[Bf-funboard] Critical improvements and features

Sat Sep 21 15:43:55 CEST 2013

@Jonathan the RMB context menu only applies to the items selected in
the outliner (not object selection), so you can for eg, border select
some items, RMB and rename.

@Gatis
As for places to make suggestions, see:
http://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/1190/best-place-to-put-feature-requests

As for improving existing features - we do, notice how a few of the
things you suggested already exist or have been added recently.

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Jonathan Williamson
<jonathan at cgcookie.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard

-- 
- Campbell