Interface Redesign

[lc8b105]

Hi cakeller, I can feel your feeling.

There are 2 paint mode: Per pixel paint and Microvertext paint

There are two sculpt mode: Voxel and surface sculpt

There are even features overlaps in diffrent rooms:

For example there is already surface sculpt in "Sculpt" room, but you can find surface sculpt mode in "Voxels" room too.

There is already a "UV" room, but you can find those UV buttons in "Retopo" room too.

Those things above ususally confuse new users.

Maybe someone will ask, why so complex? Couldn't cut features and make the whole package simple and clean?

OK, let's imagine:

1. Remove "Microvertext paint" and only leave 1 paint mode - Per pixel paint

2. Remove "Sculpt" room and only leave 1 sculpt mode - Voxels

3. Remove those overlap features/buttons in different mode - "Retopo" is retopo, "UV" is UV, you will see no UV buttons in "Retopo" room.

OK, let's imagine further:

Remove all rooms and combine them in one window.

Yeah then you could say 3DC is clean and simple enough.

But is that realistic？ I'm afraid not.

1. Remove features may be not realistic. Especially remove a whole mode something like "Microvertex paint", that may hurt Andrew. You can imagine how much time/energy he spend on creating those features, a whole mode may took years.

2. Remove all rooms and combine them in one window may be not realistic.

Even the tools in "Voxels" room can fill up the screen. If combine those rooms in one window, how can you manage all those buttons? Any good idea? If there is no good idea to manage them in one window, then it is not realistic.

Only my personal opinion. Guys, it's time that you awoke to the realities of the situation. Ideality is good, but it seems that in this topic realistic ideas is much better. Isn't it?

[cakeller]

I don't really see the benefit of having voxels and painting in the same room,I think it would just confuse new users when they can paint on some objects but not others.

but see that's your expertness at 3DC comming through... you expect that limitation.

I agree that for newbies it's important to make it OBVIOUS what you can and can't do. But rooms is not, IMHO, the answer. Namely because it segregates potentially similar operations. On top of that, why NOT have voxels and sculpts and etc visible. Why NOT be able to clone© voxels from meshes, and why not be able to COPY PAINT from voxel objects... colors, specular, whatever... and hey... why wouldn't you be able to paint depth map by proximity... like you have a voxel visible (and referenceable) and can paint it's relative position to the closest point on the current low+high poly mesh... allowing minor adjustments to be possible without the whole BAKE operation. A localized BAKE if you will.

My point is, if you make rooms you PREVENT the integration of the toolset and you prevent certain operations from being interface-possible.

As a generalist I'd expect you to really appreciate the idea of a GENERALISTIC approach (that's not a real word by the way) heh...

I favor generalizing the toolset - period.

Another good reason for generalizing is homogenization of tools - thereby reducing the number of places you find tools... surface sculpting tools for instance - why have two sets of tool-buttons. why not just be able to operate on microvert meshes, and implicitly voxels in surface mode...

anyway... I don't like the rooms, never have, (I LOVE 3DC though)... in fact they were MORE a detriment to learning the software than an enhancement. (I like the buffet, and I hated when my mom would spoon feed me pieces of a meal, I want to try anything whenever, and see it all and dream about it all while I'm enjoying something else).. hehe.

[cakeller]

Yup... and I have to say, that while it may be great to make software accessible to anyone - it's not really the best philosophy of software design.

Not everyone should be able to easily pick up 3DC and use it productively - this is a misconception.

Pagemaker made page layout accessible to the masses... and anyone with a computer and pagemaker dubbed themselves a graphic designer.

In fact what happened is, a bunch of TERRIBLE graphic design - like work resulted.

3DC is a professional tool for professional people doing a job. If it's accessible for the hobbiest, YAY! cool... fun. But it is a tool.

however - I AM in no way saying hobbyists shouldn't have fun with 3DC, I only mean, the software shouldn't be TARGETED at them for UI... as it is not them who will be using it as part of their workflow for work. And lets face it, it doesn't matter how hard a program is to pick up, if it is the fastest solution to get from concept to deliverable, then it's the solution of choice. Dumbing software down, or codling the uninitiated to lure them into the mix is a mistake of epic proportions - IMHO.

Make the UI, smart, not intuitive. Make it efficient for day to day tasks... if it's confusing but requires fewer steps and less time, ok... on the other hand if it's confusing and a cumbersome process, then that's not so good.

what was I saying???? heh....

[cakeller]

Hi cakeller, I can feel your feeling.

There are 2 paint mode: Per pixel paint and Microvertext paint

There are two sculpt mode: Voxel and surface sculpt

There are even features overlaps in diffrent rooms:

For example there is already surface sculpt in "Sculpt" room, but you can find surface sculpt mode in "Voxels" room too.

There is already a "UV" room, but you can find those UV buttons in "Retopo" room too.

Those things above ususally confuse new users.

Maybe someone will ask, why so complex? Couldn't cut features and make the whole package simple and clean?

OK, let's imagine:

1. Remove "Microvertext paint" and only leave 1 paint mode - Per pixel paint

2. Remove "Sculpt" room and only leave 1 sculpt mode - Voxels

3. Remove those overlap features/buttons in different mode - "Retopo" is retopo, "UV" is UV, you will see no UV buttons in "Retopo" room.

OK, let's imagine further:

Remove all rooms and combine them in one window.

Yeah then you could say 3DC is clean and simple enough.

But is that realistic？ I'm afraid not.

1. Remove features may be not realistic. Especially remove a whole mode something like "Microvertex paint", that may hurt Andrew. You can imagine how much time/energy he spend on creating those features, a whole mode may took years.

2. Remove all rooms and combine them in one window may be not realistic.

Even the tools in "Voxels" room can fill up the screen. If combine those rooms in one window, how can you manage all those buttons? Any good idea? If there is no good idea to manage them in one window, then it is not realistic.

Only my personal opinion. Guys, it's time that you awoke to the realities of the situation. Ideality is good, but it seems that in this topic realistic ideas is much better. Isn't it?

I TOTALLY get your speculation in defense of Andrew... perhaps he could speak up and say, it is un-feasible to integrate the rooms. As I said before and time and again... the separate rooms prevents certain interactions between objects without complicating each room.

e.g. isn't it pretty frustrating that you have to go to the voxel room to hide a voxel object? Say you're in the retopo room, and working, on one object, then you want to work on another - you have to LEAVE the room to hide a voxel object, and show another. And that's not even including the difficulting in managing high-res sculpted meshes that can be retopoed. a completely separate layer pallet in a separate ROOM no less. How is that a good thing?

yes, perhaps it is too much work for andrew, and I respect that, if he says it is.

I honestly don't EXPECT the interface to become integrated, no matter how much I want it.

But if I, and anyone that agrees don't speak up, then the importance can't be weighed against the potential benefit (benefit by my eye, not claiming it is a universal belief, but I'm definitely not alone)

Perhaps it isn't as hard as you think - perhaps it is. Andrew - would you like to comment?

Should we drop the discussion of room integration?

Sean / Andrew, would you like to limit the conversation to specific types of ideas? Menus/Buttons/Widgets? etc...

[Ghostdog]

This thread has many well thought out and presented responses, but why (rhetorical question) am I left thinking we are not making progress?

What can we do to improve the thread before it transforms into some 20 page + monster. Is it time to vote on topic A, before moving on to Topic B? Any ideas people?

And just opinion, please think once or twice before labelling something silly. Constructive criticism is easier to digest. I almost gave up on the thread at the overuse of "this is SILLY" and other such stuff. Just my opinionated opinion.

[lc8b105]

Hi cakeller , 3D-Coat 2.xx is one window application, have you used 2.xx? "Room" concept was considered as an improvement in version 3.xx.

You can download 2.xx from this page.

[cakeller]

Hi cakeller , 3D-Coat 2.xx is one window application, have you used 2.xx? "Room" concept was considered as an improvement in version 3.xx.

You can download 2.xx from this page.

nope... haven't used it.

maybe I will check it out.

[EDIT] Link is broken.

just because it was thought to be an improvement - doesn't mean it's still the right direction to head... but if most want it - sure.

AbnRanger I was thinking thinking EXACTLY the same thing...

this is pretty freeform, brainstorming in this thread - perhaps it should stay that way? and Sean, could cull ideas from this - and put together a poll (in a new thread) with each GOOD idea - from here.

as you said - there are several well thought out ideas.

[cakeller]

Well...in fairness...Voxels may have to remain somewhat separated from Mesh operations, as it's a different animal. But perhaps all mesh-based modes/rooms can be merged with context-sensitive menus.

I do see your point, and that would be better than nothing - but

I just have to mention - I don't think voxels aren so different that they need their own room. (consider Nurbs and Polys and Particle systems, etc in Maya, or max etc)

Also consider, andrew said he was going to add the ability to reference meshes when sculpting voxels - yet another level of integrating the objects.

Anyway - I think it just solves it for everyone if you have pseudo-rooms - menu sets, whatever you want to call them. Segregate the commands not functionality.

An interesting thought - maybe - what if the menu sets were workflow centric, rather than task specific... (call them rooms if you like, just don't keep me from retopoing in the same room as sculpting voxels, if I want) ok...

So with menu sets, you could set up a workflow within a menu-set/tab, that had all, and only, the tools needed to go from say, voxels to displacement map. Another could be set up just for voxel sculpting. Another could be set up for importing a low-poly, sculpting, and then exporting a displacement.

You can have the standard room sets, as they exist now - or some conglomeration or sub-set. this would require a unified addressing of the work-space, but would still allow those bent for having "rooms" to have their cake, while I eat it.

[Amber]

This would be a good feature. Maybe not quad but at least 2 or 3 screens. It would be so nice if you can work perspective view and see same time how does your model looks in side view.

Maybe.Create any feature at it will be useful at least for one person.Zbrush has no quadview and 3DC currently doesn't have and it works fine,I see it as very minor feature,UI designer shouldn't multiply buttons (like 3DC wouldn't have enough buttons already).I see no justification for a button and for sure not in 3D spaceview.

For me such feature would have no use I wouldn't like to have a button in 3D space view I will never use.

--

I like separate rooms as they exists now and I think they should stay.

[polyxo]

For me such feature would have no use I wouldn't like to have a button in 3D space view I will never use.--

While I can understand that you for your kind of work don't want to see this Button - a Quad View would help anybody

who wants to develop a product shape intended for production with the help of 3DC.

[cakeller]

While I can understand that you for your kind of work don't want to see this Button - a Quad View would help anybody

who wants to develop a product shape intended for production with the help of 3DC.

yes, agree - nice to have this (I like the view cube in maya myself) but for goodness sakes it's optional. if you don't like it turn it off. but it's nice to have for those that want it.

[Andrew Shpagin]

I understand that making UI better is not easy because it is just close to standards.

The main problem is overwhelming with functionality that should be fit into interface.

So, on my view the main question is not "prettiness" but functionality and compactness.

And several limitations from technical view

- Pages can't be over the window's header

- Custom rooms? I can't imagine what can it be.

- Not sure about quad view. Looks complex for current paradigm of rendering.

And right now I can't pay too much attention to UI. There are so many urgent functionality tasks (for example problems with surface based tools that have huge potential but are still weak and problematic). So real implementation can start only in several months, not earlier.

Only "genius = very easy to implement + extremely helpful" ideas if they will be there can be implemented soon.

[philnolan3d]

When I first started using 3DC (or 3DB at the time) I really wanted a quad view. Now I don't really see how it would improve anything, even though I prefer to work in Quad view with LW Modeler. As much as I dislike autodesk the cube idea does work pretty well. The one in Unity also works nicely.

[polyxo]

Hi Andrew,

when I proposed a Quad-View I did not imagine that it could cause any huge challenge to program it

as it's such a standard functionality!

3DCoat obviously works pretty different "under the hood" than many other 3D apps.

So I would alternatively be very happy with a second viewport which one could pull to another Screen

- but I remember you saying that this is pretty difficult to do as well...

What would help me far more than such an orientation cube mentioned by several people

(I think it clutters the viewport) was a direct switch to stored true orthographic views.

From other programs I am very used to hotkey-combos which allow switching to the most common

view-orientations. Inside 3DCoat one first has to press the "Orthographic Toggle" in order to bring

them into parallel projection. I wonder if a Front-View in Perspective projection has a value

for anybody here?

[Amber]

Hi Andrew,

What should be and could be done right now is cleanup of texture options.Maybe I'm wrong? but as far I know but textures are always 256>512>1024>2048 ... Width and length is always same.When importing objects for painting you need to set

Texture width :

Texture height :

could be instead of that only one option :

Texture size :

There is many popups(like in object import,texture baking tool ...) where 'Texture Width/Height' could be replaced by 'Texture Size'.

@polyxo Yes,the cube clutters viewport and it useful only for some people if it get's into 3DC there really needs to be options to switch it off for people who won't use it at all

[lc8b105]

but as far I know but textures are always 256>512>1024>2048 ... Width and length is always same.When importing objects for painting ...

You are wrong.

Width and length is NOT always same.

Using the first drop-list "Texture width" is for convenient to keep width and height sync.

But you can always change the height to other value by using the second drop-list "Texture height".

Texture are NOT always 256>512>1024>2048.

Do you see the "Custom Texture size" in the drop-list? Input any value you want, if you have enough VRAM.

Be careful.

[Amber]

You are wrong.

Width and length is NOT always same.

Well I always use square textures ... anyway when you use Import > per pixel painting textures sizes are sync, but in Texture Bake tool and import > microvertex are not sync(any reason for not sync sizes there ?),would be nice if there would a small link button so sizes would sync (like in Adobe Photoshop).

The other thing should be changed is if object with multi material is imported 3DC creates separate texture uv-set for every material.If there is a lot of materials in object it won't be possible to create big texture because there won't be enough memory on the GPU.If I want a texture 4096 3DC will create 4096 for every single material , 10 materials x 4096 = GPU crash (no enough video memory) and I often want to have more than 10 materials.Why 3DC do this ? It should create one texture for all materials or there should an option to do that.

[Sean MacIsaac]

I'll say this much...standard transform tools should have their own icons (and QWERT hotkeys...like Max and Maya). It feels so awkward to have to go through a tool menu just to place an object where you want it, rotate it, or scale it. These are just some of the most rudimentary options that are currently in a convoluted state, IMHO. If Andrew wants to keep the current transform gizmo...that's fine, as long as there is a "Free Transform" icon available on the toolbar in every room. An icon for Snapping tools, as well as for simple object selection ("Q" hotkey in Maya and Max). Saying "well you can select it by...." doesn't cut it, IMHO.

The key objective here should not only be to clean up the toolset and place tools where they make sense and can easily be found, but to STANDARADIZE! Stick to common industry standards for common tools/commands. That is the one thing I hate about Lightwave...in their quest to be completely different they choose to bastardize instead of standardize. That may be cool with current LW users, but it's not so cool when you are coming from another package.

As a software vendor, one of your primary goals is to make it as user friendly as possible (while fulfilling it's purpose). You can't do that if you purposely rename all your tools, rearrange all the hotkeys, re-order common workflows....just for the sake of being different. The cost/benefit doesn't support that approach. You frustrate more people than you help.

So, you see...even low-cost and amount of tools cannot make up for an awkward workflow and non-standardized toolset/UI commands. For 3DC to really grow to its fullest potential, it not only needs to be smart and powerful, but relatively easy to get started/familiarized with. That starts with the UI

I agree about this--but as for Hotkeys, I think they should just be customizable. But common and easy to use functions should be obvious and clearly marked.

One other idea I wanted to throw against the wall and see if it sticks...I don't know if this is feasible or not, even with QT, but if it is, it may be worth a look-see. That is...in keeping with the "Maximize Workspace Real Estate" mantra...how about allowing an option (hotkey toggle and via menu bar...under "View") where all the pallets hide when your cursor is within a certain radius inside the viewport, and when you bring your cursor outside that radius (close to where pallets reside), they re-appear.

I have a maximize workspace button on one of those mockups, underneath the quadview. You could assign it to a hotkey in an editor.

Yes, if there's any auto-hide please make it optional, I would not like that at all if the panels kept disappearing. I would like to be able to glance at the panels, to make sure I'm on the right layer for example, without needing to move the mouse / stylus away from what I'm doing.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to force a way onto people. I agree here.

Context sensitivity:

Yes, I very much like the idea of making 3DC more context sensitive.

Already now we can save sets of UI-Elements for each Work-Context (Painting, Retopo, Voxel-Creation) which

is nice. Even better if that went further and we could (optionally) map Mouse-Actions and hotkeys per

context=present work-environment.

Context sensitivity could also mean that we get a visual indicator inside the menus that e.g the Texture-Baking

tool does not make sense inside the Render-Room and therefor is not available.

However I would whole-heartily agree with Cakeller:

Making currently irrelevant Main-Menu items completely disappear inside certain work-contexts was a great pain.

It is imo tremendously helpful for the orientation inside a new software to leave them in (greyed out). The user learns

that a certain feature is generally available. Only certain conditions have to get met make this entry active - a perfect

time to open up the Help-File.

One more word on the Help-File: I found cool if it was wired with the UI.

Inside Rhino all one has to do to learn what a certain Button or Menu Entry does is click it - and press F1 afterwards.

The Help-file opens exactly at the page where the Command gets explained and offers some explanatory Flash-Clips too,

pretty awesome!

I think you are right, and we should absolutely keep things in rooms then if things are going to be like this. I had an idea that the help would be "built" in also, you hover over an item and there's a popup with the text explanation and a button to view a brief video explaining what the tool is used for and how to use it.

3DC should avoid 'too much creativity' in UI.Like rounded buttons or widget in some strange places, they are 'special' it means some people will like some will hate it,it will create controversy which is not in 3DC interest. Look at Zbrush and his terrible UI a lot of people use other software only because they can't stand that 'too much creativity' in UI.

I agree with ZBrush's interface, it's brutal. Rounded buttons or widgets in certain places are esthetically pleasing. The whole process will be audited in real time here on the boards. So the UI will be a better UI, not something that looks creative and different for the sake of being different. I hate that.

3DC should be closable like I don't use use sculpt room I can shut it down. I don't understand 'custom room' solution Sean talks about, like I can have UV and Voxels in same room ? Doesn't make sense to me,room exists because there is so many buttons nothing will fit there together.I would better have easy go through the rooms than a custom one.

No custom rooms anymore, I like the idea of closing them. As I have it in the UI design already.

Best solution would full customization of UI then everybody would be happy. People who want round buttons they can make rounded buttons, people who want square buttons will make square ones.This is best solution of this problem - skins,themes,custom UI button including.The big deal about Blender 2.5 is you can tailor it your needs.You can create UI like from bricks,change colors,themes,you can even rename UI interefaces.Custom UI (skins) is used with other software and people love it.

If 3DC would have completly custom UI people could work with a speed of light, there is no better UI than your own.

Absolutely

RE: COMPLETE CUSTOMIZATION. But then UI designer wouldn't be needed.

I think silo is silo and it's UI skinning is an 'okay' concept. I like the idea of a clean unified UI that is very customizable--but to a point where tutorials and books that cover 3D Coat can be understood by anyone, because the UI is clean.

What if any UI element could be dragged and dropped somewhere else? Or removed? Then you could create a very lightweight environment to work in.

If the room concepts can be changed as suggested I would be curious to know what other efficiency gains could be made. Imagining as Amber suggests that I make my own power-user "Sculpt" UI, is it really realistic at all that it could be possible to gain a few FPS or other brush-speed improvements?

The complexity of making a freely customisable interface (of course giving newbies some 'free' presets) sounds good - but at what cost in complexity and code?

We are seeing Blender 2.5 mentioned several times in this thread already - you do realise that the project is using the power of multiple developers. Things work slightly differently in a commercial development.

Choices have to be made, juggled and prioritised. What is best for us all? Unfortunately the answer often comes as hindsight.

Custom rooms is a no go.

We don't know if it's complex,maybe it's easy for Andrew.If we got custom UI you could tailor your interface the way you work and it would speed you up because all buttons and menus would in good positions and look fine for you and not UI designer think it's good.That's a big difference.Like ... some people love icons they work fast and comfortable with icons some hate it and prefer text buttons, you have choice,now you don't.You could place most used brushes and widgets in most comnfortable place for you and you could remove/hide tools you don't use at all or not much.Possibilities are limitless.

@Sean

1)the close button on the room makes it very easy to close it by accident,I think room should be closable by using right click menu.If I close room how I open it again ?

2)I thing placing any icons or anything in 3D spaceview is wrong even if transparent (like quad view and full view) I don't think I need icons for that and for sure not in that place.

3)Why you think we need a quadview so badly ? Did a lot of 3DC users asked about quadview ? Current cameras are fine, quadview should be an option maybe in menu not a button in 3D viewport, doesn't make much sense for me

4)How you imagine 'custom room' ? Voxels + uvs in same room ? Custom rooms doesn't make any sense for me.Explain what you what achieve with that.

5)Why there is such big gap between File Edit View ?

6)Why Main program menu switched place with room tabs menu ? Main menu should be always on top (like in every other software on earth)

The + button for creating 'custom' room doesn't make much sense.It looks exactly like Firefox browser,you need it in Firefox to create pages on the fly but you don't need dedicated + button in 3DC because you won't create many rooms on the fly.You didn't explained yet how custom room are suppose to work and look(whole custom room concept doesn't make sense for me) but you already reserved button for it ?

1. We could have a prompt come up and warn the user, that way it wont close accidentally. To open it, you click on the plus button and drop down list appears of the rooms you can choose from.

2. I disagree. What if there was an option to turn them off?

3. Quadview was asked for in this thread. Andrew also thinks this is a problem and so it will be removed from the mockup

4. Custom rooms is a no go.

5. Gap can be changed

6. Check out Google Chrome. The reason for this is that the menubar is a child of the rooms, so that rooms are parents of the menu bar. However, in the visual representation, the parents are the children.

Custom rooms are gone.

Hi Amber,

In my opinion the rearrangement of Tabs to the Top of the hierarchy is one of the strongest ideas we had a chance

to look at.Just dismissing this solution because no other program does something like this is a pretty hollow argument.

In fact 3DC does something which is pretty different from most programs - it offers several completely

different workspaces which look very different and offer different tools. Why shouldn't it get clearly visible

as well?

Each of these separate workspaces allows for saving and loading files (3D content/images). The proposed Tab-solution

gives better indication of the currently active workmode and it also would allow using e.g. the File Save dialog

context-sensitively:

Meaning that File/Import inside the Paint-Room opens a 3D model for Painting.

The same File/Import chosen from the Voxel-workspace however could issue the Merge command which loads a mesh for

Voxel-conversion. I think Seans proposal opens up interesting options.

We are just feeling this out, the idea is to be creative, and to creatively solve problems. thank you.

It will lead to messed up interface like Blender,Bryce or Zbrush.'Custom' or 'creative' solutions most of the time doesn't work well, and shy users away.Current UI is good it's needed to be tweaked and streamlined not overdesigned with 'creativity'.Most software uses some standard rules because they just work.I don't think 3DC is so 'special' to have special UI.

Current 3D coat is non standard and "creative" looking as in it does utilize the API of the operating system it exists in. It is already special.

The problem with that line of thinking is that the vast majority of users are utilizing 3DC in SUPPORT of what they are doing in a major 3D Application (not Sensable), you appeal to thousands and thousands more users by keeping simple common industry standards with those programs...it makes no sense to use different conventions of doing the VERY SAME FUNCTIONS....just for the sake of being different.

I think some people just like being "different"...and that's fine in your personal life, but we are talking about software here (software that is largely used to work in conjunction with major 3D applications)...the chief of which is to make the software as user friendly (familiar) as possible. No one is advocating that 3DC become a carbon copy through and through...but there is no reason not to adhere to common INDUSTRY STANDARDS for the simplest of functions/commands. For someone demoing 3DC, it should'nt be foreign to them to find where the simple transform icons are. Right now...THERE ARE NONE. Upon import, if you want to scale, rotate, move or select...you have to dig through the manual to do so. You're telling me it needs to STAY convoluted simply because it's a "Sculpting" application?

Yeah, the interface should speak it's usability and simplicity. It should be smooth and "honest".

I really think the separate rooms paradigm has to go - it limits what you can do.

unless it is simply an equivalent of menu-sets... in which case I like that.

as an example... recently folks have been asking to reference poly-mesh in voxels. well, if we had only one modelling space, then this wouldn't even be a UI concern.

A tool centric interface? or object centric interface?

I prefer object centric - the views should be based on what part of the object you want to view, not what tools you're going to use. It gets very difficult to decide where to put overlapping tools and hence you end up with less than ideal placement of workflow. And you end up with separation of tasks that should logically be accessible from the same place because some aspect of them is used in another workflow.

For a utility program, that performs a few tasks maybe it makes sense to build a single streamlined interface to do that one workflow. But 3DC is growing up beyond that one workflow, and is being used in many different ways. It's time to bring it all together - I think.

rooms be gone! and why not... sculpting and voxel sculpting?? why two rooms? what, because they are operating on different types of objects? naw... silly, because andrew added sculpting in surface mode in voxels so you can sculpt surfaces in the same place as voxels.

the only view that is separate from the paint/sculpt/vox-sculpt, is UV editing, and only because it is a 2D operation... but even still, that's already done, since the UVs are edited in a floating window. So I REALLY would like it if everything was just accessible from one room... besides, in addition to making it easier to do your own workflow, having no rooms means... guess what - no WASTED realestate! don't tell me you want a whole bar of tabs across the top when really there's zero NEED for it.

anyway... this is how I feel about it, this is what I want. feel free to agree or disagree.

We should probably talk about this more--but for now, we are sticking with rooms.

I don't really see the benefit of having voxels and painting in the same room,I think it would just confuse new users when they can paint on some objects but not others.

Hi cakeller, I can feel your feeling.

There are 2 paint mode: Per pixel paint and Microvertext paint

There are two sculpt mode: Voxel and surface sculpt

There are even features overlaps in diffrent rooms:

For example there is already surface sculpt in "Sculpt" room, but you can find surface sculpt mode in "Voxels" room too.

There is already a "UV" room, but you can find those UV buttons in "Retopo" room too.

Those things above ususally confuse new users.

Maybe someone will ask, why so complex? Couldn't cut features and make the whole package simple and clean?

OK, let's imagine:

1. Remove "Microvertext paint" and only leave 1 paint mode - Per pixel paint

2. Remove "Sculpt" room and only leave 1 sculpt mode - Voxels

3. Remove those overlap features/buttons in different mode - "Retopo" is retopo, "UV" is UV, you will see no UV buttons in "Retopo" room.

OK, let's imagine further:

Remove all rooms and combine them in one window.

Yeah then you could say 3DC is clean and simple enough.

But is that realistic？ I'm afraid not.

1. Remove features may be not realistic. Especially remove a whole mode something like "Microvertex paint", that may hurt Andrew. You can imagine how much time/energy he spend on creating those features, a whole mode may took years.

2. Remove all rooms and combine them in one window may be not realistic.

Even the tools in "Voxels" room can fill up the screen. If combine those rooms in one window, how can you manage all those buttons? Any good idea? If there is no good idea to manage them in one window, then it is not realistic.

Only my personal opinion. Guys, it's time that you awoke to the realities of the situation. Ideality is good, but it seems that in this topic realistic ideas is much better. Isn't it?

Rooms are here to stay.

but see that's your expertness at 3DC comming through... you expect that limitation.

I agree that for newbies it's important to make it OBVIOUS what you can and can't do. But rooms is not, IMHO, the answer. Namely because it segregates potentially similar operations. On top of that, why NOT have voxels and sculpts and etc visible. Why NOT be able to clone© voxels from meshes, and why not be able to COPY PAINT from voxel objects... colors, specular, whatever... and hey... why wouldn't you be able to paint depth map by proximity... like you have a voxel visible (and referenceable) and can paint it's relative position to the closest point on the current low+high poly mesh... allowing minor adjustments to be possible without the whole BAKE operation. A localized BAKE if you will.

My point is, if you make rooms you PREVENT the integration of the toolset and you prevent certain operations from being interface-possible.

As a generalist I'd expect you to really appreciate the idea of a GENERALISTIC approach (that's not a real word by the way) heh...

I favor generalizing the toolset - period.

Another good reason for generalizing is homogenization of tools - thereby reducing the number of places you find tools... surface sculpting tools for instance - why have two sets of tool-buttons. why not just be able to operate on microvert meshes, and implicitly voxels in surface mode...

anyway... I don't like the rooms, never have, (I LOVE 3DC though)... in fact they were MORE a detriment to learning the software than an enhancement. (I like the buffet, and I hated when my mom would spoon feed me pieces of a meal, I want to try anything whenever, and see it all and dream about it all while I'm enjoying something else).. hehe.

I understand how you feel and 3D Coat was the first software I used that had separate rooms. Although at first I found it confusing, it is now a fundamental part of how it works. I think for that reason, we have to keep the rooms.

Well...in 3ds max 2010, you have some sculpting tools, retopology tools, Painting tools, and UV's all done...in one room. No confusion at all as to what you're doing. The tool menu's reflect what tools you're using or what mode you're in.

Max is quite a bit different than 3D Coat.

Yup... and I have to say, that while it may be great to make software accessible to anyone - it's not really the best philosophy of software design.

Not everyone should be able to easily pick up 3DC and use it productively - this is a misconception.

Pagemaker made page layout accessible to the masses... and anyone with a computer and pagemaker dubbed themselves a graphic designer.

In fact what happened is, a bunch of TERRIBLE graphic design - like work resulted.

3DC is a professional tool for professional people doing a job. If it's accessible for the hobbiest, YAY! cool... fun. But it is a tool.

however - I AM in no way saying hobbyists shouldn't have fun with 3DC, I only mean, the software shouldn't be TARGETED at them for UI... as it is not them who will be using it as part of their workflow for work. And lets face it, it doesn't matter how hard a program is to pick up, if it is the fastest solution to get from concept to deliverable, then it's the solution of choice. Dumbing software down, or codling the uninitiated to lure them into the mix is a mistake of epic proportions - IMHO.

Make the UI, smart, not intuitive. Make it efficient for day to day tasks... if it's confusing but requires fewer steps and less time, ok... on the other hand if it's confusing and a cumbersome process, then that's not so good.

what was I saying???? heh....

Smart...and intuitive maybe?

I TOTALLY get your speculation in defense of Andrew... perhaps he could speak up and say, it is un-feasible to integrate the rooms. As I said before and time and again... the separate rooms prevents certain interactions between objects without complicating each room.

e.g. isn't it pretty frustrating that you have to go to the voxel room to hide a voxel object? Say you're in the retopo room, and working, on one object, then you want to work on another - you have to LEAVE the room to hide a voxel object, and show another. And that's not even including the difficulting in managing high-res sculpted meshes that can be retopoed. a completely separate layer pallet in a separate ROOM no less. How is that a good thing?

yes, perhaps it is too much work for andrew, and I respect that, if he says it is.

I honestly don't EXPECT the interface to become integrated, no matter how much I want it.

But if I, and anyone that agrees don't speak up, then the importance can't be weighed against the potential benefit (benefit by my eye, not claiming it is a universal belief, but I'm definitely not alone)

Perhaps it isn't as hard as you think - perhaps it is. Andrew - would you like to comment?

Should we drop the discussion of room integration?

Sean / Andrew, would you like to limit the conversation to specific types of ideas? Menus/Buttons/Widgets? etc...

This thread has many well thought out and presented responses, but why (rhetorical question) am I left thinking we are not making progress?

What can we do to improve the thread before it transforms into some 20 page + monster. Is it time to vote on topic A, before moving on to Topic B? Any ideas people?

And just opinion, please think once or twice before labelling something silly. Constructive criticism is easier to digest. I almost gave up on the thread at the overuse of "this is SILLY" and other such stuff. Just my opinionated opinion.

For now, I think a discussion is healthy. When the time for a poll is here, we'll do it.

Maybe.Create any feature at it will be useful at least for one person.Zbrush has no quadview and 3DC currently doesn't have and it works fine,I see it as very minor feature,UI designer shouldn't multiply buttons (like 3DC wouldn't have enough buttons already).I see no justification for a button and for sure not in 3D spaceview.

For me such feature would have no use I wouldn't like to have a button in 3D space view I will never use.

--

I like separate rooms as they exists now and I think they should stay.

I agree.

yes, agree - nice to have this (I like the view cube in maya myself) but for goodness sakes it's optional. if you don't like it turn it off. but it's nice to have for those that want it.

I understand that making UI better is not easy because it is just close to standards.

The main problem is overwhelming with functionality that should be fit into interface.

So, on my view the main question is not "prettiness" but functionality and compactness.

And several limitations from technical view

- Pages can't be over the window's header

- Custom rooms? I can't imagine what can it be.

- Not sure about quad view. Looks complex for current paradigm of rendering.

And right now I can't pay too much attention to UI. There are so many urgent functionality tasks (for example problems with surface based tools that have huge potential but are still weak and problematic). So real implementation can start only in several months, not earlier.

Only "genius = very easy to implement + extremely helpful" ideas if they will be there can be implemented soon.

It's a shame about the pages not being able to go over the window header--what if we have a custom header?

custom rooms is a way for you to create a custom interface with all the interface options--but I think it's a no go.

Quadview--I think this is a good idea to have. But on here, it's just a button. :-)

I think for now--we'll just keep going at the slow pace I'm at and by the time your ready to focus on this. The timing should be fine.

When I first started using 3DC (or 3DB at the time) I really wanted a quad view. Now I don't really see how it would improve anything, even though I prefer to work in Quad view with LW Modeler. As much as I dislike autodesk the cube idea does work pretty well. The one in Unity also works nicely.

:-)

[Tony Nemo]

For now, I think a discussion is healthy. When the time for a poll is here, we'll do it.

I agree.

It's a shame about the pages not being able to go over the window header--what if we have a custom header?

custom rooms is a way for you to create a custom interface with all the interface options--but I think it's a no go.

Quadview--I think this is a good idea to have. But on here, it's just a button. :-)

I think for now--we'll just keep going at the slow pace I'm at and by the time your ready to focus on this. The timing should be fine.

:-)

One issue that might be considered vis-a-vis "rooms", is consolidating the two rooms that deal with UVs, the Retopo and UV rooms.

[polyxo]

Hello Sean,

just curious...as you did not comment on the onscreen widgets(as in use for Transform/Pose/Primitives-Creation/Warp/Axial/Curves/Text-Tool/Image-Tool, etc.) in your last post:

Is this also an area you are looking at?

[polyxo]

What I was talking about regarding the transform tools (i.e., Select, Move, Rotate, Scale) was the necessity to have it/them available as an icon on the toolbar....LIKE EVERY OTHER 3D APPLICATION KNOWN TO MAN.

Not sure why you quote me here and start shouting around...

I asked a polite question to Sean and certainly don't want to be associated with your opinions.

[Tony Nemo]

I think you were referring to gizmos, in reference to the same discussion we had a page or two ago (don't know who advocated icons in the viewport...I didn't). That's not what I was talking about, at all.

That's why I quoted your post. And I'm not shouting...just highlighting for emphasis. The rest of my post was to clarify why it was so frustrating for me to see something so simple...so elementary to a UI in a CG application, hidden away when every other application has them front and center. It took me a while to find out how to do something that I could easily find in the toolbar of every other application.

Indeed! +1

[polyxo]

I think you were referring to gizmos, in reference to the same discussion we had a page or two ago (don't know who advocated icons in the viewport...I didn't). That's not what I was talking about, at all.

Ok, then I got this wrong.

Still my point is another than yours. I see mainly a need to optimize and streamline the functionality of all existing Onscreen-Widgets used.

The "perfect" Transform widget could maybe even eleminate the need of having a separate "Pose" and "Transform"-Wigdget.

You mainly seem to have a problem with the placement of Transform-tools inside this app. This is actually something which does not feel so painful for me.

Frankly there's quite a few work-situations where Transforming an object does not make a lot of sense to me or would lead to ambiguous results:

What would for instance moving an Object inside the Retopo room mean?

The currently visible Voxel representation gets translated but the input Voxel object (inside the Voxel-Room) stays in place?

Only the Retopo-Mesh changes its location? Everything gets moved?

And why would one want to move an Object while creating a Low Poly mesh on top of it in the first place?

[polyxo]

I imported a model in the Paint Room one time, and it was oriented wrong.

I suppose the Geometry came from a Z-Up- application like 3DSMax?

In this case you should not have to rotate when importing and also not when sending back to Max.

Andrew has added controls inside Import and Export which allow flipping axes. It could still get improved

but it helps a lot.

[SynapticAI]

Hello all,

I have been modeling/animating for about 8 years now, and have used practically every 3d program of notoriety during that time. As far as UI is concerned, I have dealt with what I consider the worst (zbrush, blender), and what I consider the best (Silo).

When I'm modeling/sculpting zone, the UI is merely mental clutter.

I like to look at it like this:

Imagine you're a sculptor, crafting your masterpiece, but instead of a direct connection between yourself and your medium, your peripheral vision is cluttered with your various tools floating fixed in space relative to your gaze! Infuriating!

I LOVED working in Silo for box modeling because the application GOT OUT OF THE WAY of itself, and put you DIRECTLY in touch with your medium.

This is what I'd like to see with 3D-Coat specifically, because voxel modeling is a much more intimate experience than pushing vertexes around, and that clear view would be AWESOME for unhindered vision and creativity.

[cakeller]

Hello all,

I have been modeling/animating for about 8 years now, and have used practically every 3d program of notoriety during that time. As far as UI is concerned, I have dealt with what I consider the worst (zbrush, blender), and what I consider the best (Silo).

When I'm modeling/sculpting zone, the UI is merely mental clutter.

I like to look at it like this:

Imagine you're a sculptor, crafting your masterpiece, but instead of a direct connection between yourself and your medium, your peripheral vision is cluttered with your various tools floating fixed in space relative to your gaze! Infuriating!

I LOVED working in Silo for box modeling because the application GOT OUT OF THE WAY of itself, and put you DIRECTLY in touch with your medium.

This is what I'd like to see with 3D-Coat specifically, because voxel modeling is a much more intimate experience than pushing vertexes around, and that clear view would be AWESOME for unhindered vision and creativity.

I like your concise description of getting the visual clutter out of the way.

and for the most part you can do this in 3DC... you can use the space-bar tool menu for all rooms... and hide the tool pallet on the left... You can also very much shrink the right side stuff very small

and with the alt+enter = full screen mode... then it is essentially just a modelling space.

could it be more so? yes, but it is possible to make the work space pretty clutter free.

[IKHandel]

Ref help/ tooltips / the manual....

Cinema 4D uses Ctrl F1 to bring up the appropriate help/info page of the manual for the tool or setting your mouse is currently over. This is fast, efficient and real easy to use. The advantage of Ctrl F1 is it's a combo that is easy to reach, but ensures you don't hit it in error. Definitely the best and fastest help system I have used in any 3D app. Straight to the exact help pretty well everytime. There is even a slider for depth of help detail you want shown.

@ SynapticAI

I agree that Silo in minimal UI is great when in the zone, but when getting to grips with learning the app, I actually find Silo a real uphill struggle at this stage of learning (compared with Maya/C4D etc). I spend more time with the hotkey editor window open simply as it's the fastest (but very slow) way to try and find pesky hotkeys since neither icons nor menus now shortcuts tips are visible onscreen.

On the other hand 2 days spent building my own UI for Silo was not my idea of fun, but at least now it makes sense to ME.

As a comment to a heated user in this debate, in order to LEARN the hotkeys of Silo I actually spent an afternoon putting HOTKEY shortcuts onto all the icons (very tedious job), as this is the fastest way for me to learn them, so keystrokes on icons SHOULD in my opinion at least be an option. Having to hover for ages for a tooltip to give the hotkey is slow when learning a new app.

A lot of great points being raised, but also a lot of voices too, shame. Constructive opportunity to shape software being given, that's rare.

Interestingly I read between the lines in this thread and begin to see that the passions raised say one thing loud and clear. Everyone wants their own version of a ui.

There is little concensus, apart from keeping Standardised menus the same as every other app on the planet (file menu for example). I have to agree, basics like a visible transform widget are fundamental to migrating users from just about any other 3D app on the planet.

As the rooms appear set to stay due to the way the app functions, it now appears that judging from the myriad of opinions, the no 1 priority should be the ability for users to be able to customise the UI themselves as much as possible, in the most user friendly way possible. That way everyone gets what they want/need/desire/feel passionate about.

Provide a basic working UI using standard 3D conventions with tooltips that can be understood and icons that convey WELL (not easy) the button`s functions. That way the "out of the box" start for new users / migrating users will be a plus and a smooth transition. THEN when they have the basics breezed through, and only then, will they know how THEY personally want the UI for THEIR preferred workflow. Provide the means for them to customise, and everyone can be happy?

Unfortunately I believe that whilst it is a great idea in theory to offer input on a future UI, realisticly I will eat my hat if a concensus is agreed upon. Customisation seems to be the only solution to that.

Good old Blender with it's zillion users has seen the wisdom of this approach (finally) They spend lots of effort to come up with new uI BUT they stress evn before it is finished that the emphasis is on it being customisable... now that covers all bases. I am sure it will gain loads of users simply because now the UI won't be an issue any longer. I bet they won't have any heated debates about it in the future.

Ok I am off to paint my SILO UI green with purple writing and shamrocks, I'll have a christmas theme icon set ready after that... sort of edgeloops draped in Ivy? What about Christmas puddings for the dome shape of the soft selection icon in C4D, Think I'll have a frosted border round my orthogonal windows too, My transform widget is going to have different coloured naked fairies perched on each axis....what do ya think ....

Before someone else has time to throw their toys out of the pram I am outta here :)lol

[SYN7AX3RR0R]

in my personal experience there is no perfect (G)UI. everyone is different and has different workflows.

the best UI is the one that is easiest and most efficient to customize. the best workflow is the one that adopts to the user.

in light of this i think you're going down a dead end street trying to revitalize the UI, you just can't please everyone. i think it's better to put it off for the time when you can open it up (open it up completely) to the users to do their thing. in a couple of months you'll end up with a bunch of GUIs here on the forum. i think it would be more productive to start talks about what we want to have open to customization, and in what ways one could actually change stuff (like setting keys from the menu, hotkey editor, CTRL+LMB on a button, etc [] being able to drop PNGs to screen as buttons and drag them arround freely; being able to snap them to existing ones, etc)

for instance this was a 'begginers UI' i had created for silo. basically with most of the commands all on screen, this is something you'd toggle the visibility when needed (cool with sticky keys), BTW IKHandel you should have downloaded this when you were learning silo

i agree with IKHandel's remark on blender UI and works on 2.5. look at ZBrush and how they have alienated tons of users with their stubborn 'we know it best' attitude to customization, one of the reason why mudbox was developed was because pixologic did not want to implement some stuff WETA was asking for, i'm gonna go out on a limb here and guestimate that navigation/camera, brush adjustements, and layers were big here.

[philnolan3d]

i agree with IKHandel's remark on blender UI and works on 2.5. look at ZBrush and how they have alienated tons of users with their stubborn 'we know it best' attitude to customization

It's funny you mention this as I was just playing with zbrush and being extremely frustrated with the UI I wrote an email to their suggestions address pleading with them to work on the UI. They wrote back telling me how I am wrong and how most people love the UI, then telling me about how awesome 3.5r3 is.

[IKHandel]

@ SYN7AX3RR0R

Darn it I thought I had scoured every place I could to save building my own UI to learn Silo, guess I missed that one.. ggrrhh

If you have the time please PM me if you have a link or copy of that UI I'd appreciate it very much.

Dragging and dropping .Png for icons or whatever is a cool idea, I like that a lot! Nice 1.

@ philnolan3d

Funny you should say that I just dloaded the latest Zbrush upgrade and was dismayed to find that UI just isn't going to budge... It's such a pain when it's such a powerful app. Oh well.

Incidently I see the 2.5 Blender (Alpha) was released yesterday, although for the first time (that I noticed anyway) they now talk about python scripting being needed for customising the UI,, scripting is not my thing, Xpresso in C4D is about as far as I feel comfortable with. Anyone remember Amos for the Amiga (showing my age here ) I struggled with that... Despite numerous aborted attempts my brain just doesn't seem to be wired for scripting... shrugs. Exception was Operation flashpoint for some reason I got a handle on that script methology real easily... strange.

IK