There is a luminosity/brightness falloff in wireframe mode (and others), kind of Fresnel where middle part verteces are grey while outside verteces are default black. Personally it’s really frustrating and uncomfortable feelng for eyes while modeling. Is it possible to turn this feature off at least at wireframe mode? Or it’s “drawback” of switching to new viewport render engine?
p.s.: I tried to switch everything possible but it remains in any mode and conditions.
Trying up this issue, any help? Did somebody can push this topic to developers?
No offence, I know development is hard, but while people worry about placement of viewport buttons and hotkeys, some really work-related features miss functionality / “downgraded”.
The reason this exists, is that in 2.79 and earlier, dense meshes are impossible to read as a wireframe. Case in point:
2.79:
2.8 alpha:
With the top image, you have no chance at seeing what is going on - it’s just a black blob, whereas in 2.8, you can clearly make out the edge flow and the shape of the object.
Readable or not, nobody will edit meshes so dense without hiding and zooming in.
In second picture, global shape is readable but small faces are still indistinguishable.
Nobody will use modeling tools used for box modelling, for transforming edges and vertices with these kind of meshes.
You will use modifiers to decimate,remesh or smooth them or you will use dyntopo to decimate them.
They will be transformed by deformers like lattice or will be subject of vertex painting, vertex weight painting.
To sum-up, Edit Mode is not the mode that will be used with that kind of meshes. So, we don’t care about the display of that type of meshes in that mode.
That is a way to show wires in Sculpt Mode or Object Mode but sincerely, common case for modelers in Edit Mode is the 32 segments 16 rings sphere, not the suzanne subdivided 3 times.
For that case, people want Optimal Display and Editing Cage back.
The original question was not about Optimal Display or Editing Cage, but about why there is a fresnel-like falloff in wireframes. The given example is just a regular mesh subdivided a few times, and the problem is pervasive, because even low poly objects will be unreadable at smaller sizes without it.
You could say that users should always work with very low-poly meshes, but surely the goal of the viewport is clear, readable display of both low and high poly objects.
Actually it IS about wireframe display while editing meshes as pictures are shown above. Sorry if it wasn’t obvious. We need a clear CAD like view for comfortable modeling.
For other modes like “beaty” or “presentation” this “inverted frenel-like” effect may be ok.
The edit mode cage view is not currently working yet because of underlying changes. That is why all the modifiers are not visible in Edit Mode. Yes, of course the cage should be clear, whenever that gets added back.
No, nobody will work on something that he does not perceive.
When you are on edit mode, you don’t work on wireframe. You work on Faces, Edges or Vertices.
You are creating a problem for a case that does not exist.
If a user work on a low poly mesh, he will adapt its view to have this low poly mesh taking the entire space of his screen.
He will not keep it at the left bottom corner to extrude it in an area that corresponds to the tenth of his screen.
The goal to acheive here is not just readability. It is a readability for pertinent content. And wireframe of dense meshes is not pertinent content in context of edit mode.
I see, just hope old “clear” wireframe cage will be there in final release.
Well, that is somewhat of a circular argument, because without the fresnel it is not perceivable, so it’s wasn’t possible before.
Ultimately, the goal is for both dense meshes, or meshes viewed at a distance, to be readable to the user, so you can see if, say, the monkey is pointing towards you or away from you, as an example.
Here is a selected mesh, in 2.79 on the left, and with the exact same density in 2.8 on the right.
On the image on the right, you both see the mesh and the form of the object clearly, whereas the object on the left is basically a silhouette of noise.
There is a more a “hidden wire” option on your 2.8 picture that fresnel effect I mean in this topic.
Actually it’s possible to achive even in 2.7 too with hidden wire option on (sure it hasn’t anti-aliased wire due old opengl viewport).
This is an out of scope reply.
Nobody denies that is a better display for Object mode.
I also wrote : it will be great for Sculpt mode and Vertex/Weight Paint modes.
My point is that we don’t care in EDIT MODE. The wireframe fancy effects in edit mode are disturbing.
We don’t want them in this mode.
Why ? Because we already saw the object in object mode, we already know to what its shape looks like.
We saw it in solid mode with EEVEE shaders and fancy stuff, etc…
We wil work on other things in EDIT MODE. And it is where we are expecting Workbench to help us.
The question is no more : Is this edge nearer than this one ?
The fact that selection is by default limited to visible elements is already answering this question.
The question is : Are theses edges aligned, are they in same plane ?
Is this edge loop in the middle of this edge ring ?
Is this angle a right angle ?
Have this edges same length ?
We want to see face dots to know that we are selecting faces and not edges.
We want to see UVseams, Edge Creases, Freestyle Edges (overlay is missing for this one) …
We don’t want the same solution used for all modes.
Even if you enable Hidden Wire in 2.79, which is only for Shaded Edit Mode, and so is quite obscure, the difference is still quite big:
The area around the eyes and face becomes a solid blob on the left, but with a readable shape on the right
It seems like topic is completed. Thank you for discussioin guys! I posted my issue at devtalk.
While in edit mode the wire frame becomes almost unreadable if you arent zoomed in very close and i have notice there is a lot of atifacting with the wires
Like usual, I would make the argument that no one’s opinion on matters such as this speaks for everyone in the community. I for one would love to be able to make out the object in a better manner in wireframe mode and during editmode (because we have far less guesswork as to where we are clicking when we also want to keep the larger scene context in mind).
In a way, it sounds like yet another case of people just not wanting it because the industry at large doesn’t make any use of such (so we shouldn’t try to do something better and instead let the standard place a hard limit on workflow innovation). Sometimes, you never know how useful a feature is until one actually works with it.
It is not the case, here.Fresnel effect just gave feeling of curved lines when you try to appreciate straight lines.
I use the word “We” because I know that I am not alone. I am not the author of this thread and I also saw video about pitiwazou complaining about all work done on wireframe.
On the contrary, I did not really see a modeler making a demo showing how it is helping him while working with a dense mesh. I only saw great screencapture, render of what an already made dense object looks like. But no demo of a WIP with several steps showing a real benefit during creation process.
Go ahead. Prove me I am wrong. But with real points. Not just preconceptions (you just have to get used to it).
From where does come this weird idea that modelers don’t focus on mesh parts they will work on.
That they don’t hide occluding parts of meshes.
They don’t do the prop design with larger scene context, first. It have to work on its own, first.
Anyways, model adjustment will be inspected under 3 or 4 angles before being validated. Skipping zoom in/zoom out would correspond to skipping an inspection point of view.
From where does come this weird idea that we need a percentage of the wire witg a default at 0.5.
We don’t. We just need a full and an optimized one.
Nobody complains about experimentation or research. But there is a moment when it should be connected to a certain reality.
If no benefit have been found and at the opposite an annoyance have been detected, just don’t pursue in that way.
The final two points are just examples brought up previously in the forum. On that, I also think the point of getting people to switch to Blender is partially defeated if we try to enforce an “Autodesk leads, we follow” paradigm.
One final thought on the subject itself. I guess there could be some automated tweaking on the fresnal effect if the mesh is not so dense (perhaps based on the average face size in screen space).
I zoom first. Then, I do a selection. If selection is done from a previous editing, I zoom on selection.
And at this moment, there is no more blob.
Wireframe is great to select both at same time (What is in foreground and what is in background).
Or to place something in background according to foreground elements.
But if I want to select something that is behind what is in foreground without using foreground, It just mean that I am in wrong view to do it or I did not hide what I should have hidden.
You don’t have to. You just have to zoom on area of interest. Go back to object and frame active object.
Shift B Numpad “.” Home
3 keys about basics of view navigation.
Shift Numpad 1, Shift Numpad 7, Shift Numpad3, etc… Advanced keys of view navigation to be more efficient.
That’s a strength of Blender. Numpad keys to navigate instead of mouse scrolling.
Out of scope. We have 3D Cursor to manage objects placement. What is the relation with wireframe?
