Page MenuHome

Layer Switching Shortcut Inconsistency
Open, NormalPublic

Description

There is some improvement concept for collections shortcuts.
Currently, 1234 buttons shows a collection, but sending objects requires name in menu (M - "Collection 1" - "Collection 3" for example)
That would be nice if moving to collection will also support their number.

For example, "5" button shows collection called "Lighting Collection", so pressing "M5" will send selected objects to it.


See: T55162#619317 - originally from @Paul Kotelevets (1D_Inc)

Details

Type
Design

Event Timeline

Thanks, that will make organization of complex scenes faster.

Note that numbers are automatically assigned here, a solution could be to move the top menu item to be the last item.

We _could_ always have an exception where menus can request to handle number keys separately but think this isn't a good idea since it makes otherwise matching menus behave differently.

Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) lowered the priority of this task from Normal to Needs Information from User.Feb 13 2019, 3:23 AM

Making as incomplete since the desired behavior still needs to be resolved.

I think the numbers for collections is a weak concept to begin with. When you have nesting and unlimited numbers of them, the 1-9 numbers don’t map logically very well.

I imagine we could make much more useful use of the number buttons for other things, like active tools or direct access to modes, or just free keys for user shortcuts.

That said, increased consistency is a good thing, so if we keep the numbers for Collections, then it should ideally work inside that menu too.

I think the numbers for collections is a weak concept to begin with. When you have nesting and unlimited numbers of them, the 1-9 numbers don’t map logically very well.

I agree, it will not map well to be easy and intuitive with potentially unlimited number of layers, and it is not predictable enough for frequent use.
Number buttons should probably be reserved for something that maps better to the limited (1 to 9) available keys like selection modes in Edit Mode.

I think the numbers for collections is a weak concept to begin with. When you have nesting and unlimited numbers of them, the 1-9 numbers don’t map logically very well.

We don't need to fit all collections, we need to fit all available numbers, and we need fast collection navigation at any cost, regardless of their count or consistency.
Numbers don't fit unlimited collection concept, it doesnot matter, so we are going not from it's consistency, but from functionality - ability to switch/isolate required number fast.

1-9 (+ alt) nums allows to switch fast 20 collections and this is enough for comfortable work.
If user will set more than basic 20 collections - he will be forced by his will to know their names in any way in order to work with them, this is his choise, so there is no unconsistency at all.
Otherwise, if to remove 1-9 nums from collections, user will be forced to know each name every time he work with them.

That means no way to fast preview, no way to localize, no way to sort scenes object, keeping outliner opened (still without ability to isolate collection), and all of this is truely PAINFUL.
It was already removed from edit mode, so ability of comfortable modeling of something tightly surrounded by objects (like restoration) has gone.

Removing 1-9 nums from collections is a Really Bad Idea.

Note that numbers are automatically assigned here, a solution could be to move the top menu item to be the last item.
We _could_ always have an exception where menus can request to handle number keys separately but think this isn't a good idea since it makes otherwise matching menus behave differently.

That easily can be explained by workflow.
We pressing "5" - we see objects, that are in this collection, like, for example, trees. Or lights. Or masking objects. Or some other context.
So, we want to send another objects there, by the same context. (By the way, names were given to collections to represent that context.)
We are unhiding everything, selecting what needs to be sent - and pressing "M5" to send object to that collection. Automatic numeration is also ok there.
Doing that we do not care about collection name, its hierarcial placement, outliner ufolding, menu searches, or other things that makes workflow slower and expensive.

We are doing thing that we truely want behind all that things - we are sending context to context.
But doing it clean and fast.
That's the goal of this proposal.

What's the use case for moving object to "Scene collection" root? As far as I can see that's not something one should be doing often, so maybe that option souldn't even in the M menu? I know that's a different discussión from the problem at hand here, but it would also solve it.

What's the use case for moving object to "Scene collection" root? As far as I can see that's not something one should be doing often, so maybe that option souldn't even in the M menu? I know that's a different discussión from the problem at hand here, but it would also solve it.

It is useful when you need to move some objects by context from any kind of collections to organize them in other way.
If there are some objects in scene collection left, that means that "you left some objects to sort when has gone home yesterday", and objects in scene collection are that objects.

At least, until there is no "M5" ability we are talking about.

Quoted Text At least, until there is no "M5" ability we are talking about.

Well, if "scene collection" was removed from the M menu then we would automatically get the "M5" ability. And moving to "Scene collection" could still be done from the outliner in the (I would expect) rare cases where it is needed.

The proposal is to get rid of using outliner/GUI at some possible point.
I would prefer to set scene collection to digit 1 (start collection numeration from it) to have ability view whole scene without higlighing everything with alt+H, that freezes computer on complex scenes with selection outlines.

Also scene collection is needed to hold imported objects.

And no, removing scene collection will not automatically bring M5 ability.

here is my post on devtalk related to this tread:

For now when you have Scene Collection at the beginning, digital buttons (0-9) are not corresponds with default names of collections and hotkeys to change layer in object mode. So it will be better if key 1 moves object in the Collection 1 instead master collection.
When in sub-menu, for Sub-Collections same practice. But if you don’t want to move object in sub-collection, press Enter, because you want to confirm moving object into this collection, not in sub-collection.
And about markers, that displays in what collection objects now. Orange circle indicates current collection, Orange circle inside gray indicates a collection within another one.

So Master Collection can be assign to Enter instead of 1, with same logic as in submenu.

here is my post on devtalk related to this tread:

Not exactly, but better than nothing.

So Master Collection can be assign to Enter instead of 1, with same logic as in submenu.

Well, placing it to 1 will bring ability to view entire scene without unhiding and outlines)
It worth assigning "1" button.

Also, it may be possible to make it toggle in "entire scene" - "previously isolated collection setup" way, that is, actually, very handy.

Want to clarify issue about nums. First of all, it is a separate system.
A quick content displaying system (further - QCD) - part of verical (hierarcial) navigation, alongside with Outliner and RenderLayers.
There are workflows that depends on it, because it makes them possible, independently of layers, collections, selection groups, or any other hierarcial units and their number.
It is a unique system in the software industry, that makes Blender out of the ordinary. It's demand depends on the industry to which the workflow of user belongs.

You don't need QCD if you are in

  • Interior visualization (simple scene structure - walls, lights, cameras, furniture)
  • Exterior visualization (pretty much open spaces in scene's geometry)

You need QCD in industry, that requires close components placement with variations, such as

  • Engineering (complex scene structures with in place variations)
  • Historic restorations (Multirefrenced system with pointcloud and multiple images)
  • Game development / assets creation (LOD in place creation and comparison)
  • Medicine (prosthetics)

Some of that workflows requires QCD more than collections itself, that's why it is important.

Here is also Shift toggle inconsistency - Shift+numeral button doesnot toggles collection visibility.

For example, we starting from Collection 2 that containing object to render - pressing 2 to isolate it.
Then adding required collections with scene lighting/entourage objects to it, making them visible - pressing Shift+3, 4, 5, 6, 7... collections reveals
But if collection 7 contains obstacles, it cannot be hidden back with Shift+7, there is no way to hide it back with numeric buttons.

So, without Shift-toggling ability, the only way to get proper setup is to make all the same thing again, but remember that number 7 contains obstacles, and do not press it while Shift revealing nex time, keeping hope, that collections 8, 9 etc contains right objects, because if they don't, you will need to make it again and again.

You need to remember numbers instead of simple keypressing.

1-9 (+ alt) nums allows to switch fast 20 collections and this is enough for comfortable work.

I agree with that. Completely.
Usually in my worklow I use [1-5] &alt+[1-5] for collecting objects, armatures in main scene, and [6-0]&[alt 6-0] for assets to get quick access and show them up and hide by adding or excluding layers.
And when I need more complicated layers I just create a new scene in the same .blend file to keep things organized.

I agree that numbers for collections is a really weak concept. I think easy solution in this case is to make sure industry keymap is good enough so that most people will use it, and the people using legacy keymap, which will come with collection number hotkeys, will sooner or later switch to the industry one, once everyone else will be using anyway, and the legacy keymap will finally be deprecated.

For me manage collection with numbers is very important and make my work much faster. Also better is making all collection visible with one shortcut like in Blender 2.7x.

I think the easy solution, in this case, is to make sure industry keymap is good enough.

The problem is, the "INDUSTRY STANDARD" keymap never had things for quickly toggle layers. It's a unique Blender feature.

What's the point of making Blender follow the "INDUSTRY STANDARD", while the so-called "INDUSTRY STANDARD" is so far behind blender's innovation on the user interface. You know, the actual "USE" part.

Not to mention, also, as only a small part of the big industry, Blender is not here to change the industry standard. The industry standard is a thing everyone agrees on. Not something you can just change.

Some of these ideas, debates, and changes made to Blender's UI are so counter-intuitive/counter-productive it boggles my mind.

But for the actual topic, yea I think the Move to Collection key should work similarly like 2.7. OR,
what about moving the collection/layer control into a pie menu or something way more efficient than a bunch of keys in terms of efficiency? Such as an infinite scroll menu that corresponds to the number keys when open?

The reason I suggest an infinite scroll menu that responds to number key input only after the menu is open, is that I also don't like filling the 1-9 keys with almost identical functions only with parameter changes.

I was able to create menus in Blender where the operation works differently based on which modifier you held down when clicking the menu items.

So, we could go to this infinite scroll menu, find the collection you want to look at, click it, and show it; Shift-Click it to toggle its visibility; Alt-Click to move selection into this collection; Alt-Ctrl click to take the selection out of its original collection and put into the new collection.

Hell, we could even make this menu persistent after clicking, essentially making it a Collection/layer Manager.

The number 1 keys responds to the first displayed item in the list of collections, and scroll wheel scrolls the list.

I think the easy solution, in this case, is to make sure industry keymap is good enough.

The problem is, the "INDUSTRY STANDARD" keymap never had things for quickly toggle layers. It's a unique Blender feature.
What's the point of making Blender follow the "INDUSTRY STANDARD", while the so-called "INDUSTRY STANDARD" is so far behind blender's innovation on the user interface. You know, the actual "USE" part.
Not to mention, also, as only a small part of the big industry, Blender is not here to change the industry standard. The industry standard is a thing everyone agrees on. Not something you can just change.
Some of these ideas, debates, and changes made to Blender's UI are so counter-intuitive/counter-productive it boggles my mind.
But for the actual topic, yea I think the Move to Collection key should work similarly like 2.7. OR,
what about moving the collection/layer control into a pie menu or something way more efficient than a bunch of keys in terms of efficiency? Such as an infinite scroll menu that corresponds to the number keys when open?
The reason I suggest an infinite scroll menu that responds to number key input only after the menu is open, is that I also don't like filling the 1-9 keys with almost identical functions only with parameter changes.
I was able to create menus in Blender where the operation works differently based on which modifier you held down when clicking the menu items.
So, we could go to this infinite scroll menu, find the collection you want to look at, click it, and show it; Shift-Click it to toggle its visibility; Alt-Click to move selection into this collection; Alt-Ctrl click to take the selection out of its original collection and put into the new collection.
Hell, we could even make this menu persistent after clicking, essentially making it a Collection/layer Manager.
The number 1 keys responds to the first displayed item in the list of collections, and scroll wheel scrolls the list.

The industry keymap, which is already planned, will not be replacement for Blender's standard keymap. It will be shipped with Blender as an alternative. The reason you too will be using industry standard one is that after a few years, there will be almost no people left using Blender's legacy keymap ;)

The industry keymap, which is already planned, will not be replacement for Blender's standard keymap. It will be shipped with Blender as an alternative. The reason you too will be using industry standard one is that after a few years, there will be almost no people left using Blender's legacy keymap ;)

Remind me what I'm using in a few years. I never use default keymaps for any of my programs and I will never vouch for "INDUSTRY STANDARD" unless it is actually good.

Please stay on topic, alternative keymaps have nothing to do with this issue.

Found, that Shift+num toggling is workind in january build of 2.8
It has been broken recently

Bastien Montagne (mont29) raised the priority of this task from Needs Information from User to Normal.May 16 2019, 11:28 AM

Interestnig solution of Collection numeration from Dfelinto
https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/User:Dfelinto/Reports/2019#June_17_-_21

But the problem is that autonumeration is dynamic. That means, it requires more memory to remember which number belongs to which collection depending on current depth state. For example, if user want to send objects to Collection with number 5 via pressing M5, it is hard to say where objects will be sent.

So it will be better if first 20 slots, that available for numerals keypressing, will have static (adress) autonumeration independently of hierarchy depth, but with numeration starting from first level of hierarchy.

Static autonumeration is looking not so fancy as dynamic but is more usable.
Example - when scene's collections are formed, user can call collection as "1_Room", "2_Car", "3_Table" during single scene setup, and this numeration in static representation will be actual independently of depth parameter.

Here is numeration types comparizon
B2 type is the best one.