That is not true. Because with multicolumn you don’t need to scan anything you can learn the patterns of the UI and identify the shapes.
You only need to scan the text in single column, because all interface have the same design.
Was the main problem in 2.80, that before you selected directly what you needed and now you need to search everytime that you want to change any ■■■■■■■ parameter. The problem is so clear that the next improvement in UI will be add a search field in editor properties.
Precisely! With just a few array modifiers, it feels like endlessly scrolling and clicking/expanding tabs
This is true and in my research when i was studying for some professional exams,I was scanning books and converting the text to pdf but with an endless flow and no layout. There have been studies that show studying from a laid out texbook, where you can recall the area in the layout the key information your are looking for is much better than in a kindle/single column endless scroll type of layout.
But if the UI is fluid, and the width of a single column could be adjusted then we can all be happy.
Apply button should be exposed too
That picture is representative of a usercase that does not exist.
Nobody needs to open all sub-panels of an Array modifier.
You never need to expose 3 types of Offsets because you never use 3 types of Offsets for the same modifier.
In practice, you don’t adjust UVs at same moment that you focus on generating more geometry.
It is true that you have extra clicks to open/close subpanels.
You organize your stack to expose important settings. And then, you don’t open/close anything during a long moment until a need to reorganize stack happens.
Subpanels, here, are clearly helping to avoid some scrolling.
So, a fair comparison between 2.83 and 2.90 layout should be something like that.
The modifier only displaying useful settings while modeling does not take more space.
Another example with Bevel modifier.
This modifier is long in 2.83 whatever setting you want to tweak.
But in 2.90, only hiding shading settings is sufficient to make it as long.
In 2.83, if you use a custom profile; you can’t close profile curve. You have to close the whole modifier.
But with 2.90 layout, you can minimize a lot modifier size and free space to tweak settings of another modifier.
You can tweak some settings of bevel modifier and settings of another one. Without closing/opening the whole modifier or scrolling at each change.
If you neglect issues that should be solved by proposed recent patches, the idea that layout in master is worst to work with multiple modifiers does not resist to reality.
By removing row of buttons repeated in each modifier, HooglyBoogly made us gain space for useful settings.
Layout of 2.83 has flaws that are visible with Mirror Modifier.
HooglyBoogly did not strictly follow a one line per label / per option / per slider.
Line of Merge setting has 3 elements in one row.
He made us gain space for a third modifier.
So contrary to what is suggested by Alberto picture, each modifier of 2.90 has a proper shape, with a proper amount of settings and a unique grouping.
Those modifiers can be recognized. It is normal to be a little bit lost, now.
But it is because those shapes are new. I am sure that is just a matter of time to get used to them.
I asked developers to let 2 columns layout for modifiers, at early state of 2.8.
And they respected that and made 1 column layout for all the other tabs of Properties editor.
I am not a fan of grid layout. And since 2.5, I asked for a 2 column layout of panels.
But a multi-column layout of panels means that layout inside panels corresponds to 1 column of settings.
So, there is no reason to oppose a resistance to proposed layout if you want multi-column layout for all tabs of Properties Editor.
Because 2.83 modifiers tab is the current last obstacle to that.
You’re wrong it affects your speed in finding the right settings and if you increase the size of the UI like i do then one modifier takes up the whole area and increases the scrolling.
Some setting need to be double column while others can be put in subpanels like the custom profile you mentioned.
The previous layout was fast & practical, you have to see it from a modeler perspective not a developer and that’s the issue, the new layout for certain modifiers hinders the user experience and makes it twice slow as before that’s why we need the double column with as much options exposed,.
This is something that bothers me about all the reorderable panels (properties stuff too).
The unconstrained motion doesn’t tell the user that they’re just reordering things vertically.
Also, the further things are dragged to the left, the harder it is to tell where they’ll “land” when you release. It’s more of a problem with properties panels than modifiers because they don’t have a visually distinct separation like modifiers do, but still.
It almost makes it feel like I can “mess up” somehow. Like if I accidentally let go of the panel when it’s not horizontally aligned, it’ll create a floating window, or disappear. Of course, it won’t do that, but experience with other programs makes it feel that way.
I am a modeler. I took time to give in depth feedback about each modifier, here.
Settings are grouped under a common logic.
Subpanels have a label that is supposed to be meaningful for user.
If you simply read those labels, you should find settings easily.
That is principle behind adoption of one column layout and subpanels.
Users, that are jumping from one production on Blender to one production on Maya to another on Blender, were the ones who complained about forgetting where options were localized.
There is a population of users that are forgetting shapes that Alberto mentioned.
That is why 2.8 UI is trying to organize things with clear titles and readable labels.
They complained about an UI that was not easy to scan.
So, that statement was denied by several people.
I am not against a second column exposing more settings.
All my comments are about being able to display a second column.
But a second column of modifiers panels, not a second column of settings inside modifier.
One layout is clearly more readable for same amount of displayed settings.
I can see more settings of Array modifier because Advanced subpanel of Subdivision modifier is closed.
Honestly, if I open it, I loose Merge settings of Array modifier and in 2.83, I see more settings.
But I see more settings that are not interesting me.When I am modeling, I am more interested about Cap Start and Cap End objects than UVs sliders.
So 2.90 layout of array modifier is more pertinent.
Seriously, if people accept to have a few subpanels closed, 2.90 layout does not take more space than 2.83 layout.
And in practice, that is really bearable to keep some rarely used options in a closed subpanel.
In space of Properties area in Layout workspace, If you close subpanels, you can see main settings of 6 modifiers opened.
If you take the whole vertical space, and zoom out a little bit, you can display 12 modifiers opened.
But because of repeated Apply/Copy line in 2.83 and incompressible panels, you will have a hard time to display more than 10.
And the gain is increasing relatively to number of columns, you add.
People are remembering 2.79 UI to complain about 2.8 single layout. But they are not realizing how much number of settings was increased in 2.8.
Even with a 2 column layout inside all panels of properties, subpanels or many more panels than in 2.79 would be necessary.
Which ones ?
I already gave my feedback and I think that will be hard to be more efficient.
But if you have ideas, be precise. Give explanation modifier by modifier or make mock-ups.
I hope that Hans recent patches will be quickly reviewed and merged in master.
That would avoid parasite outdated complaints.
If you have a squished interface as shown in your screenshot then yes, one column makes sense. However, the default UI and they way I’ve seen most people work is that the properties/outliner right-hand area is typically much wider in order to be able to see the outliner elements, etc…
If we take the default layout and work with it, then a single column layout wastes too much space.
Having a 3ds max-like dual column overall modifier UI is a big different step for Blender’s current UI is a different step which may be difficult to create with Blender’s generally fluid UI windows framework - it is much more flexible in adjusting the ui than max/maya.
A fluid one/two/even three columns just for the actual modifier/anything else in the properties makes sense to display more in less real estate. Keep the column narrow, it’s one column, widen it up, UI subelements become two columns.
I model more than anything else like rendering/etc in Blender and hence why I feel it’s so important to have more exposed of the UI in less space, ideally with less clicks as well.
No, the gain is not limited to multiple columns.
It exists because some subpanels are closed and that can be perceived with default one column layout, too.
That is what I showed, here.
No, it is not. Now, all tabs of Properties editor (except constraints tab) has a single column layout.
So, the step to have that is just about 2 points :
What I am struggling to make you understand is that UI in master is exposing more settings useful for modeling by hiding settings less useful for modeling.
Those relative to shading are grouped into Shading subpanels, for example.
While you are modeling, does it really annoy you that Array modifier has a closed UVs subpanel by default ?
Does it really annoy you that Bevel modifier has a closed Shading subpanel by default ?
Does it really annoy you that Mirror modifier has a closed Data subpanel by default ?
Does it really annoy you that Edge Split, Mask, Remesh, Skin, Triangulate, Weld, Curve, Laplacian Deform, Lattice, Smooth, Laplacian Smooth modifiers are shorter in 2.90 layout because of Apply/Duplicate in menu ?
I remind that there is a patch to provide Shift D & Ctrl A shortcuts for those operations.
And one to restore Delete button.
Screw, Solidify, Wireframe, Wave, Ocean modifiers are a lot longer in new layout when they are used.
Those modifiers need to be expanded when they are set-up.
But when all of their subpanels are closed ; they are shorter or about same size as in 2.83.
That represents only 5 modifiers. And, except Solidify modifier, most of them are rarely used and involved in a long stack of modifiers.
All the rest of modifiers have a length that is similar in Hans layout than in 2.83.
With new layout, in few cases, you will loose space but in other few cases, you will gain space.
And in most of cases, there is no difference.
Most of extra clicks due to subpanels opening/closing are a lot faster than equivalent scrolling.
If 2 clicks to hide 2 subpanels are sufficient to hide enough settings to display one modifier more, you may avoid some “back & forth” scrolling or several closing/opening of a modifier that has settings, you want to expose.
I don’t have sense to make that comparision with a clear bias. It is like fooling yourself, because obviously no one talks about it.
Virtually no one in blender uses two columns of the property editor because it is impossible to use, messy and pointless.
I have done two proposals for the panel header
My opinion is that are people thinking that Grid Flow layout is not messy that are fooling themselves.
That is the reason why it was mostly not used in current UI.
A multicolum layout is used in many other 3D software.
I concede that my attempts to show that at same area, you can display more setting could seem totally ridiculous. But if you have more width at disposal for that, you will use it.
Anybody with two screens would use a multicolumn layout for properties editor.
If you use one window displaying 3D viewport and a secondary window displaying Properties Editor like I do.
That would be welcomed.
I don’t think that grid flow is what we are talking about.
I don’t dislike the idea of the grabbing icon on the left, but in both cases what happened to the arrow for collapsing the modifier? Would it happen by clicking on the icon? And in the 2nd proposal, the text field would appear only when clicking for editing the text?
In both cases I have proposed a somewhat disruptive concept. The subject of the arrow is unnecessary, the panel is explicit enough about what it shows or not, the arrow does not provide any information (in many software it is omitted).
And the text, why should the text box be run? it is necessary? Any interface allows you to edit a text that is not necessarily a text box, at least in the header (could be expose in the panel)
Obviously you have to see if blender allows something like this, because the API for the interface is not very extensive in functions, as they say. But a way appears to me to solve the situation.
I read that someone suggested using hotkeys. I will offer my version of hotkeys.
In order to use a hotkey you need to place the cursor on the desired modifier and click the hotkey.
H - collapse / expand modifier options
A - Apply modifier
D - Duplicate modifier
Del (or backspace) - Remove modifier
In order to conveniently move the modifiers up/down to one/several positions I suggest a method. Grab the modifier by the handle to move, then press the up/down arrow on the keyboard one or more times, then the modifier will move up / down one or more times.
Such hotkeys can be clicked randomly, and it may be a mystery for beginners what happens to their modifiers, so maybe you need to make this optional - enable / disable hotkeys in the settings. Or not.
If someone suggested something very similar or the same, then I apologize, I had no opportunity to read the whole thread.
@So3Datel Shortcuts for modifiers will already be implemented in the next days (if not hours), with x for deleting, ctrl+a for applying and shift+d for duplicating. Also a shortcut for exanding/collapsing would be cool though.
It could be a nice addition, but I wouldn’t put it as a replacement for the drag and drop. And for this I think you shouldn’t even click on the handle: just press the arrows when on top of the modifier.
@Alberto While I agree with you on getting rid of the text field, I think that a visual cue for expanding/collapsing the modifier is needed. Also, It makes the UI less consistent, considering that every dropdown menu, panel or subpanel in blender has arrows.
Well, then could be changed the points to grab by the arrow.
Here’s for example the multires…with my mockup based on the old one is much cleaner & there is even more room for any additional options(I already added “Delete lower”) and stil have room for 3 extra buttons.
New mockup
That’s the problem things need to be a quick access because open each subpanel and scrolling to find the most used options is wasting time & everybody know that once you open subpanel you’ll keep it open not going to track back and close each one.
Blender should care about Blender users first before thinking about “the others”, if other softwares are slow doesn’t mean Blender have to follow their steps and organizing things sometimes works against the user experience more than you think just like the mock up above.
You’re very disrespectful because Complains driver improvements & if you don’t like ours then best shut up & move along.
To me, 2column-layout inside panel, Grid Flow layout or multicolumn of panels layout are all solutions trying to maximize display of biggest amount of settings on screen.
To me, that is the same subject : finding solutions to allow to see more settings, distributed in more panels, at once.
I think that multicolumn layout is the solution ; that keeps things ordered in the most easy to scan way.
Ordered columns are what I miss.
When column 0 is full, blender starts to fill column 1. When column 1 is filled → fill column 2.
All my images are ugly because there is a panel split, one part in one column and the other part in another one.
If we have a way to split properties editor that avoids split panels ; it would be lot less annoying than current solution of 2 properties editor.
I am forced to do that, when I want to set-up physics. When my modifier stack is long ; and I need to tweak, at same time, 2 modifiers that are distant. Specially, when one is so big ; that he is almost filling the entire space. There is a real need for being able to display more settings.
Multicolumn layout is the way that does not destroy recognizable shape inside the panel.
So, it is the way that keeps marks known by user. Grid Flow layout is used in Relations panel of Object tab.
But anywhere else, it was not added or was removed ; because it destroys marks of users (shape of panel and ordering of settings).
Generally, I don’t have a long modifier stack. Most of times, I don’t need more than 1 column. But in some cases, I would have to organize my workspace to show 2 or 3 columns.
That is not a question of beautiful UI against an ugly one. That is a question of speed.
I will not lose time scrolling if I have width at disposal to avoid that, just because one column is less ugly.
If a multi column layout proposed by dimitar is accepted, I would appreciate it.
But a double column of settings inside panels + a multi column of panels would require too much width to stay readable.
I tested left aligned text UI made by brita. That is allowing to reduce width of a column and a little bit its length ; but that does not solve problem of split panels when using 2 columns.
Nobody disagrees that multires modifier is not satisfying.
@erickblender complained about that, 11 days ago.
And just after, I proposed a better grouping of settings for it.
I can defense Hans, here.
Because when he tried that ; he did not really know what Pablo will continue to add to modifier.
As you said, a Delete Lower button will be added. So that modifier will continue to evolve until 2.90 release.
So that is an exception.
You can’t disqualify all general choices made for modifier stack just because of that exception.
And if you want to be fair, you have to concede that your mock-up is not shorter and you re-employed Advanced subpanel.
So, you are implicitly validating choice of using subpanels.
We are agreeing. I think that some subpanels should be open by default when modifier is added.
Relative Offset of Array modifier, Profile of Bevel modifier, Restrictions of Simple Deform, FallOff of Warp, Time of Wave, Waves of Ocean.
That is a weird statement.
IMO, if you are not too much tired, and feel that you need space to display more settings : you will close subpanels, the same way, you are, currently, closing an entire modifier panel.
Only difference is that now, you have ability to close only a part of modifier instead of the entire modifier.
I am not mentioning users of other communities, here.
Freelancers ; that are doing some productions on Maya, some on C4D, some on 3DSmax and other ones on Blender ; are doing productions on Blender. They are belonging to Blender Community.
Often, they don’t decide on which software, studio is forcing them to work on.
Theirs difficulties have to be taken into account like difficulties of any other member of community.
I qualified an outdated or invalid complaint as a parasite, not the author of complaint.
