- User Since
- Jan 13 2014, 10:21 AM (353 w, 4 d)
Aug 8 2020
Is this not just reinventing the wheel, the wheel in this case being 'checkboxes', which are already used elsewhere, and more visually clear?
Jul 17 2020
It's comforting to see that nodes will continue to have linear representation similar to the Shader Editor, but I wonder:
Has any thought been given to multiple nodetrees on one mesh? After all, we support this with materials too.
This way the user could have a complex node-tree for multiple interdependent effects, but also have one nodetree below it for a simple subdivision, and: easily control its visibility in the viewport, or apply it to the mesh.
Jul 8 2020
@Campbell Barton (campbellbarton)
Please don't let another one of these languish in favour of a better system that's far off in the future. Your concerns are valid, but I know a lot of fellow modelers that have immediate use for this.
As I understand it, this wouldn't be worse than the current workflow with an empty, performance-wise, but it would be a real improvement in terms of workflow.
Dec 12 2019
Nov 27 2019
In terms of clearing and inverting the mask: I've currently got X and A set to that (although, it makes more sense with the default keymap to have A toggle between mask all and mask nothing, but then x becomes pointless)
Ofcourse I'm in favour of also having that on the mouse, but it's a suggestion for those of us who use the keyboard heavily during sculpting.
One thing I don't see mentioned here is automasking by Face Groups, is that planned? It's a great way to divide an object into multiple parts without breaking it up, so you can for instance move the bottom jaw without affecting the upper lip, or work on fingers separately!
Nov 22 2019
Oct 18 2019
Oct 16 2019
Oct 10 2019
I think there's a need for a totally non-destructive MultiRes, but there should definitely be an option (possibly default) to automatically apply to the base mesh as well.
Another solution is to add the original form as a blendshape, so the user can always return to their starting point.
Oct 7 2019
Oct 1 2019
I agree with @Adam Preisler (Alphisto) and @Metin Seven (MetinSeven), to limit these to animation would be a mistake in my opinion. Many tools and modifiers would benefit from having Face Groups in addition to the current Vertex Groups.
Sep 19 2019
@Jacques Lucke (JacquesLucke) I think you missed a bit, because I'm talking about 'Objects', and 'Delete', not 'Delete Collection'. If you follow my steps, are you able to delete an object?
Aug 21 2019
Aug 19 2019
Aug 6 2019
Jun 19 2019
Jun 11 2019
Jun 3 2019
May 31 2019
May 14 2019
Apr 9 2019
Mar 4 2019
Ah, that's my mistake then. I believed it was meant to be linked to all editors by default!
Feb 25 2019
@William Reynish (billreynish) Agreed, it's a much more useful setting for this particular editor.
You're right, it's fixed by loading factory settings!
Hmm, I haven't adjusted my keymap that I know of, so that's odd. Might be addon-related, but either way: false alarm, thanks for testing.
Feb 21 2019
Feb 20 2019
Feb 18 2019
Feb 13 2019
Here's a video showcasing the second issue. 'Duplicate Current' _does_ work, as you can tell.
@Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk) Rather than start a new task: I also found that click-dragging works fine in the Preference's tabs, but fails to work on the Workspace tabs _unless_ you start from the current one (so to rephrase, for clarity: if you start on one that's not the currently selected one, it will simply not go through the tabs)
It also seems impossible to add a new Workspace from the templates when in Edit Mode.
I've had this confirmed by a few people on newer builds (feb 11, feb 13), and it works fine on older builds (Jan 3, Jan 31).
Feb 7 2019
@William Reynish (billreynish) I definitely agree. Having the current file visible in the asset manager also means there's now an easy overview of all used materials, or all of your meshes, and an easy way to mark them for storage in the Asset Manager itself.
Jan 14 2019
Jan 11 2019
I agree that it can be hard to tell whether it's enabled or not (and as Julien mentioned, highly destructive), but I think a visualisation of the setting would solve that issue, and result in a more consistent design.
If anything, having it per-object (as it is right now in 2.79) often results in messed up geometry for me, as I move from a mesh with it disabled to one where it's enabled, and I don't immediately notice.
A transparent line or plane on the mirror point is a pretty traditional way of visually presenting a mirror, but a cursor indicator (faint x, y or z?) could work as well. I personally prefer a line superimposed on the mesh over a transparent plane, mostly because it's less distracting.
Another option, potentially on top of the previous ones: having the cursor location visually mirrored on the other side as a dot.
Jan 9 2019
Dec 12 2018
Dec 4 2018
Nov 20 2018
Oct 23 2018
Jul 3 2018
All browsers I can think of have ctrl-tab and ctrl-shift-tab for going forwards and backwards between tabs respectively. That's more 'prime real easte', but if you're looking at existing traditions then this one shouldn't be forgotten!
May 28 2018
May 22 2018
May 9 2018
Since the topic was ended elsewhere, I'll ask again here:
@William Sitton (william) Reynish (billreynish) It was my understanding that @Paweł Łyczkowski (plyczkowski) and @Jonathan (Jonathan) Williamson (carter2422) were in charge of the new Keymap? Has something changed?
Additionally, I now read here that it won't be the default, whereas I remember it previously being the intention of making a new default, and having 'old blender' as an optional keymap.
May 2 2018
Apr 18 2018
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?
Apr 17 2018
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:
Mar 29 2018
@William Reynish (billreynish) Radial menus are a designed, defined thing, with clear pros and cons. Throwing 30 things into a circle goes against the point.
A pie menu with north, northeast, southeast, east, southwest and northwest in it similarly isn't great. The cardinal directions (north, east, south, west) are the most important, they should be given preference.
Mar 7 2018
Feb 2 2018
Ctrl-s being next to ctrl-a is the case in all software, ever. It (and X) being 'easily accesible' is also more of a point in favour of changing the hotkey than introducing a popup, in my opinion.
You have to wonder why Blender would be the only software in the world that need training wheels on ctrl-s, but what really gets me is that there's no way for the user to turn this off!
Jan 30 2018
Since there has been some time to think this over: any update on this?
Sep 13 2017
Glad to see this being discussed here. I agree with @Jac Rossiter (Jakro) that you'd want UV seams in the middle of the bevel whenever possible. Now ofcourse that's not the case with an odd number of edges, but it's still an ideal to strive for in my opinion.
As for other edge attributes, it seems to me that hard edges & bevel weight make sense being on the outside of the bevel, so as to avoid compromising the bevel's curvature (either by bevel the middle of it, or by having a sudden gap in normal continuity there).
Aug 7 2017
There has been talk of removing the x and + next to scene/screen data blocks, and moving it to a context menu, or inside of the scene/screen browser. Has there been a definitive decision made on this?
I'm all in favour, for visual clarity and usability (not being able to delete something that can't be undone so easily!), and just curious to see where we stand on that.
May 10 2017
Can this be looked at again? As @Paulo José Oliveira Amaro (pauloup) said, intention aside this feels like a bug to the user, and could be improved upon. Would this be a big task?
May 9 2017
I tested this on 2.78a and can confirm.
Mar 22 2017
This looks great!
This may be outside of the scope of this project, but would a vertex group/material mask be feasable?
The intended effect would be for only the masked area to be mirrored (with a possible invert function, as a few other modifiers have)
Dec 22 2016
Since the UI team has met up now, has this been discussed?
Dec 5 2016
Nov 30 2016
When 'Global Options' is set to false, do we revert to the current situation where everything has to be adjusted separately? Because if so, a more elegant solution may be for the user to manually enable sections.
So you can have one section to control global colours, and the user can add an 'Properties panel' override, which enables/unhides that section.
Nov 15 2016
Any development on this? It seems a shame to leave such a useful feature in limbo!
Aug 1 2016
So it seems the save confirmation is the proverbial baby that was thrown out with the bathwater? Brecht just added that back in together with the delete, even though the save confirmation was decided on and nobody had an issue with it.
I also take issue with solving a keymap issue (which is something the user can change!) with an intrusive solution that also impacts those that remap their hotkeys.
So, since there was concensus, can we get rid of the save confirmation again, at least?
Apr 21 2016
This is looking great!
I may have found an issue: You get an empty menu when nothing is selected (or active), which is the case if you delete the cube in the default scene.
Apr 1 2016
Mar 25 2016
Fantastic to hear!
Mar 22 2016
To give some context as to a possible use for this:
Mar 16 2016
It's my understanding that I'd need to build Blender for this, right?
If so, I've never done that, and I'm not set up to do so. Any chance of a (Windows) Build to test?
If not, I'd gladly just screenshare or something if it's feedback on the implementation you're after moreso than testing stability.
Mar 9 2016
I think both would be best, and if possible: a toggle for Normalised coordinates (from the tooltip: 'Display UV Coordinates from 0.0 to 0.1 rather than in pixels) as in the UV editor would be great.
Feb 26 2016
@Jonathan Williamson (carter2422): As the author of this, are you aware of a reason for this? There was consensus on the Save and Delete commands, was there any pushback from anyone outside of this design task, or what happened?
As William Reynish mentioned at one point: this isn't a case of nothing being better than 'F', it's a case of everything suggested so far being better.
Feb 22 2016
Thanks for adding this, Campbell!
Feb 15 2016
Any news on this?
Nov 28 2015
Where in these links do you see anything to indicate what I said was incorrect?
Nov 26 2015
This was set to 'resolved', but the Save and Delete commands were actually never 'liberated' from their confirmation, while as far as I can tell there was concencus to do so.
Oct 22 2015
May 1 2015
I can confirm that this fails, and has for some time. I always used the workaround @Bastien Montagne (mont29) provided.
The attitude of 'this might not even be worth investigating' is a bit odd, I think. It's something that's broken, and something that's one of the first things a user sees after having upgraded.
Apr 30 2015
Apologies, but I've created a new bug report about this, as I didn't find this in the search earlier.
It's T44566, and I've also attached a .blend there.
I can't edit it anymore, or I'd make it a subtask!
And as I didn't mention it in my report (can't edit), I'm on Windows 7, 64bit, with an Nvidia GTX 670 (driver: 347.52)