You cannot work efficiently when you cannot see your mesh properly.
Another example. Depending on the way the modifiers are set up, you will get face dots. In general, face dots don’t work well with modifiers, where they will often be offset,
No face dots = cleaner display:
Polls are not a good way to make design decisions. Listening to concerns and factoring them into a holistic design is good, but making individual decisions based on polls doesn’t work well.
With a poll, the intricacies of the way different parts fit together, and the tradeoffs and balances and impact on other related features cannot be factored in to a yes/no poll.
Can you at least read what I wrote? OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL. 
All I’m asking is for those things to be optional. I don’t care about the defaults, it can come with crazy thick edges or insane facedots, it doesn’t matter, as long as they can be turned off.
Currently we are forced to use either thick edges or facedots, it’s impossible to turn them both off, and that’s what I’m against. There are users that don’t need/use those helpers, so we need the options to turn it off. It’s simple, when it’s optional, those who like it can use it and those who don’t like it can turn them off. There’s no room for arguing here.
Damn.
Polls are not a good way to make decisions
The only thing that has become clear from the codequest is that not knowing how to use a program, not listening to its users, not answering uncomfortable questions, ignoring all proposals and comments for 10 years and trying to copy mainstream application design is a good way to make decisions.
Then we will be surprised that the most awaited by the community is going to be the Bevel modifier. Curiously, the only improvement of the codequest where the developer has had a good communication with users.
While a valid point, this is a bug/not-yet-implemented-feature in 2.8x (it works in 2.7x as long as subsurf is the last modifier - which is the typical use case).
Unless no fixes are planned ~ we should avoid referencing bugs when weighing up options.
The purpose of a poll is to check if the area needs more attention. if more then half of the people responding are dissatisfied after some months of time to test a new system. It’s a hint the current design has issues that might need to be addressed.
On the other hand I’m not pushing for this to be changed now, just interested if replies here can lead to improvements.
Even in 2.7x this can happen if you arrange modifiers in certain ways. And even if there is only one face dot, it can appear offset.
This is 2.79 with modifiers:
Currently at least, face dots also often half penetrate the surface mesh.
The main issue though, is that it adds extra clutter in various ways that makes it harder to read mesh topology, especially with dense meshes.
Zero-sized faces and differetiating between edge and face select modes can be handled in ways that doesn’t require littering face select mode with noisy dots that makes it hard to see your mesh.
Or you can leave the facedots as the users want and spend the time changing the damn single column aligned to the right that there are already hundreds of people asking to change the aligned to the left.
Your ability to find screenshots where you edit meshes of thousands of triangles in a small corner of the screen, you need to edit the wireframe of a model with decimation of 400k triangles, implausible situations or put facedots as big chickpeas is worthy of admiration.
I don’t understand why there should be more development time used for this right now.
We have optional facedots, I love facedots, others don’t, but is something pretty different from other packages and one of the best things I managed to find in Blender.
I understand that having it as an option is something good, but we already have them as something optional, why dedicate more development time with this?
Cheers!
In any case I think that as a poll, while results are in favour of my opinion I have to say that the amount of samples is pretty low.
Why not make this an option in the settings? (Enable/Disable face dots by default)
But I don’t think it’s work more dev time if that is the idea.
Cheers!
Not totally true.
We are forced to use either thick edges or facedots. You can’t turn both of them off, that’s the issue.
Then why not do the same with ThickEdges ?
Maybe we want both of them on, maybe just one of them, give the user the option, we can have that option in settings or in overlays, I find both may be useful in different situations, so having as options is good I think.
Cheers!
whatever the decision is, the important thing that the facedot are easily settable and then … holy “save startup file” …
I understand that to someone, because of aesthetics, the noise that cause the face dots can be annoying, but here, in this case while I work I need information and less of aesthetics.
The two essential points:
that’s all, folks!
I don’t know, we ask for an option to configure that thick lines weeks or months ago. Maybe it’s hard to create a option about this out of the theme settings.
@billrey In any case, those facedots examples you are showing are just bugs, facedots should detect the subdivision modifer and calculate just 1 facedot in the middle of the subdivided face in case you use the “pretty” result from subdiv, it’s not an inherent problem to facedots, but more a bug related with facedots and subdivision surfaces.
Cheers!
That’s what I’m talking about. We need a checkbox in the overlays panel to toggle thick edges on/off independent of the facedots toggle.
I don’t understand the reason why they don’t do that.
You have my support, an option would be perfectly logical.
Also a setting in the them to be able to modify amount of thickness could be great.
Making it clear which selection mode you are using
Looking things from another angle here.
If pre-selection highlights becomes a thing in Blender in the future it will make it very clear.
Notice how edge and face mode look exactly the same:
+1 separate options for face dots and edge thickness
Was one of the first things that we asked when we see the wireframe, and I think that I remember a post about it, that could be added in a future.
