The Blender source code is moving from Subversion to Git, and that bug reporting/handling is moving from GForge to Phabricator.
Ton Roosendaal writes:
Hi all,
Here's a couple of notes from today's meeting in irc.freenode.net #blendercoders
1) Blender 2.69 release candidates
- Bug reports keep coming in! All showstoppers were tackled though.
- Meeting proposes to call for official 2.69 release build tomorrow. Last fixes from trunk were merged to release branch already. We would like everyone (and Campbell Barton, who's in USA atm) to check if it's OK!
2) projects for 2.70
- No news compared to last week's list of possible projects for 2.70.
- Ton Roosendaal mentions he had a meeting with Brecht van Lommel about all UI work the coming period. Brecht agreed on accepting the responsibility to coordinate/lead this, also to look into expanding the UI 'owner' team with more developers and designers.
3) Git and Phabricator migration
- We're finally moving to git! Here's the plan.
- There's also work being done to swap the www.blender.org website with the new staging.blender.org one. Even though the latter is not finished, switching it might give a bit more incentives and energy to then do it after all!
Thanks,
-Ton-
40 Comments
Please, do a Long Term Support version :D, there are so many good plug-ins out there that are only compatible with one specific version, and that, for long proyects, like a movie or a videogame, can be really hard to tackle, if everyone can update theirs plug in to just the LTS version, everything will be smoother for the proyects that are longer than two months
also the rigging wouldnt break from one version to another, for example if i want to use a render feature that has just been incorporated, with a character that has been rigged 8 months ago, i just cant do so
it's an old question...
a few years ag I raised this topic on BA forums
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?234685-Should-Blender-have-quot-LTS-quot-versions
main reason to ditch this seemed to be "just don't change version during your project" iirc...
Exactly - simply stick to a version and use only addons that are available for it. If you need a specific addon, just email the author and see if he/she can quickly make a compatible version for you.
The same thing happens with non-blender productions, they stick to one version. Although most 3d software only release once or twice a year, it's no different.
of course that is the available option, and that is what i´m currently doing, but, is not always an available choice to make contact with the add-on maker or that he has the will or the time to upgrade it ... also, i think that this issue is disencouraging longer proyects than a shortfilm or an ocassional user, instead of becoming the prefered choice in the industry (at least from where i´m from), also is kind of absurd that someone that want to make a bigger proyect must stay with bugs that have being already solved
Longer projects will have a bigger budget, won’t they? Why not use some of that to pay someone to provide the support you need?
yes, but acting like this means also "keep those bugs until your project is finished"... not that appealing...
a LTS means "this version gets no new features, but critical bugs will be fixed until next LTS"...
I am just a hobbyst user but use other LTS software in production and wherever this makes MUCH more sense ... but blender sometimes seems to want to remain "hobbyst's choice"...
the same goes for the wiki docs: good for bleeding edge, but a LTS needs much better (and stable) docs. Probably also a PDF (but here I could be biased since I have a project related to this...:-) )
a real LTS schedule could make really useful to choose blender for long term projects, if is true that no other similar software is doing this...
(using blender since 1.6x - where no undo function existed)
add to this that some people is still using 2.49b for some project, mainly due to features that are still broken/missing in 2.5/2.6 versions...
Hurray for migrating to git!
Seems like a lot of developers already have. I wonder how many unofficial Git mirrors of the Blender source there already are floating around?
Great work being done at the Foundation, and with Blender as a whole. Love hearing this kind of news. And if I don't mention myself, but if he is not already, Andrew Price needs to be apart of the UI team. I was blown away by the proposal he made, and I personally have been using Blender since a little before 2.49, and in 3D in general for 10+ years. As a personal opinion and as much as I love the current UI, his proposal is the next step.
I will stop my rant now. Haha.
Nate L.
Say NO to the ribbon! :)
You mean the current ribbon on the right hand column? ;)
I'm guessing nothing too drastic will get implemented any time soon.
The ribbon proposed by Andrew, that is just like the one in MS-Office or 3ds Max/AutoCAD.
It's a big waste of vertical space and don't improve the workflow, in my opinion.
Just ask any Maya user, what they think about getting a ribbon in Maya's UI too. :P
yeah No to ribbon (UI tabbed menu like with the MS Office)
Like fluxcapacitance already said, Blender already has a "ribbon" layout that you can put anywhere you like, but is on the right by default. The current "properties" section is just a poorly made ribbon with a different name. A proper, context aware "ribbon" is far better.
You just said the magic world there: "proper." ;)
"Propah!" :)
Let's be more accurate then
Say NO to the top-horizontal proposed ribbon, similar to MS-Office's one! :P
Apples and oranges, my friend. MS Office aren't 3D programs, so they really don't stand up well as a comparison. Even with the previous interface for MS Office, you only accessed your toolbar every so often. In 3D applications like Blender, you access your toolbar options at least once every five minutes. Their UIs' rates of usage and modes of functionalities do not compare well, for many other reasons I'll save listing.
Tabs can and with some software do work well. modo is great proof of that. But unlike modo, which uses a tabbed system to show you almost EVERY option available for that tab, sometimes it's best to not see every last option available for you, all at once.
Keeping a tabbed system mainly-used features, with drop-down arrow to access the lesser-used options (by default) is a much cleaner solution for directly accessing Blender's (growing) functionalities.
It's one of the best ways to keep an organized system that's uncluttered and direct to access, but at the same time, that's going to allow for sub-access to sub-features. It's not fair to knock the interface before seeing it in action first. I recall many people giving the current Blender UI similar flak before really giving it a chance as a step up from 2.4x's UI.
The solution is not to compare a poorer implementation of a similar idea elsewhere and merely throw it out on that premise. It's to consider all the best options, including those that might not have been well-implemented elsewhere. Problem-solving is to weigh out options and whatever you do try--tabs or not--to make sure it's implemented well.
Microsoft has given "modern" tab-esque systems a bad wrap in recent years, mainly because they change merely for change's sake, and they don't give a hoot who they force along to change. They know most people will go along with it anyways. But that shouldn't mar tabs as something to try for Blender's own solution's sake. Tabs can surely work--if done with care, clarity, and purpose.
sorry, sorry, sorry.
I'm not comparing apples with oranges here. Office has a top-horizontal ribbon, but 3ds Max also has this same proposed top-horizontal ribbon with tabs.
I know exactly how it works there (I am a 3ds Max Autodesk Certified Instructor) and I consider the system an uncomfortable one to use.
The idea to see it in action to judge it is what's not really fair, because when it is in action it's already done! I, at least, don't want it to be done that way at all. I've already seen that at work and prefer other UI systems anyday.
The big problem with horizontal tabbed ribbons is that take precious vertical space, and that's what we have less in 16:9 monitors. And the hidden/advanced functions take even more vertical space.
A vertical tabbed ribbon (like the Properties editor) has much more sense. and that's I presume the reason Blender UI designers decided to change the previous horizontal design for a vertical one, in first place.
Now the "big news" is that we will discover the wheel going horizontal again?
Of course, not all in the proposal is bad, we need better layers management, a more prominent notification system would be beneficial, and a default left-click selection would be great (yes, I'm one of those) ;)
I think many of the current Blender UI problems could be solved with a wiser organization of the different panels we already have.
I've already mentioned it, but I think we should look more closely at Modo's UI to see how the manage the different task oriented spaces they have, I think they have done a very good job in some aspects of it.
Of course we shouldn't look at modo's material layers system, because is just horrible, but that's their problem, not our's. ;)
@Brian Lockett: Agreed, though curiously enough, I just remembered that even Microsoft Access 1.1 had a vertical button bar for switching between queries, tables, forms etc. I'm glad nobody called the Blender context buttons a copy of the MS Access container interface, or we never would have gotten to Blender 2.01 at all!
I'm getting dangerously to that point where I see "But... ribbon!" and translate it as "Herp... DERP!" by the time it gets past my visual cortex. If I actually start venting online by shouting "Herp-Derp" in all caps, hit my reset button if you don't mind. Or check the wires for a short circuit. I'm well past my scheduled maintenance trip to the shop.
Agree here. It seems like Microsoft invented that in the days before modern widescreen monitors. The end result is, instead of taking advantage of ample horizontal space, it encroaches on already-tight vertical space.
Compare the Blender UI redesign, which puts the Properties Window at the side rather than at the bottom: this was specifically designed to work better on widescreen monitors.
Also compare the new sidebar on OpenOffice: much more sensible than Microsoft’s Ribbon!
It's actually the opposite, they are taking advantage of the horizontal space to take less total space. And for most people, I bet speed improvements are more than worth a few vertical pixels on a 1080p+ monitor
It's not. it's just what Lawrence states.
The proposed ribbon will eat our vertical space.
The more "advanced" the option you need, the taller the ribbon will get, and more uncomfortable users will be not seeing the viewport (or worse, seeing the viewport changing dimensions to reaccomodate to the less available space).
That's what 3ds Max has right now, and it's not a good solution there.
But on a 1080p+ monitor, it is not total space that is in short supply, but vertical space.
Again, fallacious argument. Just for failed when horribly-implemented in MS Office doesn't mean if can't be better applied elsewhere. Besides, it's more tabs than actual a "ribbon."
Hear, hear!
I'm glad this is finally being said. The other day I was about ready to make a satirical picture out of the current properties panel, by extruding little trapezoid-shaped tabs from the tops of the existing square tiles, changing nothing else, and imagining the "ribbon" bashers reacting in abject terror. I couldn't find a way to do it without being too subtle on the one hand or too over the top on the other, so someone else can take the idea and run with it if they want to.
BTW... Brian Lockett for official BlenderNation ambassador of good will. You have a knack for getting right to the crux of a situation with both clarity and professionalism.
Hahaha! Well, thanks, though, I'm surprised anyone could actually read that comment well enough--I wrote it quite sloppy there! My goodness, I've got to stop typing while tired!
So where is the Microsoft Office Ribbon “better applied elsewhere”? There seem to be no examples of this.
Again, again and again, it depends on what you mean by a ribbon. I already think of the properties panel header as a ribbon. Click the "materials" button/tab, get a whole bunch of choices in the section. Click another button/tab, those choices are replaced by a completely new selection of choices... modifiers, render settings and all the rest.
If someone else thinks of a ribbon as "Something that has to be horizontal and take up the entire window", then quite obviously we are going to be talking past each other until the cows come home. Which sure enough is just exactly what keeps happening here, day after day, week after week.
My short answer: The Blender properties panel header IS an example of a ribbon done "more right." And yet it seems that if those twelve square buttons at the top had an oblong "tab" shape, everything else remaining the same, the Blender community would be up in arms about it. Okay then. Keep the tabs square shaped and call it a day already! This isn't going to replace the non-overlapping windows aspect at all. It's not going to take away the choice to display it vertically. The sole thing to focus on is what gets put together in which context group. I think the cosmetic change from square minibuttons to tab-shaped buttons threw everyone for a loop and that's unfortunate, so each of us needs to decide here and now if we're going to continue to harp on that one unfortunate miscue or stop muddying the waters with it.
Too long didn't read version: The context buttons in the Properties panel already constitute a ribbon for all intents and purposes. Blender's community doesn't mind it. If you don't like the word Ribbon, say Context Buttons. And then move on.
quote: "I think the cosmetic change from square minibuttons to tab-shaped buttons threw everyone for a loop and that’s unfortunate"
I can only speak for myself, but what I see in the proposal is bad for being horizontal, yes, not for having tabs at the top of the window per se.
But it is indeed deeply bad because with the little vertical space proposed for the standard ribbon AND with all the parameters or functions having BOTH an icon and a text describing the icon, there will really be no vertical ribbon space left but for such a few options that the only alternative will be to artificially spread the existent options into new subgroups horizontally OR in so called "advanced" options groups that will take another chunk of vertical space.
That, in my humble opinion, would be way worse than the solution that is in place now.
Period.
"his proposal is the next step" to create Toyblender for the masses :D
Incorrect.
Cheese.
Great news about the UI work!
Guys,
I suggest that you take a serious look on the user interface of SOLIDWORKS. I understand that it is a CAD software (used to design planes, ships, etc) and don't have the same purpose of blender.
But it has much in common with blender.
It is a very complex and powerful software and integrates several distinct (and completely diverse) functionality under the same UI.
My point is that the Solidworks team managed to make an incredibly easy and intuitive user interface. Even newbies can draw complex parts easily,especially because it look like all windows application everyone are used to and it have the same shortcuts all windows applications have.
No body get lost googling how to select objects, how to rename an object and such.
It make extensive use of ribbons, in the exact way Andrew Price proposes.
All big players understand that a good backend is a necessary condition, but it is far from sufficient. Real blockbusters have an excellent, powerful and intuitive interface that use the Windows metaphor.
I think that treating windows as something "disgusting" because "it is made by the evil empire" is absolutely ridiculous and childish. Almost 100% of desktops are windows ones, 90% at least. So, ribbons and such are natural things for most people. I suggest that people who do not like MS Word switch to an old typewriter of even Latex.
Andrew never proposed to make blender a toy for the masses. This comment is absolutely ridiculous. He proposes the same functionality with a better UI, that people can grasp easily and be productive quickly.
This project is extremely important to the future of blender.
Just for example, I'm very interested in VFX and camera/object tracking. But I´m not able to figure out how to make it work because of too many UI elements without documentation. I've gave up trying. I'm using another software which is much more intuitive and in just one day I was able to do cool things.
Best Regards.
I've used a few CAD/CAM packages before, and I can tell you the one I'm still using now is the one I found the easiest when I was starting. Productivity is the name of the game, and you use the UI most when starting out, after that it just becomes keyboard shortcuts that won't go anywhere.
A revamping of the UI development team is good news, because now we can expect a reasonable amount of effort going into not only functions and performance, but simple usability as well.
I've also used several CAD packages before (though not Solidworks), and have seen some good UIs (also some horrible ones...), especially in the newer releases. These are surely very complex 3D applications, and would be a better comparison than MS Word. They have similar requirements for their GUI's as Blender, and are able to implement user-friendly, discoverable, even "easy" interfaces, sometimes as ribbon or tab-based and they sure aren't dumbed down "toys." They are productive despite being user-friendly.
I found Inventor as having one of the most user-friendly interfaces in this area. It is similarly ribbon-like, with huge tooltips (which can be disabled) with pictures. The newest releases of NX and CATIA have also been much improved and show that several thousand functions can be dealt with in a useable GUI.
Just nice and short here, Blender devs:
Thank you, and keep up the good work, guys. Truly appreciated.