Interface Redesign

[Amber]

The point is it's a step back from what we have now, it takes more space and it's not better.It will be third UI in 3DC in short time,but there is not much improvement,I see he got inspired by XSI and Blender but he should have better idea how 3DC should work and where it's going but it doesn't look like it.Until he comes back with impressive 'vision' how 3DC should look and work and convincing arguments that it will improve workflow he better not fix what's not broken because new UI which isn't any better will confuse and frustrate 3DC users.

How is it better like what's now ?

Buttons got replaced but big,round buttons with shortcuts on them (useless for 90% of 3DC users)

UI shelves take more space

Useless camera widget at bottom

Layers are moved to inconvenient place

Pens panel is designed into box gallery,with many namebars.Have potential but it doesn't look good now.

Everything is big,huge, takes a lot of place , laptop owners won't be happy.

I like Blender inspired sliders menus and delete/load pen button but it doesn't justify changing whole 3DC UI for third time for minor improvements which can be added to existing UI.There is no perfect UI that's why it's better to offer customization like possibility to change buttons look,software layout,toggle off for most widgets rather than hardlock users to some UI.

[lc8b105]

OK, thanks for the explanation Amber, it's much clear now.

I agree that shortcut text on the button may not necessary，tip text is enough.

But I really like the rounded corner button, it feels just better. I aslo like the semi-transparent camera widget，it's useful and extendable. Maybe we could make an option in preference able to turn it on/off, so people who don't need the widget don't need to worry about it, just turn it off.

Button size is not a problem except "Voxel" room, as said in my previous post.

It's good that every show your ideas, just make the upcoming UI better and better.

[RenderBlur]

Just wanted to say I am totally in support of this effort, I think it's very much needed, and I'm happy to see that Andrew is putting his support behind it.

This is such a big topic and just reading through this thread we're already seeing discussions falling into different categories. There's UI aesthetic choices and customization, there's the workflow of 3DCoat itself (rooms vs. other layouts), and there's consolidation/organization of tools. On the topic of the new UI fixing the current bugs, I can rattle a few off the top of my head:

1. Progress bars should be used in more places. Example: import a Logo image in Voxels, make it quite large, then hit Enter. It now looks like 3DCoat has hung, it's non-responsive and there's no indication it's doing anything (of course we know it's working to create the voxel object).

2. tooltips like in the Material window are not just slightly inaccurate, some suggest you take an action that is completely wrong

3. there's tools thare are presented as multiple separate menu options instead of one popup window with options (like the Quandrangulate context menu)

There's many more examples. Might be good to create a UI bug list to keep track.

-Jim

[Sean MacIsaac]

The proposed mockup is not good.It's just bad.

Working in 3D and making some UI doesn't make Sean good UI designer.I see bunch of bad ideas,

very average UI which could be baked by anyone in 30 minutes, author showed some Subdivision Levels

popup which doesn't exist and most probably never will.Looks like we will have to come to this thread and fix UI designer imaginations.I'm sorry if it sounds negative but you must be ready people will come and challenge what you think is good.Until I see some really impressive work and brilliant solutions I won't be impressed by some random mockups and poor UI ideas.If it ain't broken don't try to fix it.

What does it mean we will approve ? Five more people come to this thread and says they like rounded XSI wanna buttons we get them in next 3DC ? Five more people come and say they want quad view and we get quad view ?

-ugly rounded,XSI like buttons

-shortcut on the them not needed

-sculpt Tools button and subbuttons idea not good,just a lot of buttons,not much better what we have now

-rounded line around not chosen rooms not needed

-subdivision levels popup ? pointless

-whole pens panel with subpanels confusing,doesn't look like it belong to Pens

-layers in bad place, I don't want it be harddocked

-big orange option tick in Brush spacing tab confusing,should be in the tab not in a tabbar

-what for + stands for in panel tabs ?

-I don't like the idea of semi transparent tab with camers etc, at the bottom,should be option to toggle it off or move it to other place

-too much space between File View Edit in top menus .... etc.

Quad Viewport-Layout - instant Maximizing of the currently active viewport. <--- I like this idea.

What do you mean ? Like in 3DS Max quad view ?

UI design is a thing of past,good application let's the user design the UI,enforcing UI will make some happy some unhappy,which is already clear looks at this thread.3DC doesn't need UI design it needs to be customizable as much as possible so we can choose what we want and what's good for our work.

Amber:

A recent project I did the UI design for: http://mypaint.intilinux.com/

http://wiki.mypaint.info/index.php?title=UI/Brainstorm

http://wiki.mypaint.info/index.php?title=Iportnovs_en

All of your suggestions have been taken into account.

----

I am glad that a lot of you support this--I want to make sure you understand that the design of this UI is happening in concert with the posts here. The evolution of it will be logical and organic based on your needs.

I like much of the UI concept, but the round capsule look is a no-go for me. I never did like that about XSI. If I'm going to work in an application all day, every day...Romper Room buttons will not get it, and make me want for something else. Perhaps rectangular with a medium corner radius.

These were a few mock-ups submitted here back before V3 was released. The sliders are similar to that of Combustion, Toxik, Flame, Houdini, etc...instead of having to place your cursor on a tiny knob or arrows, you can place it anywhere within the box and drag your cursor left or right to adjust the values, or double-click to type the value in numerically. I think the concensus here was to have a Photoshop-esque look so that it was familiar to most artists...new and not-so new.

Having said that, I think Houdini is a very good example to pattern after. I love that UI, and Modo is up there too. There is absolutely nothing wrong with icons...as the main benefit is to make common tools quickly accessible, without taking up a large amount of screen real estate. Giving users the option to have icons, text only, or a combination of both (similar to how LW CORE is heading), is the best way forward.

I like some of the ideas you are pushing here. :-)

[cakeller]

I'm not sure why you would say this when LightWave has no rooms at all, while maya on the other hand does, only in the forum of a drop-down box instead of tabs. I love LightWave, but I also like the tabs 3DC has.

I do agree with Taros that Sean should really get to know 3DC pretty well to know what sort of workflows would work best.

Someone else mentioned Qt, I mentioned Qt during the last UI design, but Andrew said he could do all of the same stuff with the current tool he uses. It looks like much of the same stuff was accomplished but it doesn't feel really solid like the stuff I've seen done with Qt. Speaking of LightWave, the new version CORE's interface is made with Qt. I may be wrong, but I think Unity also uses it, the Unity interface feels really solid to me. Here's a list of other applications made with it.

Maya doesn't have rooms at all, it has menu sets, which is not the same thing as rooms at all.

you can access any functionality from anywhere in the program... in no way is it segregated.

I can see why you might think that menu sets seem like rooms, but since you can edit them on your own, and combine whatever commands you like, and viewports are not tied to the menu sets, it is just not the same.

Maya viewports, are different views onto the data - all the same data - just different ways of looking at it.

3DC different rooms = different sets of data, and no way to look at it all at the same time, to see the relationships between objects.

Maya menu sets are not equivalent to rooms AT ALL.

[Amber]

Amber--you failed to read the rules, I am disappointed with you.

Hi Sean,do you want feedback or 'only positive' feedback ? Is this going to be discussion thread or you want to design UI way you want ? Sorry to disappoint but you should have better answer my post and explain your project if you are an experienced UI designer you should have no problem about that.Why rounded buttons when most software don't use it ? Why widget at the bottom no known to me software places it in that place ? Why taking so much screen space ? Many whys and no explanation how it's going to help in a workflow.

UI and Command Transparency: Every command should be available clearly in the interface

I'm affraid it would create huge menu,Im not sure we need every command in menus.

[cakeller]

Hi Sean,do you want feedback or 'only positive' feedback ? Is this going to be discussion thread or you want to design UI way you want ? Sorry to disappoint but you should have better answer my post and explain your project if you are an experienced UI designer you should have no problem about that.Why rounded buttons when most software don't use it ? Why widget at the bottom no known to me software places it in that place ? Why taking so much screen space ? Many whys and no explanation how it's going to help in a workflow.

UI and Command Transparency: Every command should be available clearly in the interface

I'm affraid it would create huge menu,Im not sure we need every command in menus.

Oh yes, every command should be available at any point in the process... if it's not available fine gray it out.

On the other hand, deep menus can be intimidating to average and new users, so it is probably good to have a way to have limited menu-subsets.

A VERY easy solution to Amber's concern is simply having the option to abbreviate the menus... Most modern UIs give the option to completely customize the menus.

All operations are simply internal commands, and all menus / toolbars / context menus, are simply ways to invoke those commands... and honestly, I'd love to see a command line entry - which brings up the idea of a scripting engine (oh ok, that's probably adding a ton of work... so ignore that one... JUST the scripting part)

All menus / toolbars / context menus, etc, should be editable to allow placement of commands where it makes sense to the user... maybe it doesn't make sense to the developer, but if a developer had to be responsible for coming up with all the myriad ways that users would use and abuse their software it would be impossible to develop software.

Also Sean, remember that not everyone on this board is a native english speaker, and often can come across as terse, kurt, or harsh without really intending to. Assume everone is on here with the same goal in mind. the worst that can happen is you assume someone is nicer than they are (no harm done)

This is not an easy task, to design a UI, some folks will have ideas how to make it better, and some of those will be uber-passionate about it... but most will merely be afraid that changing the UI will make their job harder.

I have a few suggestions here:

1) tread lightly on anything that obviously scares people.

2) review this thread and try and find common desires from users

3) liberally use polls based on what you THINK is a better UI. It will become VERY clear if you're on the right track or not.

4) if you have some idea to make the UI better and NO ONE agrees, then consider either not doing it, or making it optional.

5) better grow a thick skin, because guaranteed, you are NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE! (which is why I wished you good luck in the first place)

To all the folks on this thread that are afraid of the potential change:

1) be open minded

2) don't be afraid of the potential workflow interruptions - I have tremendous faith that Andrew will not allow the UI to be ruined... and if it gets changed and a bunch of people HATE it, I can't see it not getting fixed

3) consider that this is a great opportunity to think about how your workflow works well, and where it is hindered by the software's UI.

--- to anyone that says "well duh" then this statement wasn't directed at you

just my $2 worth -

[cakeller]

Hotkeys SHOULD Be available by tool tips, but not necessary on buttons.

I have no problem with the idea of a toolbar across the top that can house any of the pallets from the side-pallet-bars as drop-down pallets. Same pallets should be able to float if necessary.

I have to agree with Amber on the large buttons... I hide all the pallets often because I want maximum 3D wworkspace...

consider auto-hide side-bars as options - they are annoying at first to use, but once I got used to it, in other programs, it is a HUGE space saver and no longer hard to use.

I like the idea of the view-cube as in Maya... a little widget in the corner of the view-panel, that allows you to click on the sides of the cube for ortho-views, or rotate the cube by 90 deg increments, and also gives you visual feedback as yo your current orientation.

[Sean MacIsaac]

Hi Sean,do you want feedback or 'only positive' feedback ? Is this going to be discussion thread or you want to design UI way you want ? Sorry to disappoint but you should have better answer my post and explain your project if you are an experienced UI designer you should have no problem about that.Why rounded buttons when most software don't use it ? Why widget at the bottom no known to me software places it in that place ? Why taking so much screen space ? Many whys and no explanation how it's going to help in a workflow.

UI and Command Transparency: Every command should be available clearly in the interface

I'm affraid it would create huge menu,Im not sure we need every command in menus.

Amber, I removed those images I sent to Andrew--we are essentially starting from scratch here, ;-). I understand you don't like round buttons. As for menu placement in odd places--speak your mind and we can see where they'd be better suited.

This process is organic and fluid--nothing is set in stone.

This is going to be fun.

I want you to know, if you guys don't like it--it's not going to happen.

As for transparency...

There would definitely be something to manage--there are many ways we can handle this--such as context sensitivity.

Now, what people mean is this--it should NEVER EVER be only via a hotkey that you can access a certain command. Which is what I mean by Transparency. I think we can agree this is not friendly.

Oh yes, every command should be available at any point in the process... if it's not available fine gray it out.

Context sensitivity handles this. Grayed out I think is not quite the good way to go about this as menus can still be bogged down by menu entries. But commands that cannot be accessed via this tool should simply be invisible.

A VERY easy solution to Amber's concern is simply having the option to abbreviate the menus... Most modern UIs give the option to completely customize the menus.

I will have to think about this

All menus / toolbars / context menus, etc, should be editable to allow placement of commands where it makes sense to the user...

Absolutely, a flexible UI is the way to make everyone happy.

This is not an easy task, to design a UI, some folks will have ideas how to make it better, and some of those will be uber-passionate about it... but most will merely be afraid that changing the UI will make their job harder.

I completely understand and agree with you. What we are going to do here, is make 3D Coat easier to interact with, this is the goal.

I have a few suggestions here:

1) tread lightly on anything that obviously scares people.

2) review this thread and try and find common desires from users

3) liberally use polls based on what you THINK is a better UI. It will become VERY clear if you're on the right track or not.

4) if you have some idea to make the UI better and NO ONE agrees, then consider either not doing it, or making it optional.

5) better grow a thick skin, because guaranteed, you are NOT GOING TO PLEASE EVERYONE! (which is why I wished you good luck in the first place)

To all the folks on this thread that are afraid of the potential change:

1) be open minded

2) don't be afraid of the potential workflow interruptions - I have tremendous faith that Andrew will not allow the UI to be ruined... and if it gets changed and a bunch of people HATE it, I can't see it not getting fixed

3) consider that this is a great opportunity to think about how your workflow works well, and where it is hindered by the software's UI.

--- to anyone that says "well duh" then this statement wasn't directed at you

just my $2 worth -

:-)

I removed the set of mockups I sent to Andrew because they were causing confusion. We are doing this slowly, keeping in mind the fact that people are very familiar with how things work. Personally, I think the first step should be cosmetic with some very minor changes to usability--and then slowly update the interface with new changes. We don't want to overwhelm anyone.

Now, if you look at the wiki with the MyPaint interface you should know that we communicated very clearly with each other and although there is in the end only a few interface elements that were designed we went through a myriad of concepts. Those few designs started in August to roughly around the end of October.

To do this properly we have to move slowly.

[cakeller]

Context sensitivity handles this. Grayed out I think is not quite the good way to go about this as menus can still be bogged down by menu entries. But commands that cannot be accessed via this tool should simply be invisible.

Context Menus are menus when you click on an object (PC it is right click, not sure about mac, I think shift-click)

the point is, no... you should be able to see when menu items are grayed out if you want, especially when learning a new program. If they dissappear you may not be able to remember when they are available and where they went. I want to be able to notice them even when they're not avaialable.

one thought for graying them out could be to have a different graying color for their contexts.... but really, when would a commend not be available. in Maya, you can invoke any command at any time - if you don't have the proper selection you are prompted for it. none of this segregated progress stuff. It's WAY more confusing to have to learn 5 different interface sets than 1 deep interface... you might ask, why I say such a thing?!?... because if you are learning the new interface and you see a grayed out command, you say to yourself "hmmm... self, take mental note of that command, as it may be useful some day" then you see it again and again, then when you are reading the manual to learn a new part of the workflow and the manual says, use this command, you say... ahhhh I know where I saw that. much much easier to learn the program that way. Hiding options is an ADVANCED feature for streamlining your workflow AFTER you know the program, not a way to make it easier to learn. I am very adament about this. I have been using computers for 28 years, and doing 3D whatever I could afford since 1984 - granted not much until 1992 - but I know interfaces, good bad and ugly... hiding the interface isn't ugly, it's not good either, until you know the program. --- at least this is the truth for me.

[Sean MacIsaac]

Context Menus are menus when you click on an object (PC it is right click, not sure about mac, I think shift-click)

the point is, no... you should be able to see when menu items are grayed out if you want, especially when learning a new program. If they dissappear you may not be able to remember when they are available and where they went. I want to be able to notice them even when they're not avaialable.

one thought for graying them out could be to have a different graying color for their contexts.... but really, when would a commend not be available. in Maya, you can invoke any command at any time - if you don't have the proper selection you are prompted for it. none of this segregated progress stuff. It's WAY more confusing to have to learn 5 different interface sets than 1 deep interface... you might ask, why I say such a thing?!?... because if you are learning the new interface and you see a grayed out command, you say to yourself "hmmm... self, take mental note of that command, as it may be useful some day" then you see it again and again, then when you are reading the manual to learn a new part of the workflow and the manual says, use this command, you say... ahhhh I know where I saw that. much much easier to learn the program that way. Hiding options is an ADVANCED feature for streamlining your workflow AFTER you know the program, not a way to make it easier to learn. I am very adament about this. I have been using computers for 28 years, and doing 3D whatever I could afford since 1984 - granted not much until 1992 - but I know interfaces, good bad and ugly... hiding the interface isn't ugly, it's not good either, until you know the program. --- at least this is the truth for me.

Context sensitivity means anything dealing with the current context. An example of context sensitivity in 3D Coat right now is the tool bar at the top and how it changes options based on the tool selected.

We'll see what we come up with as time goes by in regards to how to expose the user to the functionality in 3D Coat.

[philnolan3d]

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.

Actually that is not LightWave being different, LightWave was using these commands before most other 3D apps were invented, so it's really the others being different.

[cakeller]

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.

This is similar to Photoshop's TAB key hide-pallets toggle, or Max's "X" key toggle for Expert mode (does essentially the same thing), but is triggered by cursor position instead of a hotkey only. It's a Power User feature, but one I think some will like.

I'll second this one... in Maya it's Ctrl+Space removes ALL UI except the main menu, and window frame -- and for Studio-Tools there's a similar command which remove ALL UI, and goes full screen with ZERO UI except the view port(s)

I also like the idea of the auto-hide concept but only as option - it is NOT for everyone, but if you want it, and like it, it's AWESOME.

[philnolan3d]

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.

[philnolan3d]

Oh yes if there was a key to make the menus all hide like hitting Tab in Photoshop, then yes it would be handy on occasion.

[polyxo]

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!

[Amber]

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.Blender same story but they decided to change it.Any custom solution should have a very good explanation why it will be used.

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.

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.

But then UI designer wouldn't be needed.

Examples what non-professional users can do with a customizable UI.What for we need a UI designer for when we could create and share our own UI ?

These are examples of same software,no joke (Silo 2 ,a great polygon modeler) Look how different UI can look

[polyxo]

These are examples of same software,no joke (Silo 2 ,a great polygon modeler) Look how different UI can look

One shouldn't forget that Silo works just as good with nothing at all showing appart from the viewports...

[Ghostdog]

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.

[polyxo]

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.

The easier it is to allow Max, Maya, XSI, and C4D users (can't include LW for the previously mentioned reasons) to jump in an get started....to get familiarized with the product, the more seats will be sold. The steeper the learning curve, the more it will be rejected from a purchasing decision...as learning time is an investment of its own. Take Blender for example...very powerful toolset, and free. At this point, I have decided that it's not worth the investment in terms of learning yet another full-fledged 3D program.

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

As much I think that I generally think its good to follow interface-conventions I do not agree with these wishes:

I don't, because I believe one shouldn't simply transfer Transform-Widget-Conventions of Polygonal modelers to a Sculpting package.

This - without a lot of previous reflection - has already happened too much in the past imo.

One shouldn't consider given that it is an Axis Tripod with some arrows at the ends which is used for object transforms throughout

"the Industry". I believe this is wrong.

The workflow inside SubD-modelers and Sculpting apps differs greatly and it is again a completely different one inside a

Nurbs-Solid Modeler and once again different inside a Nurbs-Surface-Modeler. Still it's all dealing with 3D geometry creation.

Every modeling paradigm different from the SubD area has actually found its own transform methods (with or without widgets)which work best

in their respective work scenarios. I am very glad actually that I do not have to use the object creation and transform methods

of -say 3DSMax - when I do Surface-modeling inside Rhino! That would feel very clumsy.

On the other hand I would hate not to have 3DSMax-style Transform-widgets available when I do SubD with Silo.

I personally think that unaltered SubD style Transform-Widgets are far from optimal for Voxel and HiRes mesh manipulation because

there is no Subobject selection(Faces/Edges/Verts) possible. One can manipulate a SubD-Mesh with great flexibility

when using the familiar tripod manipulators and switching between different subobject selections.

The same manipulators used on Voxels only allow to translate the whole thing at once - pretty limited...

Often already I found certain aspects typically found in Nurbs programs more adequate for transforming Voxels.

In Nurbs one basically had to tackle the same issue: Limited options for sub-object selection.

Maybe one could get inspired here and there...

I found best when one started at Zero as Sean intends, to compare different paradigms and to brew an own intelligent

solution for 3DC. Last but not least I would strongly recommend looking at the Transform methods of other Voxel based Modelers like

Sensable Claytooks. Also one might have a look what quite a few Voxel based Dental-Modeling tools come up with.

The makers of some these packages do Voxels for more than a Decade already...

Holger

Some Voxel-Modeling-links:

http://sensable.com/industries-video-gallery.htm

http://www.dental-cadcam.com/

http://www.igd.fhg.de/igd-a7/projects/dental-cad

[Amber]

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 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 ?

[polyxo]

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.

Hi Amber,

I am also a great fan of Silo but I don't believe that one can compare this minimalistic app to 3DC.

While I think that a great extend of customizabilty is desirable it shouldn't get the users job

to design complete sets of own Icons and Widgets.

Silo proves that the essential toolset for SubD-Modeling can be very small actually.

The toolset is so compact indeed that it can be driven by hotkeys popups and context menus alone.

So the GUI is a completely optional skin - it's a comfort-plus or in the case of the UI's you

posted - clearly a decoration.

Also Wings is comparably compact btw. and can run without GUI but it doesn't allow Customization to that extend.

I believe 3DC can not be made as compact that it could be run without Interface, as many functionalities

rely on the visibility of Editors - one can not issue them in any other way. Visibility of Editors

is also neccessary as Brushes and Masks require visual choice. I guess that many people would agree that permanently

visible Editors are neccessary and that one should not waste developer-resources by making these skinable to a

greater extend.

[polyxo]

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.

[Amber]

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.

[artman]

My input here.

Im pretty happy with whatever UI will be created.

Im sure it will be great.

Personnaly,I dont know if it goes along the UI category but I would like each brushes

(in voxel and surface mode) to remember last pen used and also able to save that to file.

I would also like to be able to create a dockable custom brush panel with only selected brushes instead of all the brushes in the very long panel.

Be able to also create custom dockable menus out of the retopo and paint panel various commands.(hotkeys are cool but you reach the bottom of it fast,custom panels arrange routines and workflow sequences better so they can be accessed very fast with just mouse or pen. )

Thats all!

Have Fun!

[haikalle]

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

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.

[polyxo]

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?

I was saying that one refine the existing widgets with optimal performance in focus and not recognizability.

Being different for the sake of being different is certainly not my interest.

Just do a simple function comparison: Create a simple cube inside your preferred mesh-modeler and manipulate

it with its transform-widgets. Now do the same on a Cube-primitive (outside the preview-mode) with 3DC's

identically looking tripod. Does it give you the same amount of control? I'd sincerely be surprised if your answer was YES...

[polyxo]

Uh...yes you do. In 3ds Max, you can right click on ANY of the transform icons and it brings up a dialog to dial in the same level of precise control. You're totally running down a rabbit trail with this discussion.

Stop here. I am afraid you are utterly misinterpreting my argumentation.

What I was saying is that "Industry Standard" transform widgets fail to give you as much of control inside 3DC because of lack of Subobject Selection options.

Also without entering numbers one can do a heck lot more with a cube and the Transform-widget inside any SubD modeler than inside 3DC (by dragging the whole

object, single, or sets of faces, edges and verts).

That is why I consider it well worth thinking about transform widgets which give comparable fine grained controls also on HiRes meshes or Voxels.

Also at the cost that they might look a bit different in the end.

Edit: One more misunderstanding which I believe is in the air...

I of course have no problem with permanent availability of Transform-Tools - why should I?

[cakeller]

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.

[philnolan3d]

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.