I’ve seen this question go unanswered in other places, so I figured I should ask it here.
I don’t like 2.8’s UI redesign for many reasons, so I was wondering if there are (or if there can be) any plans to allow older users to use the old UI.
It’s not clear the future of the new “tool settings” area, but probably you could do something similar with it and if we can remove or hide topbar and statusbar.
Maintaining two UI’s would not be managable for the Blender developers.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, there are many other bad changes in 2.8.
I think the original plan was to have multiple UIs for different users, did that change?
It is highly unlikely that you can get the 2.7x UI back within 2.8x. It would be a pretty massive effort and with the many functional changes, you wouldn’t be able to get the exact 2.7x UI anyways.
I believe that the majority of people agrees that 2.8’s UI is an improvement from 2.7. Blender is becoming more user friendly and organized like never before, which is good. I think having two UIs doesn’t make sense. Perhaps is just a matter of getting used to it? Same happened with the transition 2.4 -> 2.5…
But yeah, everyone is different…
Cheers…
The UI is extremelly different now but…
I have no conpaints if I can work at full screen, with no button visible and unchanged shortcuts.
And of course, my computer must handle blender.
I think that 2.8 somewhat hurts the workflow we had in 2.7 because it’s trying to appeal to new users. It also makes some unnecessary, and sometimes bad, changes in order to appear more “modern”.
I will admit, though, that the changes planned for the new UI fix most of its problems, but there is still more that should be changed.
Sure…
Can you please give me an example of what workflow that you had that is being hurt?
Try to just hide an object using ‘H’… Can’t, you must create a collection, move the object to the collection and then go to the outliner to hide the collection. Same to unhide.
Actually Blender2.8 don’t show 90% of the tools and parameters… but… for example
- Layers shorcut
- wireframe shorcut
I should have been more specific on my question… The things Jean and Alberto said are changes that are still actively being worked on and therefore can still change, they are not definitive changes. We should be giving our feedback instead of ripping our hairs out unless they explicitly say that they will NOT do whatever it is that the community is requesting, or implement something similar. A couple weeks ago some people (me included) even thought that they were not implementing Wireframe in object mode whatsoever, but they did, in their own way, in some ways better (colored wireframe) and some ways worse (no direct shortcut to exchange to wire view), but it still being worked on and improved… and it’s our feedback that can convince them.
Well, Bretch already said on another topic that Hiding on a per-object basis is something that they are working on and actively trying to find a design solution that will please users and that works together with Collections.
You can give your feedback here, the topic is not locked yet:
The shortcuts are the same, so it’s less visual clutter for the advanced user, and for the basic user the options are better organized (in my opinion) in nested buttons on the interface, so you have more workspace area at all times to work with. Parameters are something that they are working on, so we cannot judge yet, but there were talks of putting them on the properties tab in a dedicated subsection. Ps: the F6 shortcut still works for primitives.
Like I said above, they are working on it, therefore we cannot judge something which we cannot test yet…
Here’s a quote by Brecht:
Brecht already covered this question:
My question was more along the lines of:
"Regarding changes that are currently NOT being actively worked on on 2.8 (that we know of), what are the ones that you consider affect negatively your workflow from 2.79".
I won’t argue… But the solutions applied to the layers are not as useful as the blender2.79 hotkeys. And the wireframe has been a response to user criticism, which was not initially raised.
Your question doesn’t make any sense, because everything is in development and what a week ago was something clear that I was going to have blender2.8 this week turns out to be a failure and have had to retract.
Let’s keep criticizing, otherwize they do anything at will with blender.
I will probably want to hide the top and tool bars and never use more than one workspace.
My fear is about new users, besides turning learning curve easier to newbies, it might incentivate that shortcuts aren’t as needed…
Nothing against clicking on buttons but my fear is that blender comunity will slowly loose the capability of working fast due to the lack of use of shotcuts by new users, blender’s workflow might start seem slower and harder than concurrents by the eye of possible new users.
I hope I’m wrong.
blender 2.7:
Blender 2.8
At least that how I feel
Maybe a better solution exists that we don’t know of… that the developers are trying to figure out, but we can enlighten them if we discover it.
What I know is that we only have 10 numbers keys (previously for layers), and now an indefinite amount of collections (which IMO is much better than to be limited to 20 layers)… so I guess you think we should use the same solution as 2.79 and use the 1-0 numbers to the first 10 collections… but maybe there’s a better way? Maybe the 10 number keys are better used for another tool than layers?
I want to know what are the changes that hurt workflow that the devs are apparently not working on, otherwise those changes, if are not clear that they are not pleasing users, will probably be set in stone and shipped with 2.8. I just mean that regarding collections and hiding objects, devs already said they are working on, so I’m saying to not worry too much until we see what are they doing, but let’s not keep feedback to ourselves if we don’t agree with it.
Maybe, maybe, maybe, but I talk about what I see, not what I imagine. That’s why this is a feedback forum
Simple: assign each collection a number key: 1 2 3 4 5 6 … in aphanumeric order based on the collection’s name.
The user can have a collection’s name starting with a number and use that same number to controll the visibility:
|— 0 Chicken
|----|— Chiken_mesh
|— 1 Default Collection
|— 2 Default Collection
|----|— A_object_inside_collection
Pressing 0 toggles the chicken visibility, pressing 2 toggles the collection visibility with a object inside, so on.
Having 20 startup collections named from 0 to 20 will just behave like 2.79 layers.
But of course, no developer will even look at this.
1 Like
It’s then a good thing that the developers (and some users) are using their imagination, because that’s whats necessary for new and better solutions to appear… imagination is the essence of brainstorming. The problem is when a user’s only feedback is “old way was better” but doesn’t agree with the devs reasoning and won’t accept any compromise (not saying that’s your case).
This is a good solution IMO. I’d suggest posting it on the collections visibility topic that I mentioned above 
But let me say about my own expectations: I’m not a guy who changes layers too frequently, so if the devs decide that another tool could use the numbers I’m willing to try their way and see how long would take to adapt. I was not too fond of using the numbers to change Modes (object/edit/weight etc), but apparently they already changed this and we use Tab to change as we are used to.