[Bf-funboard] editbuttons layout update.

William Reynish bf-funboard@blender.org
Wed, 15 Oct 2003 12:41:21 +0200 (CEST)


--0-1431722601-1066214481=:63320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>I didn't know you could rename vertex keys either! BTW, in your 
>mock-up, if
>they can be renamed they should be in a standard blender textbox.
 
Yes, the mockup was done fairly quickly. I agree the the names should look more like Blenders other textfields.
 
>It seems too tedious to open or close all of those 
>sliders....
>maybe there could be a button to show/hide [all the] sliders
 
Yes, that is a good idea. There could be one in the top saying Sliders wich you could collapse to collapse all the sliders.
 
 
>BTW, what are the
>sliders for anyway? Do they just adjust the levels at the keyframe? If 
>so,
>either a new keyframe for that thing would need to be created, or it 
>would
>act on the nearest keyframe. Maybe sliders are a bad idea... in RVK's 
>you
>can go beyond 1.0 to exaggerate things or even go negative (I think) to 
>do
>the inverse.
 
Have you not used the sliders in the action window? If you haven't, it proves that the sliders placement is illogical. If they had resided in the IPO window, maybe you would have found them. Anymway, sliders are extremely useful. Try them. Currently, if you want to get above 1.0 or below 0.0, you can either change the Min/Max slider values by pressing N over the slider name in the action window, or you can manually edit your RVKs in the IPO to move any keys above or below the slider maximums. The current sliders work extremely well, and I have found them very useful for facial animation, because you can see your changes instantly, and it is much easier and quicker to blend diferent shapes together. But they should be in the IPO window, and renaming, deleting or adding new RVKs should be easier, and more consistent with the rest of the program.
 
>I guess that would help, but maybe the borders aren't necessary - I 
>mean the
>buttons are already grouped quite clearly anyway, or at least they are 
>in
>the original blender.

Hmm.. I have to disagree. One of the main reasons for reorganising the button windows is that the buttons are currently placed quite illogically. I have showed the two versions (with and without borders) to my old dad(he doesn't know of Blender, but he understands how 3d work, and has used a few), and he thought the one with the borders was much clearer. He started guessing what the buttons did (sometimes correct, sometimes not though). With the one without the borders, he was just confused. He couldn't properly see what was what, and to him it looken alot more complicated.
 
I know my father cannot represent all newbies, but I agree with him that borders gives you a better overview, and you don't have to check if a button is in a specific group if you dont know it - you can instantly see it. It makes you dwell on the content of each group which is a very good thing. Also when collapsing panels, it should remove any confusion as to what is collapsed, and what is not.
 
>The vertices would have numbers. e.g. one would be called vertex 0, 
>another
>would be vertex 1, etc. Xsort would assign the vertices vertex numbers
>(vertex indices/indexes) according to its X position. Hash works out 
>the
>vertex numbers in a pseudo-random way... but if you keep on pressing >it 
>you
>keep getting the same result.
>You'd mainly use it for particles - if you want the particles to come 
>out in
>a fairly random way you'd use hash, otherwise you'd use Xsort to make 
>the
>particles begin in a very orderly "follow the leader" kind of way.

 
I'm sorry, but I still don't get it! :) I didn't know that the vertices had numbers!? And if they are for randomizing particles, why aren't they in the particles window?
 
>I can see Spin Dup and ExtrudeRepeat. No "Extrude Dup" or "Screw >Dup". 
>So
>there shouldn't be a big "Extrude/Screw/Spin Duplicates" button.

Check again. there is an "Extrude dupe" in the editbuttons. True that there is no Screw Dup, but that is a new feature in the new GUI :)
 
I think we are misunderstanding each other. It wouldn't work without the big "Extrude/Screw/Spin Duplicates" button. I made it instead of having Extrude, Spin, Screw, Extrude dupe, Spin dupe and Screw dupe, you would just have Extrude, Spin and Screw, with a button to toggle if you wanted to extrude, spin or screw Duplicates.
 
>you could go to one group, click select, then go to 
>another
>group (which has some vertices in common) and click remove - to >remove 
>the
>vertices that were in the first group from the second group.
 
Yeah, like I said, they are related. I sometimes use the techinque you discribe, but if you would split the Vertex Groups into smaller groups (organising things in groups is essential to make new users understand the interface, and let older users remember what a button does), I think it would be logical to have a weighting category.
 

>But you've got them separated into a different "Weighting" group as if
>assign and remove can only be used in the context of weighting... I use
>assign and remove a lot and have never touched weighting. I use assign
>and
>remove to adjust which vertices are part of the vertex group.
 
I didn't know you could use the vertex Assign and Remove for anything other than weighting. What exactly can you with them?
Even if you are not using Vertex Groups for armatures (can you use them for anything else than armatures??), you are still weighting when you are assigning or removing vertices from vertex groups, because you have control of what weight a given vertice should be assigned at.
 
>I just noticed you can click on "Draw Slower" multiple times to reduce 
>the
>mesh quality. (I got that idea from your numerical drawspeed thing) 
 
Good. So you as an experienced have now understood an existing feature, because the interface is more logical! Great! 

>I think
>Drawspeed maybe isn't such a good name... maybe DrawQuality or 
>something...
>that implies that less quality can mean faster speed (though it doesn't
>guarantee noticeably faster speed). The method it uses to reduce the 
>quality
>probably involves drawing every 2nd, 4th or 8th, etc, edge. And it 
>seems to
>only work in wireframe mode. Maybe it could be "WireQuality"
 
Yes, WireQuality is a good name. We should use that.
 
>.... and it
>looks like blender forgets it as soon as you exit editmode, so it seems
>pretty useless to me, since in editmode you're only dealing with 
>objects
>with a maximum of 64,000? vertices
 
Yeah, but that has nothing to do with how i have changed the appearance, and usage of the button. It you are right that it should save the Drawspeed (or WireQuality as we agree) level.
 
 
 
Do always feel free comment my suggestions, really. And ask if anything is unclear.
 
We should always go with the most logical, and easy to understand option that we have. That is regarding button placement, names and everything.
 
Don't worry, we're just improving the interface which can only be a good thing for everyone :)
Ofcourse, if one of the changes makes something worse than it used to be, it obviousely shouldn't be used. So do comment.
 
 
Regards, -William (Monkeyboi).
 

------------
Yahoo! Mail - Gratis: 6 MB lagerplads, spamfilter og virusscan
--0-1431722601-1066214481=:63320
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>&gt;I didn't know you could rename vertex keys either! BTW, in your <BR>&gt;mock-up, if<BR>&gt;they can be renamed they should be in a standard blender textbox.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yes, the mockup was done fairly quickly. I agree the the names should look more like Blenders other textfields.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;It seems too tedious to open or close all of those <BR>&gt;sliders....<BR>&gt;maybe there could be a button to show/hide [all the] sliders</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yes, that is a good idea. There could be one in the top saying Sliders wich you could collapse to collapse all the sliders.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;BTW, what are the<BR>&gt;sliders for anyway? Do they just adjust the levels at the keyframe? If <BR>&gt;so,<BR>&gt;either a new keyframe for that thing would need to be created, or it <BR>&gt;would<BR>&gt;act on the nearest keyframe. Maybe sliders are a bad idea... in RVK's <BR>&gt;you<BR>&gt;can go beyond 1.0 to exaggerate things or even go negative (I think) to <BR>&gt;do<BR>&gt;the inverse.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Have you not used the sliders in the action window? If you haven't, it proves that the sliders placement is illogical. If they had resided in the IPO window, maybe you would have found them. Anymway, sliders are extremely useful. Try them. Currently, if you want to get above 1.0 or below 0.0, you can either change the Min/Max slider values by pressing N over the slider name in the action window, or you can manually edit your RVKs in the IPO to move any keys above or below the slider maximums. The current sliders work extremely well, and I have found them very useful for facial animation, because you can see your changes instantly, and it is much easier and quicker to blend diferent shapes together. But they should be in the IPO window, and renaming, deleting or adding new RVKs should be easier, and more consistent with the rest of the program.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;I guess that would help, but maybe the borders aren't necessary - I <BR>&gt;mean the<BR>&gt;buttons are already grouped quite clearly anyway, or at least they are <BR>&gt;in<BR>&gt;the original blender.<BR><BR>Hmm..&nbsp;I have to disagree. One of the main reasons for reorganising the button windows is that the buttons&nbsp;are currently placed quite illogically. I have showed the two versions (with and without borders) to my old dad(he doesn't know of Blender, but he understands how 3d work, and has used a few), and he thought the one with the borders was much clearer. He started guessing what the buttons did (sometimes correct, sometimes not though). With the one without the borders, he was just confused. He couldn't properly see what was what, and to him it looken alot more complicated.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I know my father cannot represent all newbies, but I agree with him that borders gives you a better overview, and you don't have to check if a button is in a specific group if you dont know&nbsp;it - you can instantly see it. It makes you dwell on the content of each group which is a very good thing. Also when collapsing panels, it should remove any confusion as to what is collapsed, and what is not.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;The vertices would have numbers. e.g. one would be called vertex 0, <BR>&gt;another<BR>&gt;would be vertex 1, etc. Xsort would assign the vertices vertex numbers<BR>&gt;(vertex indices/indexes) according to its X position. Hash works out <BR>&gt;the<BR>&gt;vertex numbers in a pseudo-random way... but if you keep on pressing &gt;it <BR>&gt;you<BR>&gt;keep getting the same result.</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;You'd mainly use it for particles - if you want the particles to come <BR>&gt;out in<BR>&gt;a fairly random way you'd use hash, otherwise you'd use Xsort to make <BR>&gt;the<BR>&gt;particles begin in a very orderly "follow the leader" kind of way.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I'm sorry, but I still don't get it! :) I didn't know that the vertices had numbers!? And if they are for randomizing particles, why aren't they in the particles window?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;I can see Spin Dup and ExtrudeRepeat. No "Extrude Dup" or "Screw &gt;Dup". <BR>&gt;So<BR>&gt;there shouldn't be a big "Extrude/Screw/Spin Duplicates" button.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Check again. there is an "Extrude dupe" in the editbuttons. True that there is no Screw Dup, but that is a new feature in the new GUI :)</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I think we are misunderstanding each other. It wouldn't work without the big "Extrude/Screw/Spin Duplicates" button. I made it instead of having Extrude, Spin, Screw, Extrude dupe, Spin dupe and&nbsp;Screw dupe, you would just have Extrude, Spin and&nbsp;Screw, with a button to toggle if you wanted to extrude, spin or screw Duplicates.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;you could go to one group, click select, then go to <BR>&gt;another<BR>&gt;group (which has some vertices in common) and click remove - to &gt;remove <BR>&gt;the<BR>&gt;vertices that were in the first group from the second group.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yeah, like I said, they are related. I sometimes use the techinque you discribe, but if you would split the Vertex Groups into smaller groups (organising things in groups is essential to make new users understand the interface, and let older users remember what a button does), I think it would be logical to have&nbsp;a weighting category.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&gt;But you've got them separated into a different "Weighting" group as if<BR>&gt;assign and remove can only be used in the context of weighting... I use<BR>&gt;assign and remove a lot and have never touched weighting. I use assign<BR>&gt;and<BR>&gt;remove to adjust which vertices are part of the vertex group.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I didn't know you could use the vertex Assign and Remove for anything other than weighting. What exactly can you with them?</DIV>
<DIV>Even if you are not using Vertex Groups for armatures (can you use them for anything else than armatures??), you are still weighting when you are assigning&nbsp;or removing vertices from vertex groups, because you have control of what weight a given vertice should be assigned at.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;I just noticed you can click on "Draw Slower" multiple times to reduce <BR>&gt;the<BR>&gt;mesh quality. (I got that idea from your numerical drawspeed thing) </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Good. So you as an experienced have now understood an existing feature, because the interface is more logical! Great! </DIV>
<DIV><BR>&gt;I think<BR>&gt;Drawspeed maybe isn't such a good name... maybe DrawQuality or <BR>&gt;something...<BR>&gt;that implies that less quality can mean faster speed (though it doesn't<BR>&gt;guarantee noticeably faster speed). The method it uses to reduce the <BR>&gt;quality<BR>&gt;probably involves drawing every 2nd, 4th or 8th, etc, edge. And it <BR>&gt;seems to<BR>&gt;only work in wireframe mode. Maybe it could be "WireQuality"</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yes, WireQuality is a good name. We should use that.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&gt;.... and it<BR>&gt;looks like blender forgets it as soon as you exit editmode, so it seems<BR>&gt;pretty useless to me, since in editmode you're only dealing with <BR>&gt;objects<BR>&gt;with a maximum of 64,000? vertices</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Yeah, but that has nothing to do with how i have changed the appearance, and usage of the button. It you are right that it should save the Drawspeed (or WireQuality as we agree) level.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Do always feel free comment my suggestions, really. And ask if anything is unclear.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>We should always&nbsp;go with the most logical, and easy to understand option that we have. That is regarding button placement, names and everything.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Don't worry, we're just&nbsp;improving&nbsp;the interface which can only be a&nbsp;good thing for everyone :)</DIV>
<DIV>Ofcourse, if one of the changes makes something worse than it used to be, it obviousely shouldn't be used. So do comment.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Regards, -William (Monkeyboi).</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV><p>------------<br>
<a href=http://dk.mail.yahoo.com>Yahoo! Mail</a> - Gratis: 6 MB lagerplads, spamfilter og virusscan
--0-1431722601-1066214481=:63320--