Blender 2.8 viewport updates

That’s why I propose it should be shaded semi Transparent instead of fully opaque. That way you actually can see the underlying geometry. With self occlusion it still reduces clutter because you see only the top geo when there are front facing polygons on top. So: Transparent polygons that show the underlying geometry but still occlude the own backfaces. When there is no front facing geometry then it sould shine through the high-res mesh similar to “show scene transparent”. I’d see that as a pretty good implementation.
I agree, though - we can probably do better. And I’d love to see that. But until then I’d be more than happy to have something “good” already :smiley:
If there is a way we can have something better in the short term and then something much better in the long term I’d still prefer to have better until we can go some steps further and do really awesome. Also I think that maybe a first draft could show problems from practical work on how to implement it in a better way for future reiterations.

1 Like

Yes, I agree entirely. You should be able to hide back faces of the retopo mesh and be slightly transparent so you can see your sculpt under it.

Modo does it mostly right. As you can see above, it’s just a view preset that acts on the selected object. In modo, you have different shading modes for selected and unselected objects. since you have to go into Edit mode in the first place, Blender does this by default. So, you’re already there. You just need to set up a topo view preset and make sure there is some provision to prevent snapping to back faces (that’s the main thing that bugs me).

To me, it doesn’t really make sense to worry about weather you can see topo view outside of edit mode. You could actually use that to your advantage as tabbing in and out of edit mode would be a quick way to view your progress in fully shaded mode. In fact, I might be a little irritated that I would need to change the shading mode when tabbing out of edit mode.

4 Likes

For Blender I could imagine both to work, actually. Without the need to Tab into edit mode you’d at least take away a layer of key-pressing for checking geometry for multiple objects. For example I am rarely working on only one object at a time for retopology these days. So it really can be of benefit to simply click through a few objects to check their topology. It might also lay a better groundwork for a dedicated retopology layout later on.

Ultimately this is something people have to work with for some time to realize what feels better or more comfotable, I think. Some of it also remains to be getting used to it. Initially I came from TopoGun and disliked how Modo handles the topology display because it doesn’t fade out backfaces through geometry other than self occlusion. I find that it works quite well when wou’re used to it, though.

From my current point of view I’d think ideally a topo-view should have these attributes:

  • the clean topology mesh should be drawn always above the surface of the source mesh. Bo Geometry should be hidden by the source
  • the front faces should be shaded semi transparent with a value to make them more or less transparent.
  • backfaces should be drawn in wireframe only
  • backfaces should have an option to disable drawing them alltogether
  • backfaces should have an option to be drawn fainter the farther they are away from front facing source geometry - meaning - the thicker the mesh the more backfaces should be able to fade out. Making this a toggle would be ideal - sometimes you still do want ot see all the backfaces.
  • Topology should always self-occlude backfaces so that selecting any important front facing geometry does not interfere ba accidently selecting backfaces, verts, etc.
  • topology shading should be a toggle for the viewport NOT for individual meshes:
    • either topology shading should apply to all currently selected meshes until a new mesh is selected.
    • or optionally meshes could be tagged as “topology” so that they always display semitransparent if “topoview” is active in the viewport. This feels like it could cause confusion because meshes have to be checked for a toggle individually, though.
4 Likes

Agree with your list, but the biggest challenge is the last part - how to enable and store this state.

In many ways, I think the simplest solution would be for it to be an Edit Mode setting, replacing Hidden Wire. Then you don’t have to explicitly enable it for each object, and it would still get stored in the viewport, so that we could have a Retopo Workspace with this on.

3 Likes

30 posts were merged into an existing topic: New icons for Blender 2.8

Completely agree. It probably won’t be a big deal to Tab into edit mode, now that have the option to multi edit objects anyways. So if the user needs to check more than one mesh - multi object edit mode would work just like for a single mesh, I assume.

1 Like

Hey everyone talking about icons:
Can you please take this conversation to the appropriate thread?

Here: https://blenderartists.org/t/new-icons-for-blender-2-8/

2 Likes

Conversation moved. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

One thing that continues to annoy me is how thick the wires are in edit mode, especially in edge mode. Is there anywhere you can set this so you can have pleasing 1 pixel wires?

With dense meshes, it makes the wires even less legible than in 2.79:

Granted nobody would expect to edit this, but I’d like to at least be able to tell if it’s a quad or tri mesh.

1 Like

If it’s a scan, yes, people would want to edit such mesh, so it’s a problem.

Wires on my machine don’t seem as thick as yours. Might just be some bugs that need worked out.

1 Like

That’s strange, mine look a bit thinner than that.


I have re-set the user preferences to make sure everything is in order, and I also do not use any DPI scaling in windows (it’s at 100%).

Anyway, since there is a vertex dot size option in the 3D view section of theme settings, I would assume that if edge thickness will be anything else than 1px by default, it should be exposed there as well. It looks comically large on your screenshot indeed.

1 Like

You are in vertex mode. Switch to edge mode.

Also, I use a 1.15 Interface scale if that matters.

It’s a little thicker in edge mode but still seems more legible than yours. Interface scale doesn’t seem to change it.

Linux/AMD here. I still get a lot of visual glitches (no shadows from lamps, several shaders don’t work, etc)

It’s a bit beefier in the edge mode indeed:

Yeah, both of yours look slightly thinner than mine, and I’ve no idea why that might be. All of them are pretty bad IMHO.

People asked for this, and I always knew it was going to cause problems. I never needed thick edges in edge mode, same goes for face dots.
So this thick thing should be an overlay option (off by default), just like face dots.

IMHO it should just be adjustable with a slider. People have different preferences, monitors, office lighting conditions and visual acuity. There’s really no one size fits all in this case.

Making the mesh thicker in edge mode should also not be a thing by default. It’s icky. I want my wires always consistent. I understand it was meant to visually distinguish edge mode from face mode, but it’s not needed when you turn on face dots.

3 Likes

Ah. I found why mine were thicker than xrg’s and rawalanche’s. There’s actually a Line Width setting right under the Display Scale setting. I had it on thick, because the UI looked better to me like that. I assumed the lines in the UI were all that this affected. Apparently it affects wireframe thickness too.

There’s really no reason these two unrelated settings should be connected.

That said, after setting the lines to “thin”, they’re still way too thick in edge mode for my taste. I’d really like them slightly thinner than in vertex mode, which looks slightly chubby.

1 Like

Are you sure that configuration affects viewport? I had understood that this is only for GUI.

Here comparing with the same mesh, lines seem thicker in 2.8. Maybe this should be customizable from Theme configuration (like outline and vertex size)
http://pasteall.org/blend/index.php?id=50429
http://pasteall.org/blend/index.php?id=50430