Please, implement that. Otherwise one is obliged to always have visible the two bars, because those are fundamental elements in Edit mode very frequently used.
3 Likes
usually we don’t use active tools settings unless you want to apply them with a pre-set ones (which i think rarely anyone use this method )but the redo panel already provides that at least in edit-mode , so for example if you do a loop cut or a bevel u can change the settings afterwards, having snap/orientation/pivot/proportional-editing settings in topbar doesn’t make any sense, since now you’re forced to keep them both open which is inconvenient.
what clearly emerges in the top bar now, is that the tools, the sculpt sliders, the paints, etc., are too long, they could shorten by a few pixels to recover space, and allow good management even in space windows split into two
it seems they agree on the points we made…here is the task for the new changes that Campbell is testing…this is much more clear direction than before.
https://developer.blender.org/D4721
6 Likes
It pisses me off because I was take a lot of time trying and designing ideas until find a good and the bar was going to work perfectly moving two controls and implementing one more option. But since the active tool has been implemented in the N-shelf, which I also asked for, well… I like part of the solution.
Instead of implementing as in the proposal was asked for a toolbar, making whoever was more expert or used modal tools could hide the menu bar (Being only occupied the space of a single bar). Now it obliges users, experts or not, to have both bars whenever they want to use the toolbar. Both bars have tools, so both are now necessary, whether you want to or not. To be able to hide them or not, is useless now because the user is forced to use them.
We have lost the opportunity to
- Have a cleaner interface if we want it.
- Have a coherent interface for new users (a header for tools, a header for editor options)
- To be able to place each bar in a different place (what’s the point of placing one bar with tools on top and another with tools on the bottom? None, our brain will always want to have the tools collected in the same place)
- Solve the button Soup (screw users with small screens. Who cares?)
- To be able to implement in the toolbar new help and tools for users
- Leave space for an implementation of the buttons of the old 20 layers
- To be able to implement the search in a text field
A lot of the benefits of the proposal have disappeared… Not all, but a good part of it.
Now if a new user enters blender it is more difficult, because the topbar does not appear by default and only appears in certain workspaces.
PD: And I want to be clear that there were things I thought should be improved. And that I am happy to see the options of the active tool, such as the options of the active tool in the N-shelf, which I requested in another proposal months ago. But both were compatible. And they would have led us to such good interface solutions as this one.
or this
2 Likes
In order to evolve the discussion I want to link the proposal to add the active tools to the N-shelf. Where I asked for a few changes that could be solved now, especially
- Change the side where the N-shelf is placed (actually if you move the N-shelf to the left it’s placed at the right of the T-shelf, when it’s better in the left)
- Place the Active Tools in their own tab
1 Like
it seems you haven’t even read the whole task, the pros,cons and the Further Work also you are contradicting your own design here having tools and Tool settings in differents tabs in the"T" shelf…it’s easy to make mock-ups and proposals ,however until they get implemented and tested then you can see their benefits and flaws and that’s what’s happening here ,nothing is a stepping stone.
At first I did not understand part of the proposal, but I read it again. I have also compiled the patch to test it.
I don’t contradict myself, I have never been against it and I have always supported that the user has some “quick settings” at hand and all the options expanded in the N-shelf, I have said it hundreds of times. I’m not going to be a topbar defender, my designs have always been trying to unite the ideas of the developers with my proposals and with as little effort as possible. I have never reworked all the interface and tried to do everything from scratch without taking into account others. Even what is being done now is very similar to what I defended in June and practically the same as I defended in October 2018.
Even with all that I still think that although the two headers was an idea that was initially thought to solve the problem of global topbar during the conception of the idea came to light many improvements. Solutions to other problems and space to implement things that had been lost. And I have done it thinking of other users and the general good of Blender. I use modal controls only, my own keymap and my screen is 2560px, I don’t care about button soup. I don’t even think about using the active tools.
I don’t know what other users think. But to have the search box visually in the header, along with the return of controls for layer shortcuts and many other improvements… I find it great for new users and generally good for blender.
I also think that I could have had a header only for tools that was separated from the menus and settings of the viewer. And not only because of the 3D view, it was a very good option for the UV editor… and it works well also in the shader editor… fr example
2 Likes
There are too many addons, and putting them all in the N sidebar, or even if it’s the T sidebar, it’s a big caos.
what I would suggest, is to make a list of icons (arranged to be listened to with a slider) like the Active Tools, and use floating window for the addons that are called up when these icons are clicked, with peace of mind to everything.
…Something like Lightwave 3D
in any case the redo pannel already exists, and is in the process of being finalized …
If you see my proposal you will see that what I propose is to use icons in the tabs of the N-shelf, and to include some improvements in the behavior of the tabs. For example that the tabs are visible when you don’t have any selected.
Also it would be interesting, although I didn’t propose it so as not to dirty the main proposal, that you can select several tabs at the same time and mix the content of both (for example if you have several modeling plugins that you want to see at the same time).
I’m not against floating and pineed popups, as an option, but I think they are a very bad solution for new users and create a real chaos in the interface, complicating it too much. I would never use it by default.
Let’s not fool ourselves, that concept is the same as the typical dysfunctional interface that end up having 200 popups on screen. Like the desktops with widgets, which everyone has wanted to implement and which have been a failure in all the OS where they have tried to put it. In the end that is impossible to use and let’s not say already for new users who only get frustrated.
It is not the same to have 1 widgets punctually because we want to have it to finish in 3 clicks with this interface…
or this
These kinds of interfaces are things of the past that have never worked. They work for specific cases, a minority of users,… But they can’t be the way to work. In the end you waste more time with the interface than with your work.
One thing is for someone to say “I’m going to use the retopo plugin for a while, I’d like to be able to put it here temporarily” and another to force the user to work like that.
1 Like
I don’t want 20000 popups and windows at the same time, but I want only one floating window, which has all the space and freedom for each tool depending on the discretion of the creator of the addon itself. Something similar to what the redo pannel already is
Hmm… devs can’t let the top bar go.
I have to tell my opinion - maybe, just maybe they hear it:
I agree with people who say top bar should be a tool bar (per editor perhaps)
Because honestly EVERY editor type would benefit from the options being in the N or T shelf. (left or right side should be a user option) All of the current top bar options are more readable in a vertical list.
If anything - for those specific editor types (sculpt, paint, gp) - they need to create a unique right click menu for the most basic brush options to further increase usability.
This way people who don’t want the top bar will be same ones who are advanced users enough to use shortcuts for everything and want to save that vertical space too. But they can still have their tool options visible in a shelf
In my opinion it should be this simple.
1 Like
The issue has been discussed over and over again.
It has been tested for months and inconsistencies have emerged in the blender workflow structure, which have made it clear to most people that blender is not like other applications.
Blender is more an operating system that contains more applications and work areas with a single work sharing with all of them.
Considering this, you can’t have a global bar that is then mainly a toolbar that contains 3D window tools that are always visible even for all the other windows.
So much so that if you “put in full screen” one of the space windows, you realize you already have a toplbar.
So in this context every space window must have its own specific topbar, otherwise create conflicts, for example if you opened a 3d view in a window and a paint view texture in a other. Each window must have its top-toolbar.
what emerges from me, and is a feasibility question, since blender has always been “mouse-window case-sensitive” would it cause too much damage to be able to have the “working modes” individually selectable for each 3d window?
I personally would find it very useful, go with the cursor in a 3d window and be able to paint a texture or sculpt a surface, and in the other 3d window be already in edit mode and edit the points of the geometry…
1 Like
You can do that by scene, not by editor.
Yes, you want onet, but in general this interface concept end with dozens of popups annoying new users.
For this I was working in a new proposal completely different, without change UX, workflows or active tools
I still don’t understand what was so bad about bringing back the t shelf once and for all. The n shelf is going to become super crowded quick, which was the problem of the t shelf in the first place.
I see no underlying philosophy of design behind all this shuffling around of buttons, it was definitely a step backwards.
2 Likes
I know how I can do it …
what i was wondering is if it is too complicated to make the various modalis of edit modes more independent among the various 3d windows …
I think the devs preferred this mode to avoid some mistakes, but looking at how the various 3d windows work between them, I saw for example that the sculpt mode updates the other 3d window where the mesh is displayed in object mode, only at release of every “brush paint”
so in my opinion the same thing could happen even if in the other window there was the edit mode, the 3d window would be updated only at the end of the function.
but this discourse starts to be offtopic, I made it emerge, because now that there is a topbar every window, it came more spontaneous to me to observe this dependence among the various 3d windows a little too uncomfortable.
I cannot tell you, but probably this is a big limitation of blender core and it’s not possible to make without a big redesign of the core.
i think that might be a bit difficult, because not only affects modes but also their tools and tool settings so they have to be independent from each…however what i saw from the conference talk about dependency graph is that you’ll be able to have two windows with different timing not sure what that means in practice though but nice to have.