2.37 Layer Buttons in Editmode

[joeri]

and beside, there are NOT to many buttons in Edit Mode. You`re talking like they couldn`t fit into window

Split up the screen in smaller windows and say that again

What resolution are you working in?
As a matter of question, what resolution are you all working in, and specialy, what resolution are the developers working in and what is the target resolution?

Sometime I get the felling you guys are stuck in 1024x768.

[Mats78]

I'm using 1280 x 1024, because my monitor allows just that. This is probably a very common resolution. If I divide my 3D view into two parts, neither one will be able to show all buttons in editmode without scrolling. Personally I don't feel scrolling is too bad of a thing.

Sometime I get the felling you guys are stuck in 1024x768.

Sorry joeri, but this is kind of a dumb thing to say. Have you ever worked on a laptop? One of the smaller ones? I know 1024x768 is regarded as a low resolution nowadays - still many laptops use it, which shouldn't be forgotten.

I've tried to find myself a laptop with an Nvidia graphics card and a supported resolution of 1600x1200, but it isn't easy (even with the money).

mats

[joeri]

I'm using 1280 x 1024, because my monitor allows just that. This is probably a very common resolution. If I divide my 3D view into two parts, neither one will be able to show all buttons in editmode without scrolling. Personally I don't feel scrolling is too bad of a thing.

Sometime I get the felling you guys are stuck in 1024x768.

Sorry joeri, but this is kind of a dumb thing to say. Have you ever worked on a laptop? One of the smaller ones? I know 1024x768 is regarded as a low resolution nowadays - still many laptops use it, which shouldn't be forgotten.

I've tried to find myself a laptop with an Nvidia graphics card and a supported resolution of 1600x1200, but it isn't easy (even with the money).

mats

My laptop has 1600x1200. My desktop has 1792x1344. My G5 has 1920x1200. As every professional should have today.
Leaves the question if you want to develope for the profesional or not. If not; fine.

And yes I've worked on my laptop. (7-1-3 to change views is the most stuppid thing I ever saw on a laptop).

If you take 3d seriously then get good stuff to work on, if blender does not take advantage of my good hardware then that's just crappy software.

Pretty lame to throw away handy buttons for the experienced (prof/semi prof) user because you want to be poor newbe compatible. Now I find *that* dumb.

"...which shouldn't be forgotten..."
Why not? Why should the software be compatible to low-end users?
And to what extend? And if they should not be forgotten, then why should the upper end be forgotten?
Why does blender need to be Laptop compatible? And why do desktop users need to suffer from that?

"to many buttons" ask for folding if you ask me. People on small screens can fold and unfold (like the panels) and widescreen users can leave them unfolded.
If it can work in the windows, why not in the header?
Removing buttons because the developer works on 800x600 is just, well, you make up an unplesant word.

[kxs]

My laptop has 1600x1200. My desktop has 1792x1344. My G5 has 1920x1200. As every professional should have today.
Leaves the question if you want to develope for the profesional or not. If not; fine.

Yeah, I would like to work on 1600x1200 if I had some more money, but for now I work on 1024x768.

Maybe adding "Show Layer Buttons in Edit Mode" option in the Preferences will make everyone happy

[Pierre-Luc_Auclair]

1024*768 is small yeah but remember that you can just use 1 viewport and switch from orthogonal views and perspective view with the numpad and still have work done.

Not like XSI in which you should be using at least 1600*1200 to get any profitable experience.

[Bellorum]

What resolution are you working in?
As a matter of question, what resolution are you all working in, and specialy, what resolution are the developers working in and what is the target resolution?

Sometime I get the felling you guys are stuck in 1024x768.

I use a resolution of 1152x864 on a 17" screen. I think that's reasonable.

[Mats78]

Why not? Why should the software be compatible to low-end users?
And to what extend? And if they should not be forgotten, then why should the upper end be forgotten?

Maybe because from what I remember that's what Blender is, or at least was, all about: making 3d available for everyone. Not once did I say that professional users should be forgotten. I just don't get this one-or-the-other mentality, as if taking your so called "low-end" users into account would automatically mean that all pros get let down. We should be inventing here.

Why does blender need to be Laptop compatible? And why do desktop users need to suffer from that?

In my view that's a bit like you saying "why does Blender need to be anything else than a Mac app". And I really don't understand why (or how) desktop users would suffer from it being 'laptop compatible'.

I hate arguing, at least when there's nothing to argue about, so I'm sorry if you took it personally - not my intention.

Peace,
Mats

[kxs]

I'm sorry if you took it personally - not my intention.

I didn`t
I think that we are all here on this forum to try to make Blender better.

[LetterRip]

joeri,

a lot of our userbase are either students, or live in countries with much lower per capita GDP than the US. So your suggestion of 'buy better hardware' is not very practical. Probably somewhere along 50-70% of our userbase fits this description.

Sometime I get the felling you guys are stuck in 1024x768.

As noted earlier that is a fairly typical maximum resolution for laptops. Also there is interest in porting Blender to even more constrained hardware, on the order of high end palm pilots and other hand held devices.

Leaves the question if you want to develope for the profesional or not. If not; fine.

As noted earlier - the resources available to a professional can vary significantly from country to country, and by point in the professionals career. Also there isn't a requirement that professional applications be resource intensive - ZBrush can be used comfortably in 800x600 resolution and is one of the most highly regarded 3D modeling and texturing applications available. Also Animaniums design also allows it to be usable in a low resolution screen.

Pretty lame to throw away handy buttons for the experienced (prof/semi prof) user because you want to be poor newbe compatible. Now I find *that* dumb.

I don't think anyone is requesting 'throwing away' anything, but a flexible design to allow usage in lower resource scenarios is certainly desirable.

Why not? Why should the software be compatible to low-end users?

Perhaps because the majority of developers are using hardware that is signficantly below what you consider reasonable?

I've been shocked by how many developers and users I've encountered that have 300-400 Mhz machines.

And to what extend? And if they should not be forgotten, then why should the upper end be forgotten?

How is the 'upper end' forgotten?

Why does blender need to be Laptop compatible? And why do desktop users need to suffer from that?

Well if Blender were not laptop (or other modestly powered hardware) compatible, you would not have sculptmesh for instance (which I developed exclusively on my laptop), and probably a large number of other scripts and tools. I'm not sure how I see desktop users 'suffering' from being laptop compatible, or capable of using lowend hardware.

It sounds like both laptop and desktop users are 'suffering' from a lack of flexibility in defining the interface components.

LetterRip

[FourMadMen]

I too miss the layer buttons in edit mode, however I think this only underscores the need for a layers panel. Changing layers in edit mode is nice yes, but when the day comes that the layer system is enhanced (layer names for example) then two rows of small buttons becomes less usefull. Perhaps this will serve to hasten that day.

...My 2 cents.

[Auralis]

1920x1200 res here