I have made an approximate representation of how the above described would be distributed on the screen.
It’s about having the minimum Active Tools, three submodes and expose the method.
Active Tools: Sculpt, Transform, Simulate, Colorize, Mask, Hide, Crop, Face Sets, Sample, Annotate.
As in Edit mode I would add three submodes: Brush stroke, Shape Projection, Object affectation. And with 1,2,3 of the keyboard you would quickly access these submodes.
The Methods could be found under a Pie Menu too, on key 4.
There are many gaps, but the basis of the proposal is this.
I’m trying to help disambiguate, I would appreciate you didn’t insult me in return. If I didn’t get it right, there exist a number of ways to say it that are nicer than that.
@wevon this categorization makes sense to me ! so much clearer. Now I think Pablo meant to merge sculpt and paint brushes… so maybe he intended for all these to end up grouped in the same tool. I sculpt mostly for print so I don’t know too much about vertex painting anyway.
Why does the stroke method enum get to sit in the header ? For lack of space maybe ?
To use it as a sub-sub mode, and make the attributes of the tools and presets dependent on this sub-sub mode, but I don’t even see it very clear myself, I think it could stay in the tool settings, but giving it more visibility .
In the ShapeProjection submode I propose, the shape used, should be visible at first sight (rectangular, lasso …) without entering any mode.
Perhaps in the same way that the size of the brush is exposed, the method could be exposed too, and it would be enough.
How are you able to move the gizmo without moving the mesh ?
Are you using an addon ?
There is absolutely no option to reposition the gizmo that way in Sculpt mode.
Except if you mask the whole mesh and hide mask overlay, to do that.
Currently in Sculpt mode, move gizmo is only supposed to move mesh vertices. You don’t have access to Affect Only Origins like in object mode.
And that would be a lot more logical to ask for some thing similar than an ugly trick implying to mask the whole mesh.
I understand that is a problem if you are out of blender standard who is to reposition gizmo by repositioning pivot using a shortcut.
But there is no way to understand that if people are assuming that you are referring to how blender currently works.
And by reading the task, I am sure that developers are understanding the request like me.
The task does not mention the repositioning of pivot. It is only talking about the gizmo.
It is about an animator’s request.
When Pablo added transform tools in Sculpt mode, more than one year ago, he was using shortcuts to reposition pivot. I am saying that, at least, having the same by default, should minimize problem.
But if people are requesting to reposition pivot in Sculpt mode by using gizmo, I am fine with that. But they should say it using the right words.
That’s what I did in the video. But again, while the gizmo disappears while transforming, the transform tools are pretty much unworkable in sculpt mode.
I see nothing wrong with that. Full grown men should be able to handle real talk like that just fine, unless I’m talking with children. If that’s the case then sorry.
And that’s the reason I don’t visit BA anymore. The amount of nonsensical crying and people defending bugs is just too much. I hope this forum don’t get infected by that type of mentality!
In written discussion, words are easily interpreted in a harsher way due to a lack of facial expression, voice intonation and other feedback. All I’m asking is for you to be aware of that. Understanding and acknowledging that is what I expect from a mature person. Thanks.
Now, I get what you are expecting. I see how that simple change would help you.
If Pablo mentioned it, he get it.
But you should not take for granted that developers will add this :
If description of task is not updated to take into account interest in sculpt mode, to have a tool that does not force to mask the whole mesh, first : that means there is no warranty that will be done.
The thing is, if this stuff is not done, then I guess it would be better to just remove the transform tools altogether from the sculpt mode. No point keeping it there if it can’t work as expected.
But please only as an option. On the modern ‘Lowscreen’ monitors vertical space is scarce and I personally much prefer the double-row vertical toolbar to a horizontal one at the bottom.
A horizontal one at the bottom is going to run out of space eventually as well, and then you’d have a double row at the bottom. Which is even worse. I’d even prefer a quadruple vertical row to a double horizontal one I think.
Monitors are getting wider, not taller. But don’t worry, it should be optional of course, even though if I had to choose one, the horizontal would win. (future proof)
I doubt screens will be getting wider faster than tools will be added to the sculpt mode though.
I don’t really understand why the horizontal one would be more futureproof. Vertical space is a lot scarcer. And it’s only getting worse with the ever widening monitors.
To me, the above proposal should be combined with this other proposal by @ThinkingPolygons where we would have just one button on the left vertical toolbar to open a global brush palette.
Then the horizontal toolbar would act like our custom toolbar, where we could add brushes and tools from the global palette, (by right clicking on a brush/tool and send it to there). Sweet.
Yeah, pretty common issue. Happened to zbrush as well. And the way they fixed it was by killing the regular cursor… yeah, zbrush is now shipping with a slightly gigantic cursor by default to accommodate 4k sculpting lol. Maybe blender could do something similar and provide two cursors to choose from… I guess only the cursor master Harley can help here…
Yo @Harleya do you think it would possible now to make blender ship with several more cursors that we can choose from, for the various modes that blender has? I recall you working on a feature like that before… Thx…
Its a bit complex. I might make some detailed comments on that bug report and then link to it from here.
But in a nutshell we (now) have multi-size cursors for Windows (each cursor contains multiple sizes, picked by the OS), vector cursors for Mac (scaled by the OS to any size), but for Linux we still are using our crappy old 16x16 1-bit cursors because we don’t have nicer way to specify better cursors that is common to different distributions… We did have “Large” cursors (32x32x1) in that old format (that worked on many systems) but I was asked to remove that functionality a while ago - even though I did make large versions of each cursor in that shitty format.
So might need a good think and probably not a quick fix.
