not as obvious this was needed. The release nodes also should have been more complete. As far as resolving this problem goes, I guess the animation module and @PabloDobarro can figure out the correct solution in {#84520}? And then if you need additional help with the design, involve Campbell and me. And if it's unclear who will implement the solution, involve Dalai.

Sybren A. Stüvel commented

2021-01-11 12:27:14 +01:00

In #84518#1090996, @brecht wrote:
The release nodes also should have been more complete.

That's what I intended this task to be for. I think it's a good idea to expand what's there now. It would certainly be helpful if there was a link to the relevant section of the manual. I'm assuming that the manual was also updated for this change, but I don't see any commit mentioning #79785.

As far as resolving this problem goes, I guess the animation module and @PabloDobarro can figure out the correct solution in {#84520}? And then if you need additional help with the design, involve Campbell and me. And if it's unclear who will implement the solution, involve Dalai.

👍

> In #84518#1090996, @brecht wrote: > The release nodes also should have been more complete. That's what I intended this task to be for. I think it's a good idea to expand what's there now. It would certainly be helpful if there was a link to the relevant section of the manual. I'm assuming that the manual was also updated for this change, but I don't see any commit mentioning #79785. > As far as resolving this problem goes, I guess the animation module and @PabloDobarro can figure out the correct solution in {#84520}? And then if you need additional help with the design, involve Campbell and me. And if it's unclear who will implement the solution, involve Dalai. :+1:

Fani Pandi/ Graphic designer commented

2022-11-10 16:22:18 +01:00

Added subscriber: @ArtisticBee

Philipp Oeser removed the

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

XYZ symmetry options: unclear release notes #84518