It would be a nice solution. I totally agree with you, too.
Operator to disable Double-Sided shading on all meshes
Not quite sure what you mean?
Agreed!
Hey I’d love to learn the reasoning ( or limitation ) behind this ridiculous implementation.
Gotta face facts, there are problems with the UI. Ridiculous implementations and poor design decisions, both.
A civil discourse on the shortcomings of Blender’s UI is long overdue.
Having said that, I’m not for radical sweeping changes, just sane defaults and customization… and consistent naming conventions, and removal of redundancies, and more legible text at smaller font sizes, and ‘move’ buttons that aren’t 3 inches long, and … and …
(The list does go on for quite some time)
Actually I think this is an accurate picture of my involvement so far. I failed in showing that I wasn’t one more point in the background noise. Straw-manning the newbie wasn’t my intention, but it was the impression that I left. By putting it this way you’ve taught me something about how I went about this whole process. At first I thought that the Blender brass didn’t think the user interface needed improvement. Now I realize they do, but there just isn’t a clear direction. My ruckus-raising has to some extent worked against me by causing people to misunderstand my point of view and assume things about me that aren’t true. This wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been described as a bull in a china shop.
On the other hand, the more I learn about Blender the more evidence I see that some of my goals are incompatible with the team’s views. I think that Blender’s ‘open’ process isn’t really all that open. Ideas tend to come from the top, and views of people like me aren’t seriously considered. The source code is open, but the decision making is not. It’s actually a bit demotivating. I have ideas and skill to implement them, but I’m leashed to my approved bug list. Blender’s team isn’t willing to let me experiment with designs, even though it’s not on their dime. Part of this may be for the reasons above, (I didn’t impress anyone when I first started showing my face here) but also I think it’s due to a general top-down propagation structure for ideas. The brass has their ideas about usability and they’re simply not willing to consider mine. The response when I ask if I can try something else is, “Get back to work on your approved list.”
It’s not ridiculous. Watch this video to learn about why Blender is in the state it’s in now:
Or see the UI Paradigms page on the wiki. The ideas are good, but the implementation suffered. The first iteration was allowed to stand as the final product. It needs more work but I wouldn’t consider it ridiculous.
Oh, that. Yeah sure, ridiculous. It’s reasonable in that it lets advanced users who know about it set the size of that control. It’s unreasonable in that it’s completely un-discoverable.
I have been saying this for months which I got heaviliy critized for. Even from one of your follow GSOC participants. Because “when code is good it will get in” which I don’t believe, it only gets in when it follows a certain direction.
The reason why Blender is one of those projects that I don’t want to invest time and resources in is because I also seen that
Ideas tend to come from the top, and views of people like me aren’t seriously considered. The source code is open, but the decision making is not. It’s actually a bit demotivating.
And i’m sure that a lot of developers feel the same way. And there is nothing wrong with the fact they have some ideas and a direction or they adapt everything. But the reality is that it also makes Blender a possible black hole where you can put a lot of time in and resources to end up nowhere.
Hell when I read some days ago that chromoly had it with the direction of Blender, that didn’t surprise me one bit. If you see the remarks from the Luxrender people, the Yafaray people, etc. There is a reason why such things happen.
Blender isn’t that really open in the sense that other open source projects lay the groundwork to make it more open or adaptable. You don’t need to be part of the inner circle, you can mold it the direction you want. They make sure you have those possibilities to work in a stable open environment. With Blender I have the feeling they want to keep control because there is no reason why a program should not be that adoptable that they can keep their philosophy but give others also the room to experiment.
Plugin system doesn’t not exist, Python api is a moving target (chromoly) , internals that is hidden for third parties (luxrender, yafaray, …) , … . You can’t even write a modifier and distribute it without it being part of Blender. Look at what happened when users found a developer they wanted to fund them self to work on cycles and the discussion that it sparked because the BF don’t believe in crowd funding or that was the impression that I got. I know this is an oxymoron but I see Blender as one of the more closed open source projects that I know about.
For forking to work you need to have a good and wide support base and as most Blender users are just “artists”. The grieves of third party developers or developers out of the circle will not provide that support base. And that doesn’t mean that I want to point fingers because if it works for them… . Not that I think that forking is the option but I do know that this is the classic remark you will get.
It would help if the BF had a more open attitude instead of being so focused on what commercial companies do and how they are all wrong, because the latter does mostly have the correct possibilities to anchor or adapt their programs. If their is a fundraiser for a course in a bit of self criticism I would certainly chip in because I really do hate that with Blender. The “great mind” remarks is telling for me.
I have to disagree here SilenceBe:
-
Openness: We are very open to new patches and new code, as long as it’s simply done right. Sure a function can be coded in dozen of ways, but will it fit with our code design? If not, who is the one who has to bother himselfes with bugs etc. afterwards? Right, the main devs, because most patch submitters won’t stay forever. We included unfinished patches and work in the past and some of that caused a lot of work afterwards, which needed to be done by the core devs.
-
Fund raising:
BF is not against fundraising, that’s why there is a BF Developer fund. It’s much more safe, because BF can guarantee that money will only be given to devs if their work is good, a guarantee you don’t have in independent fundraisers. People could collect money and disappear, especially if this person is totally new in Blender land. So basically we try to make people aware of such risks, but not prevent them to donate to independent campaigns. If you want to donate to independent campaings, please do, just be aware of the risks. And even if a coder does the job well, it’s unsure if it meets my point 1) (good code which can be included). -
BFs goal is “To provide individual artists and small teams with a complete, free and open source 3D creation pipeline.” and I think they are doing this good. Especially with the Open Projects, there is a lot of development and progress, and the software gets tested in an actual production environment.
Anyway, I think it’s one of the biggest strengths of Blender that is has a strong leader ship. Other projects are even worried if they can get money to pay the server fees. BF provides a safe basis for Blender and makes sure servers are there, money is there for devs, projects can be done to test and evaluate the software etc. etc.
I’m not sure forking is in the cards for Blender. Sufficient people with the ability and motivation who agree on a vision would have to be found, and I’m not sure that set of people exist who are willing to do away with the BF.
I don’t think forking should be an option until possibilities for better processes and UI designs have been discussed with the Blender team. For example, at the conclusion of my GSoC I intend to release a demo build of Blender showing “What could be” - it’ll have all of my UI work some prototype designs built using the tools I’m going to be building during this project. The goal won’t be to get them into Blender, but just to show how experimentation with designs can lead to better results. Hopefully, being able to play with such prototypes directly will have an impact on the decision making process.
Nobody disagrees that poor quality code must be rejected. We think that patches are rejected for their purpose and content. If BF disagrees with the direction or vision that the patch represents then the patch is rejected regardless of its quality.
For example, I’ve previously written a patch that enables highlighting on the manipulator handles if the user places the mouse over the handle. But I-forget-who told me that Ton has rejected such patches before because he didn’t want the feature in Blender. I don’t know if that’s actually true, but the patch backlog is full so I didn’t bother submitting it. If it is true then it’s a perfect example of what SilenceBe and I are talking about. If it’s not true then it’s still a failing of the BF that such things are purported as fact.
Wo! That sort of highlighting would be extremely useful for whoever prefers to use the manipulator in a given circumstance, especially if more than one variety of transformation, or even all of them, is activated at the same time. Lately I damaged my left hand (it’s on the mending, don’t worry) and so the shortcuts I got accustomed to became inaccessible to me. There’s luck in bad luck it seems since I discovered that activating the manipulator with the mouse in my left hand while entering the data at the numpad with the right beats using the shortcuts for precision transformations. The problem is sometimes to catch the right part of the manipulator. Your patch would solve that. 
I don’t care if Ton or the pope disagrees but I’d be surprised if he did. What he hates (I mean Ton, although the pope should also…) though is colored wiremesh, which only make good sense.
@Vino: I think Ton is against pre-selection highlighting mainly when you’re modeling and I have to agree with him cause it makes the interface way too flashy. I think pre-selection on a manipulator is pretty safe 
I think you should try more by submitting more patches without being too worried. I know it can be discouraging but as an animator, whose shot can be cut even after rendering and compositing (and you won’t get in the credits if you don’t have at least one shot in!), this is really not that strange. It is part of the process and the organization.
There’s a vision for Blender and even though we all may not agree with it, it is what is keeping the project alive!
And also keep in mind that some things are not done on purpose due to patents. There’s a lot of stuff that is too risky to implement especially in the UI area.
My 2c.
Gian
Oh you’re right, it was mesh highlighting that Ton was against. I don’t have a patch for that. The point stands though, I think it’s a fault if the idea is rejected out of hand, even as an option, simply because the project leader didn’t like it. It supports my point that the ideas propagate from above in Blender, which is a weakness of the BF.
On the point of mesh highlighting itself, how is it flashy and why is that bad? It gives instant feedback to what will happen when the user tries to take an action. It reduces the mystery of what will be selected, which can be a substantial one if there are many verts in a small place. I never understood the argument against it.
ah sorry
It was indeed worded poorly
I meant the way to make the (shape keys) lists bigger or smaller
now->shift+scroll mouse (+move the mouse every time because it stops after 1 increment))
How it might be->visual marker to drag
or at least Shift+scroll (WITHOUT having to move your mouse)
Like zeauro’s mockup on the previous page
@interesting discussion on the openness of Blender. I can relate an agree with some of the points on both parties.
But while I applaud Blender for going constantly forward I lament that they leave some basic UI and organisation necessities unfinished too long,in pursuit of features that are a bit more outlandish.
2.5 was a giant leap in the UI and it got a sceptic like me,that had tried Blender 2 times before (and abandonned it because I didn’t get how it worked),finally on board.
But since then it has remained stagnant. It is my understanding when I read comments from developpers that UI and organisation issues (outliner,shelves…) a lot of times get delayed and delayed. …
Sure a lot of people have strong feelings about UI,but make a decision! ANY decision! Might not be a popular one,but any progress is better then none. (as long as it’s sensible and smart)
If the program is more fun to use->more people use it->more testers->more committers(?) ->more progress
I might be wrong tho…
Understand that point of view, but even in software that have it, all of the modelers I’ve seen turn it off cause they find it distracting (and in some worst cases may trigger epilepsy) especially if you’re constantly selecting verts/edges/faces the whole day.
What about altering the cursor slightly when a selection is possible? For example by adding a [very] small stylized hand on the bottom right corner of it or a letter? (G for grab?)
=> 
Just brainstorming, not actually serious.
When such things, like “Someone is against pre-selection highlighting, even as an option” are said, it just blows my mind. I cannot comprehend the reasoning behind that.
1 Like
Has there actually been a patch rejection of pre-selection highlighting? Only time I know of it being mentioned was on this page (under Pick a Project heading -> Add a feature). I’ve never heard the actual reasons against it though. I certainly would prefer it over the current “guess and check” method of selection.
1 Like
I think it would be fine in object mode as an option, but not a default.
Also that manipulator handle highlighting thing would be fantastic as well as the ability to see it while it is moving. I never understood why they disappear.
For example, at the conclusion of my GSoC I intend to release a demo build of Blender showing “What could be” - it’ll have all of my UI work some prototype designs built using the tools I’m going to be building during this project.
This is honestly what I was going to suggest, and perhaps you could put them on graphicall to get user feedback on which things they like / dislike?
I agree with that.
1 Like