[Bf-funboard] Critical improvements and features

[Jonathan Williamson]

>
> > > Good outliner is one of the core features used in managing complex
> scenes
> > > and hierarchies and reason for most complaints.
> >
> > I don't see any need for the 'blender-ism' style pre selection - it's
> just
> > confusing. Behaviour should be identical as in any other 3d program:
> >
>
> So far I agree with you on this one. Though I'd love to hear an explanation
> of the blender-ism split-selection benefits from someone in-the-know.
>
> Some reasons I can imagine for the split-selection are:
> - ? the outliner displays items which are not in the 3d-viewport, so they
> can't be "3d selected"
> - ? the outliner can be used for non-3d-viewport tasks, such as in the VSE
>
> Am I getting warmer? I'm just guessing, as split-selection merely confuses
> me in both outliner and dopesheet.


I use the Outliner every day and I still have no idea what the
pre-selection is actually used for. I just find it frustrating because I go
to click a bunch of things and it only highlights them. Part of the reason
I find it confusing is the behavior is different depending on where you
click.

If you click on the object name, it select it in the viewport. If you click
in the empty space to the right of the name, it pre-selects it. But, if you
box select anywhere then it pre-selects.

I've never found a case where the pre-select was useful in this case. Does
anyone else use it?

Jonathan Williamson
http://cgcookie.com


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Gatis Kurzemnieks <
gatis.kurzemnieks at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree 100% that Blender should not be changed just because other software
> is different. I really like how many things are done in Blender and in many
> many ways it is more elegant that for example Maya or other apps. But,
> there are things in my list, that I believe could be a huge improvement to
> Blender. If 9 out of 10 people would prefer it done differently - things
> must be changed. There is no point in sticking to some weird/old behavior
> if there is a more elegant way to do things and most of the users would
> agree that it indeed would be better. (That's why i started this
> discussion).
>
> And most important - Blender as an open project hast the opportunity to
> change for the best, as this is not the case with bureaucracy in Autodesk
> for example. We can compare other applications, discuss and take the best
> ideas and solutions and combine them in the best 3d tool in history :)
> Blender definitely has the potential - it is quite awesome already.
>
> Another point is that in my opinion Blender would benefit hugely from
> bigger professional user base. And that means that Blender can not ignore
> some widely accepted workflows which users take for granted (like a
> functional Outliner or predictable extrude behavior).
>
> David Jeske wrote:
>
> "In other words, I've learned that generally when blender is doing
> something
> wonky there *is* a reason for it, even if it's not obvious at first. Let's
> dig a little deeper before we jump off the cliff of thinking every one of
> these things should be changed. Then at least if we jump, we'll be
> informed."
>
>
> I have the same feeling and maybe I have missed something in some cases,
> but I believe that most of my points are still valid and do not require
> changing the way blender operates. They can be implemented as additional
> improvements and options.
>
>
> Brecht Van Lommel wrote:
>
> "..No reason this can't be done, it's just a ton of work and quite
> independent of any game engine work. That's the case for most features
> on the list by the way, editing multiple selected objects at once,
> more advanced outliner, multi-object editing, .. simply no one has
>
> dedicated the time to implement them yet."
>
>
> I understand this 100% and I am admiring all Blender devs who are spending
> their time to make this awesome software. But maybe there should be a
> discussion about shifting priorities - to pause pushing ahead with new
> features and improve these core features first!! This would be more
> beneficial for most existing users and would make blender more appealing to
> new users. There should be solid foundation before adding new things.
>
>
> It would be nice to have some sort of place where people could submit their
> ideas about improving blender and others could vote for them and comment.
> Of course there should be some moderation to filter out duplicate/invalid
> proposals and improve proposals based on comments. Unity3D has nice system
> like that : http://feedback.unity3d.com/unity/all/1/hot/active which
> actually works.
>
>
> Thank you!
>
> Gatis Kurzemnieks
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:35 AM, David Jeske <davidj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Beorn Leonard <beornl at ozemail.com.au
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > When I get to choose, I use Blender *because* it's different.
> > > If you want to make a compelling case for a change to Blender, you
> > > have to argue from first principles, NOT because Autodesk does it.
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely. We should also hold ourselves to the same standard.
> >
> > While we should have sensitivity to change-for-change's sake... Blender
> > should not continue to operate in a certain way just because it's how it
> > was done in the past, it should operate that way because it's better and
> > fits into the blender model better. If we can't show why it's better,
> then
> > there is no reason to keep it that way.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-funboard mailing list
> > Bf-funboard at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gatis Kurzemnieks
> +371 26791519
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>