Checked the Rake options in the latest Sculpt Dev build (Oct 18), and the slowdown issues have been solved. Great work, Joe. 
4 Likes
This tool is an active version of Mask Expand tool (Shift A).
But Joe did not expose all abilities of the tool as settings.
Pablo wanted interactive adjustment texturing of boundary of mask expanded.
So, he set T and Y shortcuts to increase/decrease texture border interactively.
But the global set-up of texture sucks.
You have to select a common brush to be able to set-up mapping of texture.
So, you have to add texture to a brush that is another tool.
Only type of mapping recognized for that is 3D.
So, you have to set texture mapping to 3D instead of tiled by default.
Then, when you use the tool, you have to press Y to see the boundary of mask modified.
(You can only have a clue if mapping transforms of texture are correct at that moment.
If it is not the case, you have to cancel to modify brush settings.)
Boundary is modified by expanding in both direction from cursor. So, you have to move cursor each time you press Y.
If you go too far, you have to press T to go back to previous margin.
I would prefer to press a key to lock external boundary of mask, and then press another one to lock end of texture. I also would like something like that to define gradient.
Or I would prefer sliders in active tool panel to set-up gradient and texture.
Anyways, user has no way to know if mapping is correct.
He has to do several tries and cancellations because there is no visual feedback before activation of the tool.
So, textured mask with expand tool sucks. You have more chance to achieve what you want by using a textured Mask Brush. (The only other mask tool that supports textures)
2 Likes
fun that there is nothing changed in the patch for a year, and it is committed like it is. Just becouse of a discussions it was not committed so long.
And there a lot of such patches from Pablo that can make my life easier, but they not committed becouse of disputes. 
7 Likes
Yeah yeah, very disappointing…
3 Likes
I agree. The devs can have a pretty spotty track record with revisiting old patches at times despite new revisions being done many months ago. I honestly get the feeling that there is no priority list for patch reviews and the newest ones pretty much always get all the attention at the expense of older ones.
Heck, I remember when there was a minor improvement patch done to Voxel Remesher that would better retain the details after remesh, but was delayed for many months despite getting the approval to be added to master. This was also Pablo mind you, so I am not pointing any specific finger on any dev as being more guilty of this. They’ve all done something similar at some point.
4 Likes
In fact, with differential, anybody can have any kind of list of patches based on their status and last update.
It looks like there are 60 patches accepted and ready to land.
But I don’t really understand how older patch with such status can be 5 years old.
The list should probably be cleaned up, with a new status : Forgotten, needs an update or Stand-by, good but let me explore something else or Wait a complementary one.
That does not really make sense to keep a patch with “ready to land” status, more than 15 months.
3 Likes
Maybe it’d be useful if the tokens you can award to a task over at Developer.blender.org would count as importance votes. A better registration to avoid fake accounts would be needed for that though I guess.
3 Likes
1 Like
maybe sync with blender ID , so people who donate can vote ) would be one more reason for people to support blender devfund .
4 Likes
I already liked this post in 2020. Nothing changed from that time for a better review of community patches in my opinion. I think a lot of people stop contributing patches because of it
https://developer.blender.org/D9292
https://developer.blender.org/D6385
https://developer.blender.org/D7644
https://developer.blender.org/D8104
4 patches I would love to see in sculptdev branch . But they need some code updates.
We need someone fulltime for paint-sculpt . Paint especially look abandoned
9 Likes
Multires support for sculpt vertex color would be super important for me. Thats one reason i have to use ZBrush from time to time.
4 Likes
I feel this idea is kind of debatable. Wouldn’t this introduce some kind of ‘whoever screams loudest, gets served first’-logic?
Just look at this very thread: With regard to the news Pablo Dobarro quits Blender development, s.o. mentioned the critics (of Dobarro’s art/work/priorities) being a minority, but very loud.
Maybe true, but the same can be said about the whole Sculptor-subset of Blender-Users. This thread has 8.8k replies now. Over 2k of which from the three most frequent contributers, over 3k from the top five.
Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But can you name three other areas of Blender development which received a comparable amount of attention on BA?
- I can’t. The closest thing (in terms of receiving constant attention here since 2.8) seems geometry nodes. That thread counts 1.7k replies and even if you’d add in the replies from the late Everything Nodes thread (665), that’s less noise than the four top contributors in this thread here.
Not even Eevee or the Asset Browser have ever received a fraction of the attention (if BA is anything to go by), since the start of the 2.8-project.
Take GreasePencil as an example: It receives a constant stream of development-efforts and zero community attention in the same timeframe. Not surprisingly, GreasePencil commits have on average 0-1 token on dbo.
Aside from that, what if a patch isn’t included for valid reasons (lacks proper design, waits for other tasks it depends on etc.) but has a lot of tokens (community upvotes)?
greetings, Kologe
10 Likes
Good points. I guess the user validation procedure should be tightened to avoid fake votes, but if something like the token-based priority voting isn’t introduced, the river between Blender developers and Blender users will remain unbridged.
6 Likes
Yea I always thought that people that are members of Dev Fund could vote for some kind of features or priority…
Those are the advantages :
-Encourage ppl to be members of the Dev Fund because it gives you something in return.
-Give a voice to the community
-Could bring some money to hire more devs
Disadvantages :
-If the community want a features but there is no dev with knowledge to implement it, what should we do ?
-Should there be a pre-made list of priority to choose from ?
-Should Blender out-source those community request, since you can’t expect Dev to be specialist of everything ?
-What if the code out-sourced is not to the quality required for a commit ? Will people accept that their money is ‘‘lost’’ or that there need to be a redesign…
For me something like this should be more seen to bring more money to the project. In terms of security it is also good. Imagine if a few Big players (Patron members) decide to quit… That is why Blender (and FOSS in general, as Godot and Krita) should try to diversify their income source.
For instance…
-Krita is sold on Steam, Google Play, Microsoft and Epic store and also on Ipad (i think). You can get free Krita on Krita.org, but selling Krita through those platform is a big part of their revenue.
The ‘‘problem’’ with Open Source is that you can’t really sell your software (minus Armory paint + Krita).
But donation has his limit. You can see this with Dev Fund… For a few month now, individual donation has not increase, although I’m sure the number of users has.
So how do you make more money ? I think you have to ‘‘sell’’ something. So it could be either Blender Cloud or a small ‘‘koken-based priority voting’’ as you have propose or whatever.
But generally, people want to have something back when they support a project. Something that others people doesn’t have (ak free Blender).
That is what people who support Kickstarter project or Patreon have.
For instance.
You can have Godot for free, but if you are a Patreon member, you have access to those ‘‘perks’’.
And there is nothing in place to encourage you to give more than the bare minimum (6$) to the Dev Fund (minus the badge, which only show on Blender community, btw…)
Anyway, enough rambling.
Sorry to have diverted this thread a bit.
Ending note : Overal, Blender is very well manage, more so that many private company.
7 Likes
I would invest some money in the Blender Foundation if i knew the money goes towards sculpt and painting tools. Just saying.
9 Likes
I am already blender dev fund member , but I would definitely put additional money just for sculpt/paint development too.
8 Likes
Yes,
I already give to the Dev Fund… But I would certainly give a bit more if there was money going directly to the sculpt branch.
I know Pablo had a Patreon, not sure if @joeedh would be interested in doing something similar…
At the same time, if you have a Patreon, you are kind of ‘‘obligated’’ to give result and work on your stuff.
You also have to manage your Patreon page.
All of this takes additional time…
Not sure if that is someting Joseph would be interested in ?
6 Likes