@Pablo Vazquez (venomgfx) it seems like you forgot some of this guys here ;) and i m afraid the all this might be too crowded, I don't know you guys decide :)

+1 to all these changes. Question: would it be too wide if scripting was the 4th column? It looks kind of weird below animation (maybe because it's the only one like that). Also, that way the properties panel would get a shortcut (on e).

I like these changes a lot of sense and I like them, especially Mask Editor.

Committed rB8ec25e5dccd21e25ea11336b88e14306ed2f77a0

Committed rBbc11cb3daa60c28e41bc400df29d7f8085993888

Still dont think this is a bug (as this is working as designed), but I feel your pain and leave this open so it doesnt get lost..., assigning @Julian Eisel (Severin) here to have a final word.

Given that this was moved from Reviewing to Doing, is outside feedback being taken to account at all, or is it a waste of time?

Maybe it does make sure that these settings are controlled and saved in the file. At least this will keep things consistent if a studio is having multiple people us one file. Between 1 & 3, I think I like 3 best.

@Jac Rossiter (Jakro) Please don't post screenshots from other software (for legal reasons). You can give links to images hosted elsewhere.

I feel like the icons should be shown at a much smaller size that's more representative of how it would be in blender. Here's a the push/pull icon scaled down to 32x32 and viewed at 100%.

I think while the icons look nice at the presented size. In a real world situation where the icons would be small in the UI, the gradients, excessive colour count, and drop shadow will create an icon that is muddy or unclear at real UI size - the icon should work and communicate clearly at 32x32.

I think it would be much cleaner if the icons were orthographic.
As it stands, they get smaller in the distance, making for a messier look with them all listed underneath eachother, as the perspectives clash. orthographic would solve this, and: it'd make for cleaner anti-aliasing on the lines.
I'd further advocate for fully flat cubes, rotated only around the up-axis, seen from slightly above.
Something more akin to this:

Looking at T54115 it sounds like system settings and not workspace settings are where the current user settings should go to, since these settings are hardware specific.

I'd recommend having a look at ZBrush's tool palette. There are potentially dozens (or even hundreds) of useful brushes that could exist in an artist's toolset. I can't imagine them collapsing nicely into anything resembling a quick toolbar. In fact, one of my biggest gripes with the current interface is how difficult it becomes to load and then navigate a full arsenal of alphas and custom brushes.

Campbell: You are right, of course. Technically, the Extrude icon is wrong too, because the faces at the end are not really new, but might look odd. We'll try it out :)

"Inset Faces" has green face in the middle, the new faces are in fact around the edges.

In T49241#491006, @Joerg Mueller (nexyon) wrote:

Your distinction between the three types of settings is pretty clear. Regarding the user preferences there is no discussion, they are stored system wide and not blend file wide. Playback will always have to happen within the bounds of the user settings. For example, if your user settings are stereo, you simply can't playback 7.1, it will be mixed down to stereo, as in @Christopher Anderssarian (Christopher_Anderssarian)'s laptop example.

Now for scene and encoding (stored in the blend file) there are three options that I see right now in terms of format (=channels) and rate (=sample rate):

1. Keep the settings where they are and use them for encoding and playback (an option here would be to duplicate the input elements in the encoding panel, but I wouldn't remove them from the scene settings).
2. Move the values to encoding and for playback always use the user settings.
3. Duplicate the values and have different encoding and playback settings.

Removed a non needed commented out line.

I find this T54603 bug on release 2.79b in ordinary placement of manipulator.
simple but really annoying to use, as 2.79 keeps ok placement.