Asset Browser - why still so WIP?

I can’t find these, anyone knows where to find these? This is indeed one of the biggest things I expected from the asset browser, to be able to reuse your own assets quickly and easily without having to mess with different files and blender instances to do this.

KitOPS Pro is one, True-Assets is another with this ability & at least one more multitool I can think off but can’t remember, that has a menu option with asset saving in the user lib.
I told the devs once about the ‘a magic asset button’, doing it already in addons, but no answer to it…

In my eyes it makes no sense yet to get one of those addons for that, because the asset case will change in the coming blender version updates.

I’m on a mac and use some sort of workaround. Because you can’t easily open a new blender instance without using the terminal every time.
So I use ‘Multi Instance Blender’ addon. With it comes a button in blender that does exactly this.
Then I select my mesh, mark as asset, copy, open a new instance, paste & save in my user asset lib.

Many steps, but less complicated than in vanilla blender…

PS: one sentence down in my post I already said KitOPS Pro !

developer.blender.org/project/board/132/

developer.blender.org/project/board/130/

2 Likes

I agree with many points here.
First, the fact that for adding assets to a user library you have to create a blend file inside that folder library, put the assets there, mark them as assets and save the file to finally have them available in the library feels very cumbersome and counterproductive, especially because even after you created the blend file in the proper library, you still have to re-open it every time you want to add new stuff to that library.
This to me defies the whole concept of an asset browser and the ease of access that it’s supposed to bring, as I would expect that once I simply created a folder path, I can add assets to it from any blender file I’m currently working. Having to open another file in a specific location every time doesn’t feel any better than appending/linking assets from a blend file, it’s actually worst and more time consuming.

Can’t agree more on this.

Unfortunately the asset browser it’s not a project I’ve been closely following as others like geometry nodes, especially since I never had a solid need of it. Now that due to a couple of projects, plus the curiosity, I tried it a bit more, I can see how problematic the current workflow is. If I knew before, I’d have participated in the discussion during its development. I’m kinda scared, since it seems that how it’s currently working is the core foundation of how it’s supposed to behave, but I hope the devs can reconsider this tiresome way of working with it, as Ludvik said, it doesn’t really feel any better than before its introduction.

5 Likes

This is being investigated. Blender itself for various reasons is not allowed to modify a .blend file without actually opening it. They’ll probably make a new separate background process for performing this task but it’ll be a while before they get around to that. I think there’s literally only 2 and a half people working on the asset browser and they all are also working on other important areas of Blender simultaneously.

When a user explicitly marks something as an “asset”, one would expect it actually gets treated as an asset, meaning the type of object that does not necessarily have to be present in the scene to be available.

I saw one of the devs somewhere say the system needs more differentiated object types. There needs to be a separation of shader node groups from geometry node groups from compositor node groups etc. There also needs to be a section in the outliner just for assets which would make them "not necessarily have to be present in the scene to be available." So they are aware of these issues and have the same solution in mind that you do. But it’s like only 1 or 2 or 3 people splitting their time between the asset browser and other areas/bugs that are equally as important.

Please keep the available workforce and resources in mind as you make your complaints.

Personally I would prefer if ALL new feature work was put on hold until after they #1 hired a new UI expert and #2 hired an apprentice dev for each major section of the code.

it’s not a project I’ve been closely following

https://developer.blender.org/project/board/132/

https://developer.blender.org/project/board/130/

2 Likes

Thank you for shedding light on this matter, it’s already good to know that they are aware of these considerations.

So when will the Asset Browser become usable? It’s still unusable because the sheer amount of steps required to turn something you make in your local scene to something you can reuse between scenes.

2 Likes

3 years unless they hire more people to assist in this one area. /s

In my opinion the problem is not that there are barely usable WIP features in Blender, the problem is they are included by default in stable releases and promoted everywhere as production ready tools.
In this specific case I am afraid many users will waste their time by trying to implement it into their workflow unsuccessfully, just to find out it doesn’t provide any significant advantage compared to libraries.
I understand that some user feedback is necessary, but users should always know if they are beta / alpha testing something. That’s the whole purpose of being able to download alpha / beta releases and provide some feedback if I want to help developers, isn’t it?

4 Likes

Your right about wasting time

I am sure this must have been said, but just in case it hasn’t,

JuuuUUUUuuuust imaaAAAAaaaagine just for a single moment in time…

Things might be easier to have a .blend act as if it brings everything together and have the assets saved out as different files with their related data blocks. For example

.blendMaterial
.blendCamera
.blendGeometry
.blendCurve
. … and so on.

So a .blend file would become a simple exposed folder structure at an OS level. Is there a reason why a .blend file can’t have everything stripped out except for one particular item such as only that geometry, curve, cameras, lights, or materials … containing that material and its related data blocks with just a file extension name changed? almost link everything is linked? Perhaps everything could be in its own 3D space as well?
A saved .blenderProj would put everything together or a Save Project as zip could be an option as well.

I am sure it’s more complicated than creating different file extension names for related objects and their data blocks.

JuuuuuuUUUUuuuust Imagine, you know, just for a moment assets would be a lot easier to pass around.

At this point I just wish for Blender to have python API for editor space addons, so someone can make a proper Asset Browser in form of an addon instead this one.

1 Like

Unfortunately its not Blender Dev’s Failure that the Asset Browser implementation was weak and didnt succeed upto the user expectations. Just amongst the Asset Browser there are so many other things as a backlog to be fixed/improved by the devs but the Fact is there are just not enough devs available/hired. As we all know the alredy handful of team is working tirelessley on multiple projects so it’s just not possible without hiring more devs in future to speed up the development. As a user, we shud Donate to the development Fund to help !

2 Likes

Jokingly or not, best not to propose violence as a viable option.

Keep it civilized!

9 Likes

Well, there are asset browser meetings every other week (see: 2022-06-02 Pipeline, Assets & I/O Meeting), so if any of you has any ideas for possible improvements, you can join the discussion. Ranting won’t solve anyone’s issue, feedback does.

6 Likes

unable to delete few assets together. So yea, «very WIP, much raw, so earli»

1 Like

I found it interesting that Juan Linietsky (one of the main original developers of the Godot Game Engine) wrote that Godot and Blender currently seem to have inverted problems.

Godot has many potential developers wanting to help but they don’t have enough budget to hire them. While Blender currently has a very solid stream of budget coming in but not enough people to hire for specific tasks. Wonder how correct that assumption was. ^^

Hm. I’m not too sure about this. There are Test builds for features that are still being worked on. You have to strike some kind of ballance and Blender decided that this is the one. Unity keep all their tools in a constant state of “this is beta don’t use for production or on your own risk” over many many years lately and I honestly find that a lot worse. I’d rather have a stable release with a handful of features and then iterate on it than either nothing or something that is on a constant state of instability or flux.
Ultimately it always helps a lot more to offer alternative design ideas and improvements or even actual programming help if possible. Saying what’s bad is easy. Making an actual proposal and waiting for others to shoot it down is hard.

3 Likes

The problem here is that the Asset Browser in it’s current state doesn’t offer even the most basic features, which would make it worth utilizing in any kind of a real project.
It is currently almost the same like working with libraries, just with drag & drop (unusable due it’s limits) and bugs.

1 Like

It can store assets, allowing you to drag and drop them, and allows you to create an asset directory for better navigation… that’s about it,

1 Like