Can’t think of a reason that should change, unless it’s face set visibility, in which case it would never be 0 unless everything is hidden? I think 0 is fine, at least with me.
Weird one… lol
Looks like Total / Selected… 
But since vertex selection basically doesn’t exist in sculpt mode it says 0?
Maybe that 0 should go…
@Harley Face sets do not change the values and neither does masking for that matter.
Same for Multires levels making no difference.
I honestly have no clue what it does. Is there any documentation in the code base perhaps that might give a clue?
Only thing I have seen that changes the display of the numbers is when Dyntopo is activated. The 0 gets completely removed in those cases.
1 Like
I think I never saw anything different than a 0 there. To me this is some WIP statistics mockup rest that slipped through and nobody ever noticed. Is there a variable behind it?
1 Like
Sort of. The first value is from a function specifically to get faces while in sculpt mode (differs depending on things I have no knowledge of like PBVH_FACES versus PBVH_GRIDS versus PBVH_BMESH). But the second value seems to be the regular count of faces but is not actually counted while in sculpt mode. But that seems unlikely since it would be a weird thing that nobody noticed and filed a bug report on.
Version 2.91 showed one value for each of vertices, edges, faces, and triangles. Version 3.0 on started showing just vertices and faces with this extra zero.
I think it is just something to remove rather than fix, but want to make sure since I don’t know this area.
2 Likes
Ok . yes the former values sound like that way it gets the info directly from the bvh structure, the PBVH_BMESH might be a mapping/linking to bmesh data, Idk . I downloaded 2.93.14 and tested it a bit and indeed the values are filled there. But they are indentical or show the unindexed versus indexed versions values like in case of the subdiv surface modifier. So yes I also think there were different ways to get the info for stats display and for debugging reasons both were displayed. I mean you should ask someone who directly worked on that, but its a relatively safe bet, that its outdated and just not updated in the stats.
All that does no longer fill these values in 3.5
Who said it is an either, or choice? Maybe structuring the data better helps to get the base features implemented more easily 
By the way: is this just me or does the community seem to be much more positive and appreciative of Joe’s work now thay we know what happened to Pablo?
I am really digging the new blog posts and openness on the development plans as well as that the Blender devs actively participate here. Really good stuff to see.
1 Like
Yes true, but the dyntopo stats are like that since 2.8 ( status bar info) and then 2.9 in the viewport stats.
1 Like
For digit grouping? This project, for good or ill, follows American standards and English countries typically use commas for digit grouping and small dot on the baseline for decimal place.
I have proposed in the past to make this an option, but that adds a lot more complexity than you’d guess.
Personally I would be happier following the style of IBWM, IUPAC, AMA, and others, and use a thinspace or space.
6 Likes
This one of the few areas where I’d tolerate icons instead of text labels.
1 Like
I am overall very happy with the engagement that the devs have had with the community over the last month or so. It’s nice seeing people like Julien talking with everyone in this thread as well as seeing the sculpt branch getting some needed attention in regards to the meetings, having a scheduled plan for implementing new features/changes, etc.
Before it didn’t feel like Sculpt Mode was a part of the overall vision of Blender, but with the plans for revamping textures, painting, etc. Sculpt Mode is becoming the backbone for implementing features that people have been asking for for years. What benefits Sculpt Mode benefits the rest of Blender. I am a lot more optimistic now than I was back in 2022.
Hope they keep at it! 
5 Likes
Yes space would have been the nicer option, but overall not that important.
Definitely! Let’s keep this positive (constructive) feedback loop up! And give praise where praise is due
1 Like
@kkar Does it make sense to use Annotate instead, as that is supported in all modes and should be perfect for these cases. The 3D cursor is usually more used as a pivot point or target for operations.
1 Like
3D Cursor is needed for Annotate tool.
Placement of strokes from Annotate tool is based on 3D Cursor position, if strokes are not projected on a mesh or following View.
So, 3D Cursor is the default placement for the tool, because that is most useful.
That does not make sense to hope to replace 3D Cursor by an Annotate tool that is totally dependent of it.
That is stupid to have an annotate tool just to create points on surfaces.
When the tool should be able to draw 3D sketches of limits of surfaces before creating them, deforming them.
Why user should be forced to switch visibility of its model and a mesh plane (that has to be created and placed outside of Sculpt mode) to be able to draw references, when displaying a more discrete 3D cursor (that can be shown simultaneously with model) is sufficient in all other modes ?
3 Likes
Well, the 3d cursor is unobtrusive and very precise with location snapping, plus it can be moved around with a single click depending on your mouse key combo. Since it is a modeling aid, it can also help with adding more objects in place for sculpting as needed.
I am sure the annotate function can still be used as a workaround, but I still do not get why it is literally disabled in the sculpt mode. We know it is there, it is just that it can’t be made visible. Why not just make it invisible by default in the sculpt mode and let the user decide how they want to utilize it.
2 Likes
Interesting. It’s been in Blender since forever that overlays like the Origin and 3D Cursor are hidden in sculpt mode and the painting modes.
Mainly because they are obtrusive and not really used for anything in those modes.
From my own point of view, it always felt intuitive to me that I don’t have to worry about those overlays when entering these modes. Managing their visibility could get very annoying.
But workspaces provide more customizability nowadays … although I feel like not many are using them. Would be interesting to test out showing the 3D cursor and origin in any mode, no matter what
8 Likes
I do not think that anyone is disputing that. My point is that there is no need to have it literally disabled in the sculpt mode such that it is not possible to make it usable in there. It can be invisible by default, and the user can enable it if needed.
3 Likes
Yes. Basically, before 2.8, Origin and 3D Cursor were not overlays that could be displayed or hidden at will by user.
Since 2.8, we have that ability. That is a pity to neglect it and get stuck with 2.79 limits in Blender 3.
3D View customizability has not been pushed enough.
We have 4 display modes inspired from old ones present in 2.79.
But the initial 2.8 idea was to provide ability to create custom display presets.
If we had custom display presets, we could choose to bind them to modes, for people that don’t use workspaces.
4 Likes