The delay when I switch “track to” from Y to -Z is because the GPU gets pegged at 100%… this sometimes is persistent, forcing me to delete the constraint in order to re-gain control of the app.
I don’t understand why, because in the other scene, an identical setup works just fine.
EDIT: Hahahaha, my GIF recording software removed the delay! Perhaps because the GPU freezes the entire PC for several seconds. Anyway, you can still see that the constraint goes from red to ok and then back to red when I switch to -Z…
I can’t quite see what you are trying to illustrate there. I see a successful join, but a cancelled split, and not sure why. Can you explain it better?
All four corner widgets are the same size and are in the same relative place. Generally the (crappy and hidden) detail that screws people up is not knowing where exactly to click. You don’t want to click right in the corner between areas, but at the location of those (hidden) widgets:
When I right-click on any edge I get that menu with the two “split” options. When I select either of those I do get a preview that will show me exactly where the split will occur. In fact I can start on any edge and then split any area at all, even those far away from that initial menu.
I’m curious if this is a display issue, where I see the preview lines and you do not, or is some part of the process confusing and could be changed or even the documentation improved.
I was testing the new geometry creation tool, and there is an option to close the base cone “Base Fill Type”, which has been hard for me to understand its function. Maybe because I’m not English, but Fill understands it as occupying a space, not covering a hole.
I remember that at first the name the face actions “Fill” and “Grid Fill” also seemed strange to me. I think, “Closing Holes”, “Grid Cap”, and “Base Cap Type”, would be more understanding.
I know there are some complex cases but why not just show 2 arrows in cases where it’s 2 to 1 area merge? Having to manually do split is very finicky when you just want to collapse something like outliner.
Probably because I can’t see in your example how you would differentiate between the following two processes. The first looks more likely to be the intended outcome than your second.
Being able to undo split/join would be super useful, since what you want to do, rarely works in the first attempt, and you end up with more regions than you need.
@TheRedWaxPolice is correct, I wanted to get rid of the rightmost column, regardless of how whatever is in the column to the left of it is split, but the right-click menu didn’t contain any option for it.
And as mentioned, I’ve seen several people really curse Blender out on Twitter because of this over the years too…
Top row - current process:
1 pick corner or use right click / join area operator and try merge small area into big one. Discover what it’s not possible and cursor turns into symbol
2 manually add new area split and position it
3 merge first part
4 merge another part
5 done
Bottom row - suggestion:
1 start join area operator
2 when moving cursor from small area into big one left to right merge arrows appear in both top and bottom small areas. What stuff gets merged into what is based on mouse movement (same as when trying to merge 4 areas - order is determined by which area border mouse cursor crosses)
3 done
That is that part I asking for clarification on. Faced with the arrangement shown on the left here, you seem to be making the assumption that the only good rightward merge is the one you show, which simply deletes everything to the right and replaces it with an extension of what is on the left.
That might be what you want to do (as shown in the 2nd image). But “Bob” might want the third result, to extend the top area to the right, as shown in the third image. And Alice might want the fourth image, to extend the green area rightward. So your solution reduces what you want to a single step but keeps Bob and Alice from getting what they want at all.
So I would argue that we just need one new variation (currently called a SplitJoin in my head LOL).
So allow a join into a larger area by splitting that area, if that target area is large enough. This way you would get exactly what you want in only two steps but allowing Bob and Alice to get what they want in a single step. But for all three of you it is much better than the complicated process you have now.
not sure if this belongs here but i noticed that its not possible any more in 2.8+ if in weight paint mode to select an other object without leaving weight paint mode. this makes working with multiple objects and weight paint super tedious and it would be great to get that functionality back to how it was in 2.79 where one could directly switch to an other object with RMB.
btw 2.8x series is being worked on for more then 2 years. If any feature is missing then either everyone is aware of it or there is a new workflow for it
Oh wow i always wondered what that option is doing, i guess now i know. Thanks a lot for pointing this out. Kinda strange that this option is not in the preferences, seems odd to have it in the edit menu.
How about user-named render slots? So if I want to test a few variations of a render, instead of Slot 1, Slot 2, etc. and having to make notes on paper as to which of them holds which test, I can name the slots (for instance) sun test, spot test, ambient sun test, ambient spot test.
Perhaps because the GPU freezes the entire PC for several seconds. Anyway, you can still see that the constraint goes from red to ok and then back to red when I switch to -Z…
symbol
