We are talking about Studio Lighting. Lighting from an image. I am saying that maybe we would have a smoother result by using 80 pixels instead of 6.
I am not talking about managing a set-up of 80 lights but converting an HDRI to an image of 80 pixels (10x8) or 320 pixels (20x16).
In 2.8, we have one main shading light and we can control its angle in Scene Tab.
We could image to be able to orbit studio lighting set-up.
But it is true that 3 lights with an adjustable angle for each give more possibilities than 6 lights at fixed 90Ā° angles between each other.
changing the topic, now that I tried that main shading light, that only affect to the shadowsā¦ could eb great a way to enter manual values in this type of vector input. Because work only with mouse movement is really bad.
For 6 lights with 6 pixels is enough, the rest of values are interpolated. Reflection need a lot of detail to reflect. But GI you can do with less resolution, 32x32.
Regnas
(ā¢ I don't speak English "by default", so... )
4993
Unrelated to this, but after seeing all those settings there, I just realized that the properties editor is really the right place for all the tools settings/object properties etc, as theredwaxpolice has been suggestingā¦ Blender would become so much clean, intuitive and organized indeed.
[whining mode]
I do not understand much the sense of things that appear and disappear with proximity of mouse pointer, like arrows in sliders/value fields, or scroll bars. But this is quite distracting for me. Besides being able to see always scroll bar gives you in advance an idea of position, you can quickly know how much space remains above or below at first sight. So Iām not sure if this feature is something new or we already had it disabled in 2.79. If it is new, I would like to be able to choose this elements to be always visible.
But it is how Studio Lighting of Workbench Single Color works. One color per direction. front, back, top, bottom, left, right.
If number of directions is higher and basis to define directions is closer to an icosahedron instead of a cube ; we could have a smoother result.
I am not suggesting to use a cubemap. I am not talking about Cubemap probes for EEVEE.
But I suggest that maybe Studio Lighting method could be a little bit more complex to be closer to an environment map.
Yeah, an option to choose at least the scrollbar to be always visible would be niceā¦
Also another thing I dislike in Blenderās sliders is the inability to click anywhere in the slider field to jump right away to that value without offer me to type a valueā¦
Something like this:
Would be great to have this abilityā¦ Donāt know is thereās trick to do that already thoā¦
Would it make sense to colorize the dots of the scale cage in the colors of the coordinate system so that it is easier to see what dot scales in what direction?
A cube has 6 sides and the coordinate system 3 colors, wouldnāt make sense to color both sides pointing to X in the same color, i think it would make sense to colorize only those sides which are pointing in the positive direction.
Yes I also just noticed it. The scroll bar is way too narrow, and disappears. I like to have it visible as it gives a visual āanchorā of where I am in a long list of properties/settings/etc.
I agree about sliders but disagree about scrollbars.
Scrollbars are taking space for an info that is not essential.
The important info is property value. It is unnecessary to permanently impose a scrollbar that takes space of a digit or a character. If you have 3 or 4 editors in the screen width, you lost a column of words or numbers for just a minor info.
Scrollbars were not removed. They are visible when you move pointer at the right of editor.
So, if you want to have info about how long is list of properties, you can. It becomes a conscious action.
It needs a little effort. But there is a real benefit : a gain of space for real info.
That makes me think about the visualisation of the function type drivers is really weird, with the cursor moving along the affine curve, would be useful to change it to something like in Nuke for example, where you just have the curve of the function displayed in the graph ? Does that make sense ?
āThe first 2 nodes can be done with relatively simple nodegroups. They break PBR badly but still use Closures as inputs and outputs.
Closures are not to be treated as simple RGBA thatās the whole point of having the conversion.
Also they wonāt work in Cycles.
So Iām not really ok with adding them. We need to keep things somewhat consistent and predictable. Your nodes donāt suggest they break PBR and loose the screenspace datas.ā
Mapping the driven input value to the output of a curve is a really handy workflow for some types of mechanical rigs. I think about a rocker arm being driven by a rotating cam:
I can set up a driver on the rotating cam, but the interaction between the rotating cam and rocker arm is easiest to manually set up as a curve driven by that rotation.
But I do agree that some kind of visualization would be helpful to understand the function output. Though, Iām not sure how best to do that with a possible multitude of inputs and other python tricks.
Hi.
If we talk about taking space, I am more concerned about the vertical space that the TopBar design is taking at the moment.
I understand that there are people who like this behavior, as I had said before, I am only asking for the user has the possibility to choose the behavior from user preferences.
Edit:
I did not understand what you meant here. Apparently on the right there is a narrow space where the new narrow scroll bar fits, whether it is visible or not. So I do not see the problem with spaces for those who choose from user preferences to have it always visible. Except in outliner where there are problems where bar covers part of check boxes, but I guess it is planned to correct that because it makes it difficult to check boxesā¦
Maybe you were comparing with scroll bars sizes in 2.79? I am not against the new narrow size of scroll bars in 2.8.
