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

[Thorsten Wilms]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 11:26:55PM +1000, Luke Wenke wrote:
> 
> > For the object manager it wouldn't make much sense to talk about Layers.
> > But Groups, I don't know since there could be single objects in the tree.
> Sorry I don't understand what "single objects" are...

Entries in the manager could refer to single objects, like just a mesh.
Coulb be interpreted as a group with only 1 member. But one should be 
able to "unfold" groups for managing objects inside them, so there will 
be single objects (that are not groups) in the tree anyway.
 
> > Hmm, no change from now, besides you want to use "0" instead of "10"?
> > Better mapping with keys, but that's not much of a problem now. And
> > having the numbers going from 1 to 9, followed by 0 will look very
> strange.
> I just think it would be easier to learn the hotkeys if the numbers say
> "alt-0" instead of "20"... or "alt-3" instead of 13, etc. (And "0" instead
> of "10")

Sorry, didn't get this the first time. Ok labeling the asignment buttons 
with the actual shorcuts is a good idea.

> > > - Multiple objects or groups can be selected using shift-click or
> > > ctrl-click.
> > Shift-click yes, but ctrl-click?
> Well I was basing a lot of it on windows explorer, and to select and
> deselect spread out items, ctrl-click is used. To select a vertical list,
> you click on one item then shift click the other. Then those two items plus
> the ones inbetween are selected. That would make it quicker to select a few
> consecutive items. But I guess that is inconsistent with Blender so maybe
> only the usual shift-click selection should be used.

I was only thinking about Blender conventions. Good thing you bring up 
standart file manager behaviour. The problem of possible inconsistency can 
always be approached the other way around, that is adapting everything else 
(if the benefit is large enough).

 
> > > - The ability to swap group numbers using context menus.
> > Please explain what you mean exactly / in more detail.
> I mean you right-click on the groupmenu name and there is a pop-up menu and
> then it says "Swap with group..." and the submenu shows all the group names
> (not the group numbers). If you swap the groups then their orders (e.g.
> group 1 or group 2) instantly swap.


> >...And discussions about naming tend to be long and pointless.
> Ok... I should stop going on about that....

See, I'm on your side about old habits vs names that just make sense.
I might use whatever names I think are right in the proposal. And if 
something of it is going to be implemented, we would still have time to 
discuss naming.
 
> > No no, rendering should work exactly like visibility: if any of the
> "layers"
> > the object is "in" is set to render, the object will be rendered.
> Are you saying there is no "no render" icon? It sounds like there is a
> "render" icon instead. It could be a little red circle or square in the
> bottom right corner. The metaphor is that it is a recording light. i.e.
> "record this layer".

I wrote about indicating "no render" vs indicating "render" in the second 
"Mockup" section on my page about Layers.


> > But locking is realy problematic ...
> I thought it just means that the user can't toggle the visibility of the
> group/layer in the normal layer buttons. That seems fairly straightforward.

No. Ok, I see I have no explanation about it on my page, but it was in the 
firts post of Karim I linked to. Items on a locked layer cannot be edited 
(or even selected in Karim's version - I'm not sure about it). And visibility can 
not be toggled without unlocking. I wouldn't include this last restriction.



Thank you for bringing up some good points!

---
Thorsten