We have several mln verts photoscans and houses in classic style but they are so NDA, sorry.

In T74186#879761, @YAFU (YAFU) wrote:

I mean, I'm not sure that what you ( Paul Kotelevets ) proposes changes the situation much.

I suppose it depends on the implementation as well.

A question.
Will it be possible to develop a special cheapest heavy mesh viewport display mode, that contains no AA, no multisampling, edges shading and other features to increase performance?
We woul like to use such a mode.

In T73479#879563, @Thomas Mann (pixtur) wrote:

In T68891#879652, @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) wrote:

It's too early to make decisions on that. There are many design details to work out once work actually starts on this.

In T69577#878839, @Ryan Inch (Imaginer) wrote:

Alright, here is a new version with the selection problem fixed and a QCD move widget drawn in OpenGL with hotkey support. Let me know what you think and if, after trying it out, you still want to try out the auto enabling/disabling of QCD layers on move. Fair warning, the OpenGL widget is crude (I'll see about refining it later), but it should serve as a good prototype for the functionality, and proof that it's possible. Moving objects via V, LMB, V, Shift+LMB, V, Alt+3 and V, Shift+Alt+3 is now possible.

Collection_Manager_QCD_test_v2_3_1.zip20 KBDownload

We are using RMB for pan view.
Hope it will be taken into account as well.

In T69577#878279, @Ryan Inch (Imaginer) wrote:

Interesting. I don't think this will be necessary anymore with the above solution, but we may want it as well.

Yes. I also see no obstacles here)
A kind of syntactic sugar applied to a workflow.

In T69577#877998, @Ryan Inch (Imaginer) wrote:

So, when objects are moved out of a layer and the layer has no objects in it we hide it? That could be done, I think.

I think, that it will be interisting to hide slot that will still contain objects but has got lesser objects after Set operation - that will mean that objects has gone from it.

In T73993#877769, @Ugo Santana (ugosantana) wrote:

What I want is an option, not change the way everyone work.

In T68891#877717, @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) wrote:

In T68891#877712, @Zino Guerr (Zino) wrote:

In T73993#877587, @Ugo Santana (ugosantana) wrote:

I think it's important to add a toggle option for ortogonal transformation only. This is very improtant for architectural modeling. It would be even nicer if we could activate by hotkey.

Just like MMB during transformation does, but instantly?

In T68891#877510, @Zino Guerr (Zino) wrote:

Can you, please, post a couple of screenshots (object mode / edit mode) with instances from Maya to clarify the issue?

In T68891#877409, @Zino Guerr (Zino) wrote:

Coming from Maya i always was able to have smooth preview with subdivisons on instanced meshes(duplicated linked)

Can you, please, post a couple of screenshots (object mode / edit mode) with instances from Maya to clarify the issue?

In T68893#876826, @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht) wrote:

I think the idea by @CobraA (CobraA) in T68893#876084 is a good one. Autosmooth in general is not something you even want to change as you deform the mesh with modifiers, because then it pops in animation. If you do want it then an explicit edge split modifier should probably be used instead. So replacing autosmooth by a way to update sharp edge tags while in edit mode make sense to me (either manually or perhaps automatic for tools like transform if desired).
This helps with performance, but only in part. Autosmooth involves both detecting which edges are supposed to be smooth, and then computing normals based on that information. So to make it really low overhead, we may also need to reconsider how to store and update the normals.

In T68893#876725, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

No.
Live Subd It is completely different issue.
Applied subdiv is "converted to mesh", a generated static highpoly geometry.
I want to say that it is easy to get highpoly mesh for basic testing edit mode.

In T73359#858877, @Bastien Montagne (mont29) wrote:

In T68893#876348, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

I don't get your point, my question is about performance not where this feature is useful for, I assume everybody knows that already.

I've tested for some time. Suddenly, such behavior feels... smoother)
I need to test this some more time to understand why the slot display seems to be better.
I would like to propose to turn off a slot from where selection has gone, this will make possible to find appropriable slot to a selection via several switches, if it is possible to reproduce.

In T68893#876084, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

I have observed one thing with the autosmooth in comparison to another software, Blender seems to calculate it (realtime) all the time.

In T68891#875961, @Jacob Merrill (blueprintrandom) wrote:

What about getting rid of modifiers and instead writing vertex shader nodes capable of doing skinning and subdivision?

I am not sure how exactly "less commonly used" is counted.

Thanks)
For sure, we will try to reach minimum ui elements, so such buttons are temporal, just for testing solutions without reinstalling addons versions back and forth)

In T73360#874734, @Chris Kohl (ckohl_art) wrote:

What is a reasonable definition of "high poly" for the purpose of this task? 200,000 triangles? 500k? One million? Five?
If you're looking for test cases let's assume that this photogrammetry object (exported from Meshroom) fits the definition of "high poly" that was established above

Also, please, remember, that current packing behavior is good because it is fast, that is suitable for the most cases and especially nice for heavy meshes.
If to completely replace it with heuristics insteas of adding it, it is possible to get the same problem as with the undo - low perfomance for every use case instead of when it's really needed.

In T69577#873728, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

cheers.

Hi. We are currently trying to cover complex production needs. We are working on Quck Content Display system.

Aw, that's so more fluent now!
Addiction will take some time, but the seame short shortcuts in both modes succeeded)
Keeping testing, I think about visibility problems - for example, do we have to operate on EC if we are using enumerated list, or should we see a collection we send object to.
Sending to a single turned off slot feels a bit clunky, since we are loosing selection from sight of view.
I try to investigate if it is reasonable to keep the receiving slot disabled if it was (for single or multiple sending)

In T68970#872151, @Zino Guerr (Zino) wrote:

In T73360#865015, @Kjell Emanuelsson (Kjell) wrote:

I had a forum discussion recently where I did put together a test case to highlight the lacking performance. For your consideration: Video HERE. Test-asset HERE. (free model used)

In T68970#871878, @Zino Guerr (Zino) wrote:

I personally had to change every tool and operator event to make my own custom keymap

For sure. We also do this every time, (but we change operators only from version 2.8)

A bit about why it is important.

Hi!
Sorry for delay, I am deadly busy with my animation project.

I am in testing process.

Does it mean "Snap to procedurally generated by modifiers geometry"?

In T73479#865440, @Asher (ThatAsherGuy) wrote:

What if we came at this from the perspective of creating a sort of selection API?

In T73479#863428, @Paul Kotelevets (1D_Inc) wrote:

In T73479#863407, @Debuk (Debuk) wrote:

Hi @Paul Kotelevets (1D_Inc),
So lets assume these settings were all combined under a single on/off toggle.

Sort of. Like Xray setups preset system.

In T69577#863505, @Ryan Inch (Imaginer) wrote:

Your action map does a good job showing the different ways of interaction.

Thank you. As an engineer, I love ways to see systems transparently.

Let me explain a situation to all sides of this dialogue.

In T73479#863495, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

If you switch to Eevee go to edit mode, Xray then behaves just like 2.7's limit selection to visible . the same for the other engines rendered modes.

In T73479#863407, @Debuk (Debuk) wrote:

Hi @Paul Kotelevets (1D_Inc),

Well, since QCD systems belong to quick access systems, their action maps are pretty much simple. That's why we love it.
We will monitor the integrity of access to slots using the mouse and keyboard, using an example of cold Alt slots, and this way we will satisfy hot slots as well, because they are just simpler.

In T73479#863009, @Debuk (Debuk) wrote:

• Select Through is needed for special type of modeling when topology is predictable for user (like gamedev modeling). It is widespread behaviour in industry standards software, so, as industry standard solution, it is more about popularity.

In T73479#862583, @Benjamin Sauder (kioku) wrote:

Well, here we need to build an actions map.
I will make it to show all possible cases of interactions with a system (assigning slots, invoking slots), and we will place it to a relevance tree (because speed of access is important for QCD systems), to clearly see what we can get mathematically.
That will show us if we can do such a thing without loss.

Aw, domino GUI is a QCD GUI. It was called domino, because it also using subitizing ability to percept numbers.

Here is implementation #2 (which I think I prefer)

In T73479#862301, @Stanislav Blinov (radcapricorn) wrote:

Necessary? No. Convenient and faster? Yes. For primitives? No, for everything that has a surface. Model from my example is certainly not a primitive.

It can be solved with vertices mode. Not thay hard.

In T73479#862234, @Stanislav Blinov (radcapricorn) wrote:

Furthermore, that particular "shortest path" selection requires quite a few clicks, whereas the same selection can be done by tilting view once and dragging a box.

In T73479#862148, @Stanislav Blinov (radcapricorn) wrote:

In T73479#862061, @Oskar (Oskar) wrote:

In T73479#861995, @CobraA (CobraA) wrote:

This "feature" is only useful in Edit mode and it conflicts with xray which already does the job, but the problem with xray is that you have to fiddle with the slider. for example in Object mode you want it 0.5 but in edit mode u need it at 1.0.
So the obvious solution is xray needs preset values or a way to set it per mode, no need to add more extra options and subsequently a hoykey if it can be solved by an existent one.

In T73479#861687, @William Reynish (billreynish) wrote:

The main issue, is that this option conflicts with Blender's current paradigm, which is 'you select what you can see'.
With the linked patch, this conflict is there. If you disable Select Through, and then enable X-Ray, it *does* select through. Same with Wireframe view and other examples.

Nice move) Indeed, this task require a lot of workflow design for different cases.

So it’s always quite a surprise that such a basic thing is absent from blender.

In T63991#861301, @ThinkingPolygons (ThinkingPolygons) wrote:

Yo, is it dead? This is a must have. 🙁

It would be nice to bring ability to preserve vertex normals to a split tool (Y key).
For example, it is impossible to reconnstruct such a model with 4 instances, saving UV space, because after split verices normals are changed, and conflicts with normal map.

Well, I currently thinking about QCD abilities, trying to design proper workflow.
Some of my thoughts at the moment:

I am not sure how this issue can be connected to locked Fill checkboxes of Vertices Rip shortcuts.

GUI is nice by the way, its like meetin old good friend that helped a lot)
But Alt keys are swapped. It is needed to be fixed for consistency - alt+3 should be under 3, alt+8 should be under 8.
It is needed for excluding counting them from a workflow.

I've tried it)
Well, I am not sure that there should be a dedicated QCD mode - default behavior is nice.

Well, we has got a scene setup saving system, that doesnot even saves some scene setups.

In T68889#784315, @SecuoyaEx (SecuoyaEx) wrote:

In terms of UV packing and UV unwrapping, it's common in other software to have a progressive heuristic solver. Something that you let run for a couple of seconds until you're satisfied with the result.

Sounds like Smart UV project in 3d view -> seams from islands in UV editor.

I am not sure if it is possible to create a smooth shaded cone with collapsed vertices.
It looks like this:

Did you know that SS, DV and RR are, actualy, not stored in view layer?

It is not a problem to build a proper QCD system in current Blender 2.8 realization - we already have some significant part of it that works.
It is a problem to take a few simple right steps to make it work properly, so it is more workflow design issue than, actually, development problem.
Just like clunky LMB selection issue that can be fixed with couple of lines, but breaks any kind of organic hardsufrace modeling, and lasts a year.

Blender 2.8 already have a QCD system (when pressing number corresponding collection is displayed)
Everything that has a limit of 20 - refers to the QCD system (hotkeys, autonumeration, widgets, etc)
There are ruins, but they works, and it has got some huge inconsistences.

• Maya users animating visibility just to get combinations of 2 objects. It tooks 3 frames. For 5 objects it will be U(5) = 2^5-1 = 31 (combinations or frames or view layers)
• Pablo Vasquez made a concept but it is completely out of any scope.
• AutoCAD has got laywalk command that works more like collections list.
• Blender 2.7 has got 20 slots + hiding + isolation, so it is U(22) = 2^22-1 = 4194303 hiding information combinations fully controllable at perception speed in blender scene.

In T73379#858378, @Pasang Bomjan (irex124) wrote:

@Paul Kotelevets (1D_Inc), Oh, I've mistaken your issue with my similar experience. Please ignore it.

And it occurs to me that Ctrl-Right Mouse (extrude to cursor) would benefit from being a press event as well.

This will be going into official blender 2.83+:

I tested the solution for a while in practice.
Yes, indeed, Alt+LCS and Alt+Shift+LCS are also needed to be fixed.
There is actually no reason to keep any kind of clunky selection for the tweak tool.

Made proper video with workflow comparison and setup
https://youtu.be/MVCpRuOlqVo

Proper video with workflow comparison and setup.
https://youtu.be/MVCpRuOlqVo

In T73379#858205, @Pasang Bomjan (irex124) wrote:

This has always been the case, even in 2.7x. I had even bought an 11-button mouse just to do this but gave up and always thought of it as a limitation.