[Bf-funboard] (Luke) Re: layers vs. groups, and "no render".

ph bf-funboard@blender.org
Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:59:33 +0100


----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Winters <z3r0_d@yahoo.com>
To: <bf-funboard@blender.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Bf-funboard] (Luke) Re: layers vs. groups, and "no render".


> Ok, I am coming into this late
>
> but is there really a problem with the way blender's
> layers are set up now?
>
> (and please don't change terms on me, it is no fun to
> explain "layer buttons" in pre 2.35 "group dialog"
> after it, or something)
>

  It's not a problem at all. Just another in my opinion great but special
aspect of my favourite application. The way layers are set up now enables
you to have one object on multiple layers. So previous 2d experience may not
prepare properly for all the nice effects that are possible with this.
related topic: Would be interesting to know how many people use background
scenes to their advantage.

>As far as the reason why goes, I think the name "layer" isn't an accurate
>one. In every single program I know of that has layers, objects only exist
>in one layer. But it is fairly logical that an object can be a member of
>many groups.
>In many places, Blender reinforces the idea that objects can only exist in
>one layer... in the lamps buttons a button is called "Layer" and the
tooltip
>is "...in the same layer only". And the object menu has the item "Move to
>layer..." The user has to shift-click to select more than one layer, but
>they mightn't even try that since the term "layer" and Blender's text
>implies that objects are only allowed to be in one layer.
>If it was named "groups" (and "move to groups") it would be intuitive that
>an object can be a member of many groups.

This is unfair argumentation. Your main points are:

the usability of layers is crippled in other applications.
we use 'layer' instead of the plural.

ok, include better tooltips like 'move to layer(s)' and you are done.

Peter Haehnlein