There has to be some give and take here. As a software engineering student, we learned that you can’t please everybody, or you won’t please anybody. The majority of users has to be looked at. Is the majority doing procedural materials or image texture based materials? The image viewer is zoom-able for those who need close ups for procedural/reference images. Besides, these possible default workspace layouts are suppose to be generic to fit the average user. There are some people who will need more specialized layouts, and they will change the defaults how they need to (that is one of blender’s strong points). I do agree with you @zebus3d that those who do procedural textures might want a larger image viewer. However, we are trying to find the best general shading/material editing workspace and @pablovazquez might just have it.
A way around this dilemma is to have a presets list on the right click menu on a workspace tab. The name of the tab will control which set of presets is shown. For example, when editing materials, one might right click on the shading tab and go to Presets and select from a small list of presets like Procedural or Image Texture. This preset list would be controlled by the tab name like: preset_list = workspace_presets[tab.name.toUpper()]
Until something like this is implemented (which it may not), we need to find the best generic workspace layout.
I love your changes, the viewer in the left column was in my mind too when i did the proposal, but like @zebus3d said, was usefull as reference too.I’m ok with the changes anyway
PD: I forgot to mention that i left the texture editor on top to get lower render times in cycles too, but thats just because my pc was a potato
I agree to a point, but the post you link to doesn’t have the coolest and most unique thing that the Blender compositor has going for it: the backdrop. It doesn’t make sense to have both the backdrop enabled and an image editor open from a workflow standpoint but does help new users see more Blender features out of the box. I think this is a good use for the bundled workspaces, especially since I rarely use a workspace preset, because I so quickly stray from them. It’s just so easy to configure the interface for the tasks unique to the project you’re working on. If you open the blend files on my computers at work and at home, you would most likely see a completely different layout for each one.
I have one workspace preset that has just a 3d View, an Outliner, and a Properties view. I have another that is just a Nodes Editor and yet another that is only a VSE and Properties. From these simple layouts I split views when I need another editor. Otherwise, with more complicated workspaces, I spend the first minute or so collapsing the views I don’t immediately need so the window isn’t too cluttered.
Python Console is pulled all the way down when not in use, maximizing vertical space when scripting. Outliner is using data API display mode, I think an appropriate default. Properties is using workspace context, tools may also be a good choice.
Primary benefit here is that the console and info window can have maximum horizontal space while also offering the ability to fairly easily increase vertically, reading wrapped lines of output can be painful.
Hi @SimonStorl-Schulke Thank you for your comment. I understand the concern, but i think there will be no confusion if the workspace purpose is clear. And the naming itself should already clarify a lot. Already in the current blender functions dis- and reappear based on a selected workspace. The film editing workspace for instance looks completely different to the 3d Workspace and offers different functionality. But if you are in the film editing for instance, you as the user would not need most of the options offered currently in the properties menu.
Another reason why I don’t think it would be confusing, would be because it’s already a common practice in many known softwares today. The adobe suite for instance offers in each of its programs a selection of workspaces with varying properties.
Other programs like Affinity Designer offer fixed workspace personas. The workspaces help even to distinguish the different functionality of very similar looking tools. In the particular case of affinity designer, the user can easily distinguish between vector based or pixel based tools, because they are separated in two different workspaces.
In affinity photo the options for the develop persona and the export persona are also fundamentally different and give the user a clear overview of all options available for the chosen task. In blender that would be a clear overview of his export options, modelling options, shading options, etc.
Note: - for this workspace, I was thinking that when rendering in the viewport the smaller the view the faster it renders so it would be useful to have the size at a happy medium to best suit users with decent PCs and those with lower spec’ed machines.
Here´s my proposal for “Layout Scenes workspace”.
A layout artist takes charge of camera timming, asset distribution through the scene and (sometimes) pre-light. These aspects are crucial for previz tests before actual production can start. This is a heavy-transit-assist stage since the general workflow is to:
Import a lot of assets into the scene
Organize in collection/outline and name everything correctly
Pre-light the scene with a very quick test view on camera.
All those elements are placed in this layout named “Layout Scenes Workspace”.
CURRENT ISSUES:
Currently if no blender scene is opened, the file browser shows the .blend files with their thumbnails. If you load a .blend scene for the first time, the file browser doesn´t show the files.blend scenes anymore. Maybe there should be a workaround to make “append” automatically check (or offer the option as a check) to make subsequent (drag/drop) assets to “import” (depending on the .fbx, .abc, .obj …etc… context) or to “append” depending on the “.blend” context. This wil be a huge improvement since new users can learn a .blend is a container with many drawers in which there are many elements like shaders, geometry, lights, etc…
Next issue happens when a second outline space window is opened on 2.8, the icons to the right dissapear. Only the first outline space window contains icons. I suggest there should be a toggle check box right besides the filters, to “mark” what row can be displayed. Then the rows can contract or expand to fix the width just like view filters on programs like After Effects.
And this other issue about the icons on the outliner and files could be adressed as well:
Your Rigging workspace has the Properties + Outliner on one side, while your Material workspace has the Properties on the other side. We shouldn’t mix those without any added benefit. If Properties are on either side, they should be in the same side for every workspace. Consistency is key for muscle memory.
Actually, forced consistency between workspaces is a limitation, and defeats the purpose of workspaces. A workspace is a workspace, what makes sense in a workspace might not make sense in another… Flexibility is the key of workspaces.
Workspace Suggestion: Live Presentation editor/player
With Eevee and better control of what’s visible in the editor window in 2.8 Blender becomes a great tool for live presentations straight from the 3D Editor View.
I haven’t fully investigated camera movement plugins ( sniper add-on looked interesting but needs updating ) nor have I looked at a script to let you play forward/back and have it auto-stop at the next break ( I winged it ). An appropriate workspace would have visibility options set for a full screen 3D view and key bindings for forward and back set to common keys used by presentation remotes.
I used Blender in this way in an emergency and it worked out very well but I have not developed a workflow much less a workspace. Just throwing the idea out there. Move to a separate thread for discussion?