Just updated the zip to PS 1.3, with a few bug fixes and other improvements.
Has this been committed yet?
Well, there were a good reason, that explains QCD slots.
It is a tool, that effectively reduces UMC (User's memory consumption) in a wide range of workflows, in a entire industry.
There is also problem, that QCD doesnot works as a system with such kind of shuffilng.
@Campbell Barton (campbellbarton) I am still having the same issue. I get the following error: ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 10: b'1.0' . I have checked with blender versions 2.76, 2.79 and the latest version 2.8 too.
Please use the bug reporting form:
Please use the bug reporting form, and follow the instructions carefully:
Has this been committed yet? Maybe in addition, it could be considered to give the Text Editor a typing focus, like the text entry boxes?
Nice! Unrelated but, shouldn't displacement affect both the specular and clearcoat layer? Technically displacement is a stand in for real geometry displacement so it would affect both, which is what Cycles does btw, unlike Bump to Principled where each reflection has it's own normals for good reasons.
It’s not an entirely unreasonable idea, but probably best to keep this consistent, so that each editor has a menu that reflects the kind of data it manipulates. Object, Image, Text, Key, Strip etc.
Hi, until now I never cared for shortcuts for collections because in blender 2.80 I didn't need them (not having projects of this size that required it ... but now I'm starting to go a little deep ... I had a sneak peek at this task but without really reading what was being discussed ... thinking that these shotcuts 1234567890 + shift had already been here and were working ... Today I was all happy to start doing in-depth tests .. going to also to review how the situation was in blender 2.7x , and all of a sudden I remembered how comfortable the layers were and how much in the past they helped me to organize the work visually and through shortcut ...
Yeah, it's properly part if of a larger "normalization" process, which at some point should also include Menu re-organization. Having View as first menu, is unique to Blender too. And having to use a menu called Add to import files is pretty unique too(like in the VSE).
This has been reported in T66607
Please add complete error message to your bug report and add the affected Blender version. The link you've posted isn't accessible, it throws an 403 error.
It is just my sense that having a menu "File, Edit ..." that starts to match the global menu isn't a good direction to go,
it starts to match the global menu too closely & can add confusion.
Obviously any redesign should increase the work efficiency, not the buttons pressing amount. Currently, for me, the trade off roughly sounds like "you get Eevee but you need twice as many pressed buttons for the same operation". How many hours Blender developers could save if they just didn't bother about the UI redesign? How many hours addon developers could save without tricking with the new UI? And how many hours users could save after release? (What do we do with our lives?:'|) It's measurable. Blender needs some kind of standardized testing scene to compare the amount of user actions needed to reproduce the scene with old UI and with the new one. And an official statistic addon in the future. It's for UI Design bugs objectivation. (I hope the idea will not look bad only because it's said by me. I didn't do anything for Blender, I don't even have an avatar... But please, in the name of world efficiency and technological singularity and so on.)
Oh right, the node editor button is a list now! Alright, in that case, perfection! :D
Would rather leave this as is.
It means documentation/tutorials cannot say "Click on the File menu" without some risk the users gets the wrong file menu.
i already tried
Would rather leave this as is.
m128d is double instead of double, m256d needs AVX support. I removed SIMD instructions for those and leave the optimization to the compiler. double version of the matrix is not frequently called, there should be little performance impact on this.
updated two finctions mul_m4_m4m4_db_uniq() and mul_m4db_m4db_m4fl_uniq() for __SSE2__ support.
I think MMB is a great solution. Thx!
Thanks for clearing things out. 👍
Building from source worked for me.
There is no rule that any redesign must lead to the same or fewer clicks, there are always trade-offs. What the right trade-offs are is subjective.
This code should be deduplicated, it's still not clear that these actually match.
Hello, Brecht. I think it's not a user feedback it's a UI design regression bug, because anyone can measure it. So it's not a subjective user feedback it's an objective reality. With this in mind, I found here the "Regressions" category, then I set "Design" in the bug report tunables and then posted it. And I still think I was right. Bugs are objective, measurable things, user feedbacks are subjective and not measurable things. Is this wrong? Is there an another criteria for bug/feedback differentiation? Thank you.
This is ready for review.
I though stay beta 2.80 but cause full version 2.80 and they made 2.81 so I send again.
We still have a report open for this,. You have now reported this multiple times, it's not going to get it fixed faster.
I've added you to the Documentation project to commit this yourself. Username and password is the same as developer.blender.org.
@Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) , you did not answer.