I’m not gonna keep warning people
- Stop making it personal
- Review the code of conduct once more, since it didn’t register last time i’ll quote the appropriate section :
3 Likes
@Alberto you seem to imply that being abrasive is OK since it gets you results, I have had conversations with you in the past that the choice of words you use gets you in the trouble you are seemingly once more in. I recommend once more that you adjust your behavior in this regard so you’ll have a better time in our community, not everything has to be a battle…
1 Like
Well if I assumed incorrectly I apologize, but to be honest I think it’s more than a little crazy how convenient it is that you’re always here complaining anytime I happen to drop by.
As long as you realize just how ridiculous your attitude is, that’s all I’m trying to let you know, without breaking the niceness rules around here.
1 Like
Changes always forms feedback.
Observations of a local communities shown that sometimes due to changes people loosing the speed, the ability to work in program, or even the ability to do regular work. In such cases feedback often is just an explosive, because people are roasted.
Well, yes, it’s hard to avoid hot takes when you wait a long time for the ability to do the job)
LazyDodo. I would love to, but as I explained in the initial message, I was constructive here for 3 years and it only served me to be lied by someone a few weeks ago on the subject in question so that I could not contribute to it. On the other hand, I just created the topic and suddenly someone listened to my prayers.
So it is difficult to try to be constructive, as you understand.
Ok let me be more blunt, please cease your abrasive behavior, it’s not OK regardless of your justifications for it.
1 Like
As you can see in this thread I have not responded to anyone like that until that person has literally come in to attack me personally.
Not ok.
Not ok.
Not ok
None of those ways are great ways of interacting with the community, sure some of those may have been provoked by others (which is naturally also not OK) but that does not excuse the behavior displayed.
That being said, lets stay on topic and not derail this thread any further, I think I was clear in my guidance on what is expected of everyone.
1 Like
Though this thread started with a bit aggressive behavior, I do believe this is the topic to think over. There are actually many critical user feedbacks here on the devtalk website, but most of them are just being abandoned.
- Take ‘‘sidebar tabs should never shrink, scroll instead’’ thread for an example. Many people claimed this cricital usability problem for many years and no improvements were done since.
- Some non-Alphabetical mother language users made a patch and tried to implement IME(Input method editor, on Windows) to type their own languages. However core developers just doesn’t seem to be interested and the patch is literally abandoned.
I’m sure there should be some more. Blender developers are currently focusing on something like Cycles X, animation features, library overrides, which of course is important. However some user feedback on critical usability needs to gain more attention. Not only animation studios developers are having meetings with are the most important. Things like ‘‘Expandable datablock input’’ which was requested from one animation studio were taken into account rather quickly, in contrast to many user feedbacks.
I just wanted to point out that developers’ interest is not the only important task.
3 Likes
literally not a single 2.79 feedback on UI/UX has been taken into account. The entire interface was changed and not a single improvement requested by users for 2.79 was integrated. Not one except changing the right click.
2 Likes
That is not true. The changes of 2.8 refactor have been requested by 2.5,2.6,2.7 users.
For example, tabs for workspaces was a request in famous Andrew Price’s video.
Many other ideas that William put in 2.8 design came from a feedback (new toolbar, more gizmos in 3D view, multi-object editing etc,…) .
The design was build from discussions with artists from UI team.
IMO, problem was that discussion about the design with the rest of the community was locked before 2.80 launch by following argument : “idea has to be experimented before being rejected.”
From 2.80 to 2.82, community feedback was taken into account to reject some ideas and to polish some features.
And since 2.83, user feedback is only accepted for new stuff that will end up in future releases.
Because some basics of 2.8 design are problematic but should be solved by future additions, like Asset Browser, completing the design.
Since 2.91, more and more people are complaining about UX/UI.
Blender Developers reacted to that when they announced their roadmap for 2021.
There will be a UI workshop.
I agree that 2.8 UI has big problems. Some of changes made broke some people workflows or are annoying them a lot.
An unlimited amount of Collections can not be treated like a limited amount of layers.
I agree that a system of visibility tags would be more satisfying than current solution based on collection indices that does not handle nested collections.
I am very annoyed by Adjust Last Operation panel stuck to left bottom corner.
I have the impression that my right hand is tied to left corner of my screen, although my mouse/tablet is still at the right of my keyboard. A kind of brain illusion producing physical exhaustion.
It looks like other people are annoyed the same way by the lost of workspaces list that could be placed at the bottom right of UI in 2.79.
I complained a lot about brushes management. I think that everybody is currently working around the issue by using addons.
Viewport Display management have kind of same problems. A huge amount of settings scattered in 3 different places, new changes that should offer more customization and absence of presets.
…
There are as many problems as new features introduced during last 3 years.
That will take years to bring solutions.
I hope that some solutions will be there for Blender 3.0 after UI workshop.
But I have no illusion. All problems will not be solved.
That being said. I think it is coherent that nothing huge happens until UI workshop.
Blender 2.93 will be released, next week.
Geometry Nodes were introduced in 2.92. Asset Browser is expected for Blender 3.0.
UI devs will simply not have time until Blender 3.0 to do more.
I simply hope that UX/UI will be the priority of Blender 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.
4 Likes
Yes, sometines it looks like Blender developers stopped believing in Blender approach they used to develop.
The design was made too fast, applied during features hype, so it took some years to community to sober and realise that someting is broken at the very basics.
2 Likes
Blender, a DCC that is a widely used multitasker, capable of doing many things, but has massive problems when doing focused tasks, due to mesh lags with high poly meshes and others.
I would say that most focused/relevant/used things in blender are (workwise):
Architectural Visualisation
Modelling (general purpose, game, movie[high poly issues]
Sculpting
Texturing (mostly shaders and limited bitmap)
Animating
To me all of these workflows need to be supported as that is the main userbase, any change that potentially changes anything in a said workflow needs to have a open discussion with the goal to fix problems and alleviate potential issues.
It should also accept a lot of the user feedback because the Blender Studios is not the only userbase using the program ( in my opinion - reason why the right click topic was such a long ongoing subject that has finally been changed after hard work and sweat from the community - community outcries are sometimes a good indicator that one will make more problems than fix them).
However here’s the point where it gets a bit muddy as to what gets into blender core,
on one hand we have some area’s that get neglected (like arcviz with its specific requirements) which require time and effort to implement/fix which have been used for a long time,
then on the other hand some features make it into the main build that take up some resources to review and integrate (which could be used for more critical area’s like ArchViz) get incorporated in the core blender without it having a wide(or has a small one) userbase - here i’m talking about Grease pencil (i’m aware that GPencil was implemented by a community user if i remember correctly).
Personally i’ve never used it, i wont ever use it, its great that its implemented so that others can create content with, but my gripe is that other area’s like archviz which are a much longer player in all of this and is much more important weight wise get either shafted/postponed/pushed for later. (from what i read on the forum)
Now i’m not into archviz that much, i’ve tried it a bit and i can tell you that its very frustrating to do anything with the broken/incomplete snapping system that is from the ages of Moses and the “ark of ideas”, and i have to use the CAD like movement addon to get anything done without me ripping out my hair out of frustration.
This is mostly objective (reading the forums and old posts and observing what things turned into) + my own workflow tackle
1 Like
Well, the problem us that to make any kind of a sustainable modeling workflow, like archviz/CAD or full-cycle gamedev you have to be a workflow designer - you have to observe, investigate and perform a wide range of workflows to make a sustainable design that take into account all the critical industry nuances to satisfy.
To design a sustainable GP animation or sculpting workflows you have to be fluent in 2d animation and sculpting.
It is hard, but it is possible.
To implement Blender at corporate level we made several toolsets to enhance CAD abilities of Blender.
Here is an example of some of them.
So it is possible to achieve even without disturbing core developers, and we does it.
But it is not possible to achieve when the core design contain issues that contradicts the ability to work in the software even at wireframe design and mesh selection levels.
1 Like
Uh yes, i’ve seen these video’s and i think those are brilliant (maybe one day it will support 2.8/9+ hopefully 
), i’ve also read the Wireframe topic (the wireframe is a pain to use to see anything clearly).
I’m not using Blender for very long, only since 2.8 have i actually start to use it, creating things randomly how i feel like that day, so basically im kinda new to modelling for like a year max.
Despite my lack of experience in the software in question i can say that there are large issues which i have stumbled upon by just working or trying to work efficiently (snapping system being one of them).
So i as a new guy hit a lot of workflow walls because blender sometimes is a special snowflake for no reason, i cant imagine what kind of a wall veteran players hit.
So its kinda baffling how some of the issues are dragging themselves for so long through versions without being fixed 
Well, I think that to make blender compatible with CADwork workflows you need an experienced engineer, but it is generally hard to find an engineer that will prioritize Blender core design (a wide range workflow approach) over CAD design, who will try to enhance existing core design without trying to turn it to something like autocad or sketchup he familiar with.
Every time we design CAD toolsets based on archviz industry requirements they grow massive, and it is painfully hard to concentrate it to the minimalistic form that covers critical needs, to be compatible with core design level.
However, from the other side such a deity allow to see and observe the most critical core design issues that blocks the abilities to perform CADwork.
1 Like
Yes, it’s true. Andrew rice asked for a lot of changes that the community rejected outright. He asked for changes in blender that left the program at the level of a toy. He didn’t even ask for workspace tabs, he basically copied the max ribbon.
The active tools were already in development before the codequest, we could test the master version with these changes in 2.79 with the T-shelf, everybody was very happy with the implementation.
I don’t know with which artist it was discussed, in case it happened I have clear that it was behind the scenes and in closed meetings. Although in reality I don’t think anyone was asked because I doubt very much that anyone talked to any artist about removing the wireframe mode and they were not horrified. To the point that this was hidden from the community, even when asked about it (this was already from my perspective the proof that the user was not counted on for absolutely nothing).
Nobody asked for any toolbar. I know this because the blender toolbar (the current toolshelf) was proposed by me during the codequest, because no one knew what to do with the topbar and devs was thinking to remove it and forget it.
But I can say that the community was desperately asking for it and the requests were in the hundreds in the forums.
- Improve the T-shelf tabs
- Better perfomance
- Allow to join editors in the same space by tabs.
- popUp to select brushes
- Some cleanup of the panels
- Modifiers in list form
- Stats in the viewport
- Simplify the interface (the famous blender101)
These were basically the constant, but daily, feedback requested by all users. With a big difference from the rest of the requests. And all of them were ignored.
1 Like
That is something that has been commented many times, and it is in part the origin of the problem, that the blender foundation only seems to listen to blender studio and ignores many problems of other workflows because it does not know them.
The case of modeling I think is the most obvious, if blender is imposed to the rest of programs is in modeling. And if it is spreading in all the industry is because of the modeling. Many people use blender for many different things, but almost everyone uses it is for modeling and then if they can extend its functionality with blender or if not they move to another program to finish the job. And modeling has been without relevant improvements and without a project for 5 years, basically just maintained. Considering that in the same period of time we have seen an incredible amount of changes in all of blender.
The case of performance is also the most obvious, 4 years have passed to finally try to solve part of the problem.
- Editing highpoly models
- Slow subdivision
- Working scenes with many objects
This is also an example of the problem. In the codequest the developers were repeatedly warned that none of this was taking into account any of the performance and problems they were having when supposedly the core of the program was being rewritten to a large extent. And the developers, who didn’t seem to understand what we users were referring to, replied that obviously performance was a fundamental part of the codequest.
Time showed that it was not important, that it was not considered in the way it was asked for and that solving some of the problems now was very complicated due to architectural decisions during the codequest.
I think this is one of the fundamental problems, that the foundation does not understand what the user really does and sometimes some proposals are evaluated with eyes that do not understand the proposals in detail, they only get general ideas.
5 Likes
To me it feels like we need a community feedback collector or something similar, one that collects all relevant suggestions, makes a list and brings the attention to the developers to said list, would be great if that also included organised community resources, like organizing coding quests with the community as programmers if the main developers cant make them