This is a key point: I don’t want to spend more than mere seconds adding something to a catalog. The desired workflow for me, would be something like this:
And obviously, the thing I’m dragging should pull contain child objects, modifiers, materials, drivers - whatever is part of it within the scene it’s being dragged from.
Yes, I think this would be even better. If the Asset Browser allowed creation of new/empty .blend file libraries without having to close the current scene or spawn another Blender instance, then simply drag and dropping the datablocks directly into the desired catalog would be great.
Also I have no clue why is it called catalog. It sounds so arbitrary. If we already have concept of scene collection, why wasn’t it just called asset collections. At this rate of term invention, in a couple of years everyone will need a dictionary to communicate about parts of Blender.
Well, a Collection is already a very specific in thing in Blender; I don’t think something that is not one, should also be called a Collection. I think Library or Catalog works fine.
Development has not stopped. At least one dev has been working almost exclusively on things related to the asset browser under the hood. Actually probably only one dev. Other more well funded DCC apps would probably have between 4 and 10 devs working on a feature like this.
That’s a Blender problem, not an asset browser problem. There are at least 2 free addons for exporting the selected objects to a new blend file. The one I’ve tested thoroughly so far sucks probably because of features missing from blender’s api overall and not something specific to the asset browser. If my main scene file is 100mb and I export a cube to a new file, that file will be 70mb and I’ve got to go in and waste 5 to 15 minutes cleaning it up to bring the file size down. That’s a general blender problem, not an asset browser problem.
I think the current rule is that Blender is not allowed to modify or create a blend file without fully opening it in the UI. They’ve got to design and create some kind of “headless” Blender service/daeomon that will be free of that rule before they can begin to satisfy the things you’re complaining about. It is all planned but the dev team is small and broke compared to the competition.
Would need option to choose between a single library blend file and a new blend file in a library folder. With my internet and cloud backup situation I can’t afford a single 100+mb blend file being re-uploaded every time I add a new asset to it.
“collections” allow a single object to exist in infinite collections. The catalogs are like a simple folder hierarchy. You can’t put an asset into both earth > rocks and moon > rocks. So Collections in a sense are actually implemented like a tagging system even though their outliner representation looks like a folder system. My question is why start with catalog folders at all instead of starting with a more flexible tagging system. That would be more in line with collections.
this workflow sounds very intuitive at first, but leaves a bunch of questions open.
where did the assets get really saved in? in a local lib/ on a shared network drive? how do you choose between different locations ?
you always need an asset browser window open do drag into, currently the mark asset from almost any editor makes easy to directly mark a bunch of assets and categorize them afterwards
drag/drop behaviour from any datablock directly into the asset browser could be a potentioal nightmare for bugs/edgecases
at first your idead sounds very nice, but for this to work in reality I guess there has to be done much more work than for any UI options on the mark asset operator as @LudvikKoutny suggested.
And developer time is the key problem in the whole discussion
This would not be a valid question here. You could only drag and drop into the existing catalogs in existing library which is selected as active. If the library file does not exist, it can not be selected as the active file in the Asset Browser, and if it exists, then it already has specified physical location. At that point, it makes no difference whether the location is local or network based, as long as it can be accessed through the file system.
This is definitely a point against drag and drop. I think drag and drop would be a good alternative, but my proposed popover would still have to exist.
Generally speaking - yes. The workflow for assets and brushes should be as easy and quick as possible. Drag and drop from and into file browsers with automatic file creation and Multifile property editing should be a thing. Not just limited to the asset browser but everywhere in Blender. And yes - we should continue to push and develop these improvements with a priority because they make working with a software fast, efficient and fun (which actually is an important thing).
BUT Blender has been improving on all these fronts constantly and is in ongoing development in others.
Yes, some tasks have stalled and it annoys me just as everybody else because some of them are important.
Asset Browser is a good thing in principle, it is being improved upon and it will be in the future. “Deprecate it because after two years it doesn’t yet live up to my expectations” can’t be the answer to that, though. Seriously - what kind of attitude is that?
The same one which would probably prevent the Mantaflow debacle. Due to that, Blender has production ready fluid smoke/fluid simulation capability on paper but not in reality.
I did not say it should be deprecated because it doesn’t live up to my expectations. I said it should be removed because there’s not been any substantial noticeable development ever since it stopped being an experimental feature.
Still no reason as to why it’s better to scrap and all the work be for nothing rather than to improve upon.
If it was a feature like the Game Engine which, objectively, was of no use in a 3D software any more because there are much better external soultions - then sure. But both Mantaflow and Asset Browser are really good features for a 3D software. Blender isn’t the first one to introduce features which are half baked at best for a longer time and then get boosted as soon as the people or time is available. If you don’t deem it necessary then don’t use it. But if you are afraid that devs are sinking time into it then the feautre is actually in development and could very likely become better in the future.
I really can not not see your reasoning at all, in this case.
It is still being worked on though?! I see changes pertaining to the asset browser come along with some regularity. And it is useful in it’s current state, as an assert browser not manager.
Fluid simulation is a good feature for a 3D software. Mantaflow is a specific implementation which just failed. The problem was that many people including me have broken their teeth on assuming that they will actually be able to utilize Blender for production ready fluid simulation, and that wasn’t the case. And I am just worried Asset Browser is becoming the same thing. That Blender has asset manger on paper (at least that’s what most people will assume the Asset Browser to be), but not usable as expected in reality. I’d be even fine with Asset Browser remaining, just being still under the experimental features.
This is unfortunately exactly the type of semantics typical new user won’t be interested in. For most people browser and manager in context of assets is a synonym, and pretty much no one will expect that an editor dedicated to storing and reusing assets won’t have comfortable infrastructure for adding the assets into it. These excuses of “It’s just a browser, not manager” really only work inside the Blender bubble, but will just not be understandable for most people whom have experience with other creation software outside of the Blender bubble.
It’s like if someone created a new image editing app, where you could not save files any other way than by writing some complex scripting language set of commands. And the users of this image editor would be like “Well, it’s just image editor, not really an image exporter”.
With the difference that an asset browser, while not as useful as an asset manager , is still very useful to have. While an image editor without saving would not really be all too useful. There are loads of image browsers available which don’t edit/save at all. So Imho you example is more of a counterexample to your own point.
The endless complaining isn’t really too useful imho. ( Otoh I did learn a new formatting trick for extra emphasis. 
)
That’s why I specifically used the example of an editor, not a browser. Really, this excuse just works only inside the Blender bubble, which is frustrating. Blender has really shifted the window of what’s acceptable usability wise, because the usability was never great to begin with, so people are willing to put up with much more. I’d argue that Blender has a lot more issue with lacking asset management capabilities than just asset browsing capabilities. Bottom line is that many people expected the Asset Browser to address those, and it didn’t. Hence this thread exists.
May I invite you to look at any other open source project? IMO blender is doing quite well in this regard.
I sent you a private message, so we can continue there and don’t clutter the thread.
To add fuel to the fire, what the frustrated user above here is complaining about , is the same issues others complain about but they usually get dismissed with the arguments : “its a free software, use a paid one or write your own patch”
First : we do use paid softwares , we have to, its beyond rare to see professional studios use blender in its entirety, no matter how many posts the org will put on blender’s website that ubisoft and epic and anime studios now using blender etc,
blender is beyond lacking in its basics, to the point that functioning as an animation software is in a big question mark.
The problem here , is mismanagement, i invite you people to “stalk” the developers commits and activity , its all transparent.
You know what you will find? That they just jump around randomly between issues and features.
The backlog / workspace they used to have as a suggestion for what assignments to finish for the next version is gone.
some of the volunteers sometimes disappear for months.
There are many meetings and follow ups for the staff but they choose whatever they want to, regardless of finishing basic functionality nor fixing bugs dated years.
As for the asset manager removal, yes , it does so little at the moment , it may as well not exist in its current state (not dismissing the quality of work of the developer, just the project’s progress and completeness).
Tl:dr : blender’s org need a new or additional project manager, we the users do act entitled, but we are right, there is a management problem in blender.
Let us imagine that they are saved in a chosen .blend file, just as they are now.
With the file manager that exists in the asset browser.
How is this so far different that the current requirement, to have the asset browser window open to drag out of? It’s actually fewer windows than required now, as it wouldn’t require the user to launch a second Blender, copy/paste/open/save/etc.
If one could simply drag/drop something into a library/catalog, you wouldn’t not need to mark a bunch of assets nor categorize them at all afterwards.
I’ll accept that as reality, but note that this likely applies to many other areas in the software. Perhaps the user would simply be prevented from dragging/dropping certain things from the outliner to the browser. “Oh, user dragged FOO over - ASSET TYPE NOT SUPPORTED”.
Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t that the case because there just aren’t enough devs? If I’m not mistaken, every dev has many responsibilities, thus making them unable to attend properly to a single area. Blender is an enormous piece of software, and it’d probably need triple or more the current number of devs to make them focused on a single area of development. And you’d need focused managers too, which means bringing in additional managers too.
Unless you know of good devs who work for free or a large source of income that the Foundation is missing, it is what it is, sadly.
And, by the way, when the development of the Asset Browser started, it was always advertised as a Browser, not a manager. They specifically mentioned that the Manager capabilities would come in time, but they couldn’t add a full blown asset manager right from the start.
I already addressed just that in my previous long rant, which you highlighted in your comment,
There is a management problem here, blender as a whole as you mentioned is a big project, which isn’t exactly a good thing under the condition of not having enough menpower to maintain it, which is why projects downsize at times and companies restructure.
If i had to manage blender , playing the pretend game, i would instantly drop further development of :
vulkan support ,
spectral rendering (which is done by some other guy not in the core team),
Realtime compositor,
Principled v2,
G.pencil (which is by different people),
Asset browser,
Asset bundle,
And geometry nodes
Focus only on setting blender to freeze mode and do nothing but bug fixing and finishing the unfinished for 2 years , nothing new, fixing only , LTS version exclusive.
When you jump around, leaving the unfinished and broken, you are discouaging people from helping you, example : color management, people got tired of trying to help as they couldn’t get the core team to finish the foundations they needed that contributers gave up. (While spectral renderer did help in this regard, it still wasn’t the answer needed).
I’m glad you are not the manager then . 
Scrapping all those features would make blender go from innovative and exciting to stagnant and always only playing catch up to the big paid apps.
Besides that, why would you scrap the work of an external contributor (like for spectral cycles) , which isn’t even (yet) in the core blender, and may never be. It’s an open source project. People are allowed to work on topics that interest them, it doesn’t cost the core blender development anything and it might in the future lead to improvements. If you forbid someone to work on his favorite subject, you just lose him/her. It’s not as if (s)he is going to work on something else.
And ‘scrap G.pencil development’, one of blenders biggest successes of the recent time? I don’t know what you are thinking, but I don’t think you’d last long as a manager 
