I’m not doing that.
1 Like
Well, if you look hard enough, you might find something to complain about once the first iteration of the initial ideas start going into dev. builds. The community here never fails on that front, especially since it soon can’t complain about editmode and OSD performance anymore 
3 Likes
I suppose Pablo want his zbrush a like 2.5 D viewport, split edit mode to have a better CAD is fine just like specific tools to do retopology, about the Multi data type tools it could be nice to have some basics tools that works everywhere and idk what he want to do with the workspaces really …
As I said before I don’t want to jump into conclusions just yet, because that post is VERY vague, but is hard not to feel like the proposed new modes are a step backwards…
If anything Blender should have less modes. One for dealing with objects (Object Mode), one for mesh editing, including UVs and attributes (Edit Mode), and one for Sculpt AND Paint (Sculpt Mode).
This post outlines the more general ideas of the design, without going into any details on how the implementation or the final product will look like. More detailed documents about the whole design and implementation are being worked on and they will be published soon.
I think main problem with this post is that there is no real details, they will be later. There are some examples but it’s clearly not enough to understand.
While there are several topics to discuss I want to note this from blog:
For example, after the reorganization, the same sculpting functionality will still be available as a subset of features of the Freeform Mode, which now has a much broader scope.
So there will be no more “Sculpt mode” or you could say that Sculpt mode will be expanded.
We are all understanding that Freeform is another name for sculpt mode.
CAD mode for mechanical shapes would probably contain new snapping tools, boolean operations, tools to make cuts, to extrude, to bevel.
So, that could mean that Object mode or Edit mode could loose some tools ;
or tools could be doubled, present into several modes ;
or this new mode could contain only new tools.
Although Edit/Object modes could stay unchanged, that still means that somebody loving new tools could be forced to jump between CAD/Object/Edit modes, several times, in middle of his modeling session, more often than between Object/Edit modes.
Attribute Edit was supposed to replace Weight Paint mode in previous proposal. But now, weight paint mode seems to be preserved.
So, it is not clear what will be the differences with Layout/Topology and Attribute Edit.
What is the difference between “Controls the source data” and “Prepares the data” ?
An attribute could be normals, UVs, Vertex Groups or a custom attribute for geometry nodes.
That is legitimate to build a mode for that. (But why 2 modes ?)
And nobody would like to loose selection tools in these modes or use of vertex groups in edit mode.
Modes will contain all features that have a common purpose, regardless of the target data type or workflow stage.
I am afraid that people will not agree about what tools have a common purpose and what tools don’t.
1 Like
Freeform makes it sound like the rewritten Dyntopo system from Joseph will form a major part of the new sculpt mode (where you now have resolution-independent, unlimited sculpting with data preservation). Of course it sounds like multires will stay put as well, but in a modernized state.
In all, the main point to be addressed as it seems is to figure out how to sort workspaces, tools, and modes in a clear cut and organized way (which would leave no ambiguity and provide a clear division in terms of purpose, that is assuming the way they work change at all).
2 Likes
I am a little bit lost.
What was previously announced by Pablo was : the end of mode switches between Dyntopo ON / Dyntopo OFF to make dyntopo use, a property of the brush.
But you are partially right. It is specified that is for base shape.
the same sculpting functionality will still be available as a subset of features of the Freeform Mode, which now has a much broader scope.
But if scope is broader, now ; how Freeform Mode could be less versatile and maintain same functionality at same time ?
Problem is that a simple versatile tool can have many different uses by different people purchasing different purposes.
I think that people attributing a purpose to a tool may have a narrowed vision of its potential.
I think that trying to classify modeling tools between mechanical shapes and organic shapes does not make sense.
I am thinking in terms of volumes or surfaces. I am adding volume, subtracting volume.
I am extruding a surface, cutting/gluing a surface, folding a surface.
1 Like
Whoa… that blog post looks like a bad dream… 
1 Like
Pablo has proven himself that he know what he is doing. Let’s give him the benefit of doubt.
11 Likes
It might be a good idea for Pablo to let another artist the spotlight on social media when it’s time to demonstrate how the tools can be used. This way of thinking is extremely common across the community.
2 Likes
Sounds to me dev’s overall intent is to get as close to artists-friendly WYSIWYG modern viewport? If so, great…
I’m definitely excited that Blender’s awesome Sculpt mode Pose brush and Keymesh will get more dev attention.
User type ref: I’m a ZBrush intermediate (former iClone/Daz/Carrara) who rigs animates mid-poly & renders in Blender, used Blender cumulatively 6 months since 2.80. Initially I struggled a lot with mode jumping, and (having to think about) the separation of Model/Sculpt/Paint. For these 2 reasons alone I avoid getting too deep with Blender’s mesh creation and texturing functions.
Now I exclusively use painstakingly customized Workplaces to ONE CLICK mode switch. Also because mode = function = different shading.
I hope to settle to around 5 frequently used Workplaces with defaulted modes, and to see Model Sculpt or Paint (incl weight/ vertex/ GN instances paint) not as entering/exiting a room, but as just tools sitting on Editor shelves. I pick up a brush asset, it automatically enters its appropriate “mode” in that Workplace. I expect to spend most time in Main Workplace (set to Object mode) laying out assets and scenes and rendering away…
In short, be it for asset creation or character/ large scene animations, I reckon asset workflow modernization = unification, not more splitting. Convergence of Workplaces with Modes, and Editors with Tools, will be more artists-friendly.
Just 2 cents from an intermediate generalist.
What if CAD mode has 28 tools and 96 operators that really make zero sense for any other category of activity. Does it really make sense to add those 28 tools to the existing edit mode toolbar?
And what if the changes that allow for the creation of CAD mode make it even easier for Hardops and mesh machine to really go crazy with UI and editing features? Happier addon devs, happier addon users, maybe.
3 Likes
What if all your addons stop working for no good reason with no guarantee their authors will update them?
It has been a long time since I have seen such a colorful reaction to a general development plan. Also, Pablo has proven (IMHO) to know what he’s doing. You people can disagree with his art style all you want, but that’s another totally different issue.
Let’s just give the guy the benefit of doubt (By FAR he deserves this much). After all, one of the reasons developers doesn’t even want to touch this forum nowadays is the overreaction from people when something is going to change.
10 Likes
It’s not an overreaction. This looks like yet another big project that will take a heck of a lot of time and resources and will bring no tangible benefit. All the while, the features we do actually want remain distant dreams.
1 Like
So Ton retweeted this
I think from that point we should drop thinking that it’s something Pablo gonna do or that it’s solely his thinking. This design reviewed and approved internally. Ton, other devs such as Brecht and people from studio.
Again, we don’t have much information, we still need to wait technical design. And all those changes is something I expect only in 4.0, two years later. There is time to see (and even try) what this really is.
5 Likes
Despite the amount of changes this design introduces, most of the development required to achieve the proposed product already happened (some of them are in master with a different UI, other in separate branches or disabled as experimental).
3 Likes
this can come as a separate editor with its own viewport optimized only for rendering as many polygons as possible and non real time mesh processing operations.
Imagine a viewport that is not expected to have to possibly switch to cyles, or eevee, or solid or wired or x-ray at a moments notice, not expected to display bone animation, not expected to work with any modifers except voxel remesh and decimate. There’s probably a hell of a lot of performance that can be gained by omitting a bunch of things that are irrelevant to the task of mirroring and welding together 80,000 verts along the seam of a 500 million poly model and then selecting the wrist and running shrink/fatten on it and then decimating it.
1 Like