By the way, if every section header had a preset button, then you could save presets for every bit of data. All you would need to do it set the preset instead of opening the header. Then you could just work with everything closed up all the time. And then… you’d never have to scroll.
BTW, I really don’t care at all about scrolling. I do it all day in every program I use and it has never bothered me before. (just my personal feeling about it)
i think they should do it like zbrush for scrolling it also suffers from long list of panels
reverse the way you open the panels since you generally work on one single panel at the time …Mouse Click opens only current panel and close all the others, and Shfit+Click it adds…right now it is reversed with Ctrl.
Mh. Imo, the vertical layout looks much cleaner and comprehensible. Much more relaxing for my eyes, no nibbling on horizontal granola bar.
What do you consider to be too long?
In my own workflow, the Properties editor and the Outliner often are both in one column. I would consider it too long, if I have to shrink properties editor (to a degree I have to scroll for tabs) to prevent it from squeezing the Outliner to a degree I have problems using it productively.
In todays linux blender build I did not got the 2nd render tab, but it looks like there is enough room. Properties editor and Outliner fit nicely into a single column.
In most of cases, you don"t consider dimensions or extension format of your rendered image as the last minute setting that will boost its quality.
It is generally more the constraint of the product to deliver. So, there will probably have almost no back and forth at all between a render ouput tab and a render settings tab.
That will not be a nightmare to deal with these two tabs.
Now I wish all the rendering related settings were removed from the properties editor. They could make a special “Rendering settings” editor as a floating windows (like most 3d apps out there), similar like the way the Preferences window is at moment.
Resolution should be per camera. I’m not sure how it’s ever made any sense to be per scene… the viewport should be treated like a proper camera too, capable of accessing and previewing all camera specific effects.
they are going to add a search bar in the previous horizontal header , my concern, is it will be over flooded with Icons and Info especially in the 2D Animation template, maybe a preset system like @Indy_logic suggested should be considered.
I am really, really happy about this. Currently, render-related settings are all over the place in almost every tab, and it creates quite a mess.
Honestly, I believe that sampling settings of environment light like MIS belong into render settings as well, so does the “Simplify” rollout in the scene tab. When working with and tweaking Cycles, you have to constantly shuffle between 3-4 tabs.
Because of compositor or video sequencer post-processing.
It is unaware of which camera is used. If you make a render using a compositing effect dependent of a certain size, it may be ruined if you switch to a camera using another resolution.
If you make resolution per camera, post-processing enabling should be per camera, too.
At that moment, you would have to be careful while rendering animations and check all cameras of used scenes. And you would probably want performance settings per camera, too.
But you are right, if additional camera are present to control different angles and produce only stills : format is rarely the same. We try to adapt it and image composition to showed angle.
And it is a little bit weird to create a copied scene or only save one of used resolutions in .blend file or use a script or an addon.
That is true but that does not mean that is a mess. MIS settings of world are in World properties like MIS Settings of lamps are in Lamp properties and MIS settings of materials are in Material properties.
That’s a per element scattering to make per element adjustment.
There is no reason to consider MIS settings of World a more global setting than world background shader strength.
The split with output settings is helping a little bit. But Lighting will continue to be a complex work involving every element in your scene. You will continue to shuffle between properties editor tab, outliner and node editor, anyways.
It is still in scene tab. But it would make sense to have it in render settings. Performance panel have also settings for viewport. And basically, when we are working with eevee, tweaking of viewport settings and render settings becomes almost same exercise.
I think it is better to avoid to try to maintain ordering.
If you prefer an engine for a specific type of effect and never use the other engine for this effect, importance of panel is probably not the same in each tab config. As a consequence, there is probably one engine that would have corresponding panel closed at the end of the list and at the other hand, for the other engine it would be at the middle.
When you are making test renders to compare EEVEE and Cycles that makes sense to expect same effect setting at same place. But this is something that you will do when learning the engines. Not after decision to use one engine for one production have been taken.
Currently, user can set each tab config as he wants and save that as his start-up file.
Or he can give same position to color management, Film, Freestyle panels, etc… and save this as his startup file.
Currently, user is free. I don’t think it would be a good idea to impose an automatic reordering to users who don’t want that.
Only for one render engine, in the other the order will be ordered at the discretion of Blender, as shown in the gif.
I’m not sure if I was clear, just in case:
The problem I’m referring to is that when you modify the order of items while in a render engine, then when you switch to another render engine, the order of the items you had later are automatically disordered according to some criteria that Blender chooses. So you could perhaps configure the order for a single render engine and save the startup file, but for the other render engine the items would be ordered according to the criteria that blender chose.
To my way of seeing it, Blender is imposing an automatic reordering for the render engine in which you are not configuring the order of the items.
So if that’s what you were referring to, sorry then, I was the one who is misinterpreting you.
You are right. Some panels are reordered but not all panels and not always.
I succeeded to make a similar ordering for both engines and save it as startup file.
But a reordering after that for one engine destroyed it for the other one.
It looks like a bug more than an intended behavior.