In fact, the QCD system is the answer to the question “how complex model can you build in your software without getting ripped”.
We are currently trying to reconstruct the QCD system to make Blender compatible with the multirefrence modeling workflow.
2 Likes
Thinking of making proper video about Content Management systems.
It will take time, but hope to come out with nice explanations.
may 31
Finally, the ability to clone a view layer, including while copying a scene, has been added.
https://developer.blender.org/D6862
It was completely unexpected that it is possible to create a scene setup system without being able to clone the actual scene setup. To satisfy production needs we were forced to create a phantom mode that works like temporal view layer, to explore scene setup.
3 Likes
Well, after 2 months of production, video is finally ready.
6 Likes
@1D_Inc Having you “fight” for layers and snapping tools is a guarantee that one day we will have something really powerful in this blender area 
A lot of the problems mainly come from two decisions that make things very complex to manage. Much more so then in other 3D applications.
- The ability to have the same object in multiple Collections. Not to mention hierarchy related issues with this.
- Merging rendering & scene management in one setup, aka the View Layer.
I do like the way Collections makes a ‘standardized’ way of Collecting objects inside a scene into one convenient ‘package’, especially for linking or appending, but for a lot of users it became the preferred way of organizing the scene. Which is wrong imho, and I think the ‘Scene’ should be default in the Outliner on startup. Not the view layer.
CAD based models with tons of hierarchies is a good example why the Scene should be default.
Even for a experienced 3d user it makes a confusing combo of scene management & Collections for grouping (and unfortunately… rendering)
For splitting & rendering out your scene, most applications split out the scene (organisation) and render setups. Yes, there is overlap, but they are mostly separate identities.
It makes for a much cleaner organisation, especially in larger groups.
I applaud your work and video, but it only shows me the flaws in the current system, and another addon should not be the way to go here.
The Collections concept should be revised to make it less confusing and more manageable.
For now, it’s all over the place, and a bit of a mess.
Hi.
This was called as Cumulativity issue (at 2:48).
This issue consists of several issues, like RTOs that are not stored in a View Layer, which is also part of RTOs relationships complexity issue, and so on.
Basically, current Collections realization is a system that consists of issues and problems that are in some kind of weird balance.
Yes, it was discussed there as well, in Grouping tread.
Thank you. I made this video to have the ability to show and explain that flaws to developers. Also,
Such basic systems as hierarchical/management systems should never be solved as an addons. We are making addon as a prototype because of despair.
Undoubtedly.
But direct conversations with devs didn’t brought the result - hierarchical issues are always hard to explain. Much harder than “cloth sculpting brush” issues.
Therefore, we are trying to make proper explanations of the disadvantages of the current system and to design possible solutions.
As an addon, we are very limited, but we are doing our best.
3 Likes
Hi,
I agree on all parts, even the part that is is - really, really - hard to address these things with the devs.
It’s also my opinion that things like the outliner should be a task for the in-house developers, not just one guy, who is doing this as a GSOC project.
Don’t get me wrong, I salute Nate for all his hard work, - and - willingness to listen to the users.
Otherwise we would still be stuck in 2.80 Outliner country… 
1 Like
Hi, Collection Manager dev here. 
Yes, this adds greater flexibility, and so a greater chance of misuse, but I think this isn’t necessarily a problem and in some situations it might be useful.
I actually think the collection/view layer paradigm works pretty well. Yes, there are some problems with the implementation, but the overall idea, I think, is a good one. If you think about it, it makes sense to allow stuff to operate on a whole collection, whether for scene setup or rendering, and it’s also nice to have the ability to have multiple configurations for scene setup (and this is essential for rendering). In the end, you want an encompassing “layer” for both scene management and rendering, and since the toggles can live happily side by side I don’t see a problem combining the two. You could separate them out into Scene Layers and Render Layers, but I think this adds needless complexity. I will say that the Restriction Toggles are not presented in the clearest and most efficient manner and could do with some improvement, and their tooltips could certainly use some work (as indicated by two separate patches currently sitting in the tracker), but overall I think they do an okay job.
I will say that grouping should not be handled by collections, but by actual groups, and this whole issue could definitely use work.
I’ll agree that for some things it would be much easier/better to have them as default in blender, but for a lot of things the Collection Manager does very well. And, of course, a default implementation could have better visual indicators of states and stuff like that (however, it is possible to draw everything yourself in OpenGL from an addon, so technically adding better visual indicators is not impossible. It would be a lot of work and quite possibly not a good idea, but it’s not impossible). Even if everything were added to the Outliner I would still want a collection managing popup in the 3D View. And for things like QCD, I think it wouldn’t be done much differently for default blender (they might even do it as an addon).
I will agree, though, that in principal, the basics should not have to be solved by addons from outside the main development team.
Well, I’m not despairing yet!
And an addon gives us a wonderful playground for testing out and designing advanced management systems which can then, potentially, be added to blender (at the very least there will be a battle tested reference of what we want, that we can point to).
Well, devs have a lot on their plate, and while that doesn’t mean they’re perfect, or can’t be annoying at times , we should remember that and try to cut them a little bit of slack.
From reading through this thread, and others like it, there seems to have been lots of discussion on why improvements are needed or that things are “a bit of a mess”, but less concrete discussion of exactly what’s needed and how it should behave. As a developer, I may not always understand at first why something is needed, but if I’m told clearly how something should behave, it helps.
Of course sometimes the devs just don’t get it/agree with us, and there’s not much we can do about that.
The QCD system actually came about because I was reading this thread and I knew that the devs weren’t understanding what @1D_Inc was talking about, but I did, and I knew that it could be solved as an addon and would incorporate well with the Collection Manager, so I made a prototype and we developed it into something wonderful.
I wouldn’t say that we are very limited in what we can do. There are limitations, but I think we have done very well so far. I have seen some truly amazing things done by addons, so I would say that the skill level of the developer is more important than whether it’s an addon.
2 Likes
Nice example here can be Group Pro addon, that adds such desired common groups, but makes files unusable without that addon. That’s why common groups realization is important - it spreads as a virus because of popularity, forcing you to buy this add-on when you meet the scene where it was used.
And that is nice! But I was talking about our company.
For example, as a project manager I working with lots of talent artists, which can make beautiful visualizations, but make a mess even with a limit of 20 layers. The problem is that now they have an infinite ability to spoil the scene. That’s why between mess and limitations business always chooses a limitations.
Collection Manager addon is a miracle.
But the problem is that building a business taking into account the likelihood of miracles is quite difficult)
We’ve spent too much time and efforts trying to explain issues of a system,
and faced with complete despair at the end, before you started this addon.
I would never have thought that what it was doing would be possible, it is truly amazing.
Thank you so much for this!
3 Likes
That is the main feature of this system
True, cumulativity is one of the features of the collection system.
As well as there were no presented proper tools for handling it.
Cumulativity has come from 2.7 layers and groups (2.7 grouping system is actually a tagging system, not a grouping system), so presenting it to a static context systems is quite experimental.
So there are no examples of tools that can properly handle it for static context separation across the industry. This is a gap in management tools concepts, it is not known whether such tools can even exist.
It is not a problem to handle cumulativity in 20 layers, or incorporeal (with no RTOs) tagging system, but when cumulative objects are scattered across 200 collections, this begins to be a serious problem.
3 Likes
Interesting. Yes, groups should definitely have a proper default implementation.
Ah ok. I wasn’t sure who you were talking about so I decided I’d just add my view to the conversation.
Yep, everything’s perfect until you add people into the mix.
Interesting.
Of course. You can’t depend on miracles. Nor should you have to.
I just try to tell it like it is and make things that are flexible and work well. And I’m not just fishing for more compliments, although they are, and always have been, appreciated. 
1 Like
Speaking about limitations in business - it depends on business scale.
For example, AAA gamedev have very cruel naming conditions, textures type and models quality restrictions, otherwise it will be impossible to control all that content, that generates this industry properly.
The entire BIM in architectural industry is build around limitations and restrictions, so you can’t create whatever you want anymore, like in regular modeling - everything is structurized there by default, to avoid structural mess.
And so on.
2 Likes
Current common groups realization discussions I found:
@RobWu I know, I’m just another dev that doesn’t get it. Either that or you agree with everything I said. 
So tell me, why should an object not be allowed in multiple collections at the same time? And why is it better to have two disparate systems for scene setup and rendering rather than one unified system?
What are the advantages with your proposed behavior? (I am mostly unfamiliar with 3D software other than Blender)
And let’s forget grouping for now and say that for the purposes of this discussion blender doesn’t have a grouping system (at least not a proper one).
2 Likes
We found that there is no way to isolate/turn off collections of selected objects, which is a common feature needed to work with an infinite number of entities in a dynamic context (operating with objects without lists and names).
For example, isolate or turn off collections of trees and cars by selecting single tree and car.
This feature is proposed to a Collection Manager addon.
2 Likes
The ability to select collections objects is proposed to Collection Manager.
Latest version with the ability to select collections and detect selection is available in CM tread.
1 Like
Select up addon, written by my friend, allow to grow selection up to its Collection’s hierarchical structure.
Video Demo
2 Likes