New 2.8 UI is annoying

Right, which is why I don’t understand pipeline being brought up as a UX thing.

1 Like

You guys don’t really address the point of context switching at all, which is a huge thing for human psychology. If every other software uses left click and Maya style viewport navigation, going into Blender as a part of your pipeline will always be like swimming in tar.

3 Likes

Agreed its not a UX thing per say.

Also agreed, change is good if its needed, but we dont need to reinvent the wheel.

Im sure there are many artists at MPC, Framestore, Weta or the like using Maya who really dont care about Blender UI, it does not effect their day to day work. Im sure if they checked Blender in 2.8 many would be happy to see some of the changes that have happened.

After all its not like Blender turned up a couple of years ago its been around since the late 90’s i believe, so its no new kid on the block.

The blender team have decided that they wish to attract not only new users but also users who have a 3d background for many many years in other software. Old habits die hard and many of the things they are used to have become industry standards, thats not meaning industry standards are the best or indeed right but they are there none the less.

Also its very hard to compare one software over another, you can compare the base package that you get when you rent, buy or dowload it, however most studios dont use what you get as an individual user anyway, so many of the percieved problems in x or y software in a production environment do not exist.

Industry companies want the best tool, because they strive to output the best quality work most efficiently. That’s what defines quality (“best-ness”) of the tool. The ratio between output quality and efficiency.

There’s absolutely nothing virtuous about learning software that’s cumbersome to use. There’s nothing to be proud in it, at all. I don’t get the point you are trying to make that you are somehow better because you used Blender back in the day when it frustrating to learn. That you are the hero who was able to utilize all the good parts of Blender because you’ve defeated that monster of a learning curve.

The people who actually need to get the job done spent that time making loads of money and producing high end movies, commercials, visual effects and game art. There’s nothing to be proud of when it comes to overcoming heavy learning curve if there wasn’t sufficient return on investment.

If you have tool A that’s hard to learn, has poor plugin/renderer ecosystem, questionable performance and lack of professional support, and a tool B which is easy to pick up and learn, has rich commercial plugin ecosystem for high quality high complexity workfloads, performs well and is properly supported, they only contest ends up being the price mark, which for large studios is not an issue at all. So the choice is obvious.

You are calling all the large companies with dozens or even hundreds of employees short sighted. They’ve been constantly producing the best movie VFX we’ve ever seen, while you are just random guy some internet forum with nothing to show.

This makes even less sense. If they used 2.79, they would have increased time wasted learning and on top of that decreased efficiency. Blender 2.8 has became more efficient due to the improved UX changes, not less.

About the (Re)defining Blender page removal. I am very happy about it. It makes perfect sense. Almost no one gave crap about Blender for a decade as they were focusing on that mantra. Now as soon as they finally changed it and decided to go the “usability is priority” way, suddenly they are drowning in money. That’s no coincidence. It shows what aspects of the software people are willing to support with their wallets.

8 Likes

On a side note, you can create your own pie menus with:

This, very much this. I gave up on Blender so often in the past because it meant I would have to invest a huge amount of effort to learn how to do something to use it alongside my other software. Why bother? Then you go back to using the other software and have to remember to use that setup again. In a pipeline, the abiltiy to seamlessly shift means you get more options.

4 Likes

I didn’t say that, or make that point.

A lot of this is your own personal bias, I’ve seen you spout it time and again. It doesn’t negate any efficiencies blender does infact have in specific workflows, advantages and efficiencies you tend to deny.
Blender had, and still has, a workflow within it that is faster and more efficient, typically for modelling, than other software. But it’s hard to learn, not because it’s intended to be, but because it’s different, but its differences are what enable it to be fast. This is the modal/dual-hand/hotkey workflow a lot of people know and love.

I have to admit, I cringe when I see people use a gizmo.

Also, I’m pretty sure most people are only claiming one of those things changed. The learning curve. Or atleast that’s what the relevant discussion is on.

large companies make stupid decisions all the time. Big business is practically renown for it.

Money is not the best priority to make the best software package. The mantra used to be about making blender as good as it could be - that’s why people cared about it then, enough people to get it to here. Why is it better to placate the masses and shoot for cash, than it is to make the software as good as it can be, as a design goal? You could argue money = features, but then I’m not sure I’d want features that are designed to make money or placate ‘industry standards’, rather than ones that are designed (if slowly) to be the best they can be, even if whatever efficient workflow they come up with is non-standard.

Arguably we’re in a decent spot right now, placation enough to generate some cash, such that new features can be made. As long as the devs remember to create the best workflows they can, aswell as the ‘standard’ ones. Support for RCS and modal tools needs to be maintained and put into new features, or those features will be sorely lacking in blender’s fast and efficient workflows. My main concern with the removal of that mission statement, is the worry that now new features will be made standard and that’s it. No innovation, no efficiency, nothing. If support for RCS and modal tools ever drops off that will be the ultimate sign that the software has given up on being about an efficient workflow, in favour of adoption numbers.

Most software in the 3d market tries to make itself as workflow friendly as possible, the less clicks, keypresses and such the better, many of them have been doing that for years.

Which is why bledner developers made 2.8 because if they want to achieve their stated aim of getting more users not just new users then the biggest complaint from users of other packages was the UI/UX as someone from outside blender would say its a navigation and click nightmare.

Thats not users demanding it, it was users saying it and saying it was the reason they did not use blender, not because it could not do stuff but because it was hard to get to do this stuff with the current layout.

2.8 has gone some way to change that, its still a way to go as its still involves many clicks and such for some things.

Blender devs decided the change not users, they just respond to what users say, if Blender devs chose not to do this then so what, that is up to them, it does not effect those using other software packages.

Money is not a priority, but it certainly is needed after all not everyone is working for free and they have families and need to eat.

Ultimately if Blender Devs decide in the future they are going to do it their way and stuff what everyone else does thats their choice, no one is going to care outside of Blender users.

2 Likes

You are delusional. You keep speaking as if the success of Blender in recent year was a bad thing. Do you really think that more development resources for BF will mean worse features?

Things generally become standard because they are good. Industry standards have become standards because people preferred them. 2.8 is better in pretty much every way. You constantly keep looking backwards. If you do 3D for living, I’d be really surprised if you were able to survive, with your mindset.

4 Likes

I think that at most that’s an argument for left-click select working better than it did in 2.79 rather than an argument that it needed to be the default in order for blender to gain acceptance in the industry.

I don’t recall a stated aim of more users.

Measuring workflow in clicks/key-presses isn’t a true representation of a good workflow. I’m not sure it’d even be a good broad representation of a simple one, as the more things you put immediately accessible, the less compartmentalised and organised the UX becomes. As blender’s previous typical setup, whilst not ‘friendly’, it was efficient because it took advantage or parralelization, regardless of number of keypresses/clicks. It also tended to reduce the required mouse accuracy where possible (e.g. pressing g+x, the mouse can be anywhere, whereas clicking and holding the gizmo down requires decent accuracy, similarly holding a mouse button down whilst trying to precisely move the mouse it can be argued is somewhat more straining/difficult).

I’m also not entirely sure it was a click nightmare, and arguably it is actually more so now with the active tools if you use them, depending on your level of hotkey-use, or atleast the active tools tend to be more mouse-intensive. Everything used to be forced to modal tools which were all hotkeys all the time. So I think it was mostly other reasons users from other software didn’t like 2.79 and earlier.

I didn’t say it was bad, explicitly.
Also,

Things become standard because people get used to them, it has nothing to do with what’s ‘good’.

I don’t recall claiming it wasn’t.
This is largely because the defaults have settings to override them, however.

When I can reply to you by quoting myself and also just saying ‘I didn’t say that’, might I suggest you read my posts more carefully if you take issue with them.

1 Like

As much as I admire Ton and his stance on not wanting to chase the money making train to just fulfill shareholder quotas and stuff, the fact of the matter is that money is important. Very important in fact. If the Blender Foundation had no money, we would not have a guy like Pablo Dobarro actively developing Sculpt Mode full time. Odds are he would be picked up by some company that sees his skills as highly valuable to pay him for. We also wouldn’t have all the other wonderful and dedicated people able to clock in from 9 to 5 to fix the problems Blender has.

Having an open source project able to make money is an absolutely fantastic thing. Just look at Linux which is pulling in billions as the backbone of the internet. It’s in those moments you get the best of both worlds; accessibility for everyone and professional grade development. Imagine having a Development Fund that can employ over a 100 full time developers with a strong organisational backbone keeping the development focused and on track. Blender development would just simply skyrocket.

It is disheartening to see that you can’t be happy for the Blender Foundation for managing to gain some acceptance by companies where they actually make money to pay for some of the incredibly talented people who have kept the project alive.

2 Likes

Seriously, can people read my posts properly?

Yet you keep arguing that following industry standards are a bad thing, despite it was following more industry standards in 2.80 that got Blender that support. I am fully on board with rawalanche, your arguments don’t hold up to scrutiny. Your ideas of what make a good UI and user experience are fairly naive and your insistence that you know better than the industry that does this every day for a living is honestly quite nuts.

4 Likes

Where?
I don’t see that.

Point to it, quote it.

"I find this to be honestly hilarious.

All those things just because people couldn’t accept right-click-select, and modal tools.

Because by and large, those are the changes to the ux in 2.8. Most everything else is still roughly where it was, and looks very much similar, and works basically the same. The only significant exceptions are where things have changed to support new features.

Amazing how stubborn/short-sighted the industry appears from this, if you paint blender up like photoshop, go all mono-colour, add some big tool buttons and give them left-click, all of a sudden they see blender, it’s like they wanted blender but didn’t, because they couldn’t be arsed learning a new program."

Need I say more? Or do you want me to quote nearly every post?

1 Like

That doesn’t say that following industry standards (or rather, including them) is a bad thing.

That’s me finding it amusing how even when the toolset doesn’t drastically change, including industry standards all of a sudden garners attention. It’s me finding it amusing that people ignore the toolset simply because it’s not in a format they like.

I’m quite careful about what I write, generally. People typically find it difficult to twist my words. Maybe I missed something this time and you’ll find it, but looking through these posts, I doubt it.

Oh my gosh. Really guys, you think he was saying blender shouldn’t have supported these things? I haven’t read this whole thread, but from what I’ve seen, hes simply saying that its funny that people refused to look at blender before making these things the default. He wasn’t saying these changes shouldn’t have been made to blender.

You guys are talking as though hes saying left-click select shouldn’t have been improved or that folks from other software should have been forced to learn right-click select or something. Do you mean to tell me blender wouldn’t have gotten this new wave of funding if RMB-select and 2.7x keymap were highlighted by default when you start blender for the first time? I seriously doubt that. The main changes outside of improvement to these areas were the ones made to discoverablity. In my opinion that is the main reason blender has caught people’s attention. Ignoring the lack of active tools and refinements to LMB-select, all these options were configurable (and easily shareable) in the 2.7 series.

3 Likes

If I were in the market for a car, I would immediately discount one that had the accelerator and brake pedal reversed.

You might find it odd that I would not even listen to your arguments about how it is otherwise better. It could be best car ever, and I am not beyond training myself on that differing arrangement. But I would so quickly discount the car that I wouldn’t even entertain the thought of listening to its list of other features.

5 Likes