PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion - Is LW's interface pretty?



Snosrap
04-10-2016, 09:50 PM
I got to thinking about this today as I have moved my box and monitor to the dining room table for some repairs and I can see it from the other room with Lightwave 2015 up and running - and from looking at it from afar I'm thinking, gee LW looks really good. What do you guys think? I think the LW10 thru 2015 interface is a huge improvement over 9.6.

lightscape
04-10-2016, 09:59 PM
Form follows function
Its plain and uninspiring but gets the job done.
They need to get rid of clicking and scrolling a long list items.
Other than that no complaints.
It looks as bland as it was in lw 9 which is fine.

Amurrell
04-10-2016, 10:43 PM
i think the layout of it is fine, but it could use some jazzing up. In a way it looks so industrial, I would like to look at something a bit softer. Damn, did I just say that? I am getting old. But 3DS Max suffers the same raw look. It does get the job done, and I can spend hours with it without complaining about the UI, as I have for years.

bazsa73
04-10-2016, 10:59 PM
Uninspiring? When I looked at Max in my former workplace I always had a thought how clattered and untidy its interface was with all those super cheesy late 90's ugly edged gif buttons.
That's uninspiring. I never even touched that unholy Autodesk devilry.

Topster-71
04-10-2016, 11:06 PM
The interface layout works for me. Maybe a few tweeks here and there. @Ammurrell Not sure what a softer means. But I agree no Max look-a-like. Plus any big change would involve a learning curve.

I prefer words on most of my buttons. Does what it says. Simples

lightscape
04-10-2016, 11:23 PM
Hold on, there's one more thing that irks me when using lightwave.

No dockable panels. Everything is floating around.

Needs a rewrite.....

erikals
04-11-2016, 01:37 AM
i Love the LightWave Ui, no clutter, straight forward


No dockable panels. Everything is floating around.

yes, hope to see dockable panels.   also a smarter way to auto-clean multiple windows.

hrgiger
04-11-2016, 01:58 AM
I say we nuke it from orbit.

erikals
04-11-2016, 02:00 AM
you can't, it's indestructible.

spherical
04-11-2016, 02:08 AM
i think the layout of it is fine, but it could use some jazzing up. In a way it looks so industrial, I would like to look at something a bit softer.

Interactive GUI Color Tool. Make it as you like and it'll be perfect and unique in all the world:

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?115493-Interactive-GUI-Color-Tool-for-LW10

hrgiger
04-11-2016, 02:56 AM
you can't, it's indestructible.

If you mean inflexible and unmovable, then yes.

StereoMike
04-11-2016, 03:52 AM
Have the GUI adapt to font size. I upped the font size and now everthings capped. Fortunately I know where what is, but it looks ugly with everything ending like 'Convert Skel...'

gerry_g
04-11-2016, 03:52 AM
is not whether the interface is pretty it's whats underneath that bothers me, numerics are often flaky, dragging on screen clunky and incrementally jumps rather than smoothly moves and undo –WHAT UNDO– no these things are far from pretty

Kaptive
04-11-2016, 04:06 AM
I say we nuke it from orbit.

Well, it's the only way to be sure. ;)

To be honest, I've always thought that any artistic package should look like a tool, non intrusive, but also clear. If anything detracts or distracts from what is in the viewport (where the art is) then it is over done.
Regarding dockable panels... I ummed and arred about that, but with the frequency that I drag things around it'd REALLY start to get annoying if things started snapping here and there. It'd drive me nuts.

Nope clean simple.

If I made any changes, I'd perhaps move a few functions between panels (or even duplicate them). I've been of the opinion for a while, that the Frames Per Second value should be on the camera panel... not on the general options panel.
Also, I'd like to see some of the display options (field chart/openGLfog/lensflares) in the spare space down the bottom so that you can toggle it on and off when required. I mean, it makes sense where it is, don't get me wrong... but they sit in a panel which is rarely opened, so it requires a good few clicks to do something I just want to use quickly to check things.

But overall, I'd say LW looks great and as Topster says, worded buttons are perfect. Death to all icons!

Norka
04-11-2016, 07:05 AM
Yes, death to all icons. This has always been my favorite feature of LW, that it is text based. It takes way longer to find/interpret/decipher icons, than to just read a couple words. NT, don't even think of ever changing this.

And yes, LW interface is gorgeous. Especially with my windows scheme. Everything nice and dark gray, easy on the eyeballs for many hours.

JonW
04-11-2016, 07:49 AM
Tool name & keyboard shortcut name to jog failing memory, can't get simpler & to the point, than that!

I still prefer the old colour scheme but with some slight modifications:
133386

lardbros
04-11-2016, 07:51 AM
I used to hate LightWave's interface, but actually think it looks simple and quite refined these days after Matt's assistance!
Also, despite not having a dockable UI and things... the way LightWave supports two (or more) monitors is really really nice.

3d Coat is really quite irritating in that you can't split the dockable panels off onto a second monitor. Photoshop's dockable panels also feel weird when dropped onto a second monitor. It makes LightWave's support for more than one monitor absolutely brilliant! Beats 3dsMax and even Unreal's UDK 4 in this regard. The windows always remember where they were, and I love this!

JonW
04-11-2016, 08:00 AM
... the way LightWave supports two (or more) monitors is really really nice.
Using a second monitor vertically if you use stacks of layer is very handy.

MichaelT
04-11-2016, 08:02 AM
I actually like its simplicity. Lets me focus on what I am trying to make. I don't however like the separation, but that is hardly news :)

chikega
04-11-2016, 10:20 AM
you can't, it's indestructible.

It's laminated .... lamination is forever. :)

prometheus
04-11-2016, 11:09 AM
the UI is quite clean and should be, thereīs the part of color schem..which I think could be enhanced, the problem is the lack of controlling the UI and see direct results..unless using the UI plugin tool for it.
there are places where contrast and hsv balance isnīt good...black text against a little grey background etc..that is no good, it just makes it a bit harder to see, I believe the human mind has a hard time to distinguish contrast between desaturated colors..
therefore it would be better if it has a slight tone..

So by that I would say that blenders color scheme is one of the best out there..with a nice tone in the background..greyblue...but not too saturated, but it distingish the text from the background in a much better way than lightwave does.
Then we got the contrast of the white label text on menus in lightwave that I think are a bit to strong in luminosity/contrast...it makes the eye a bit strained at looking at them all and sort out what is needed focus..in that regard I think some earlier lightwave version did that better, this is to sort out the label numeric values you would like to enter.

Same goes with the menu buttons where you create items, when you look for a tool..you need to find in what category it is in...the problem is that the category buttons has a more damped contrast as opposed to the tools that are under the category...so what is the point with the category buttons then..it should be the other way around..the category button needs to guide the user foremost in regards to what section it is organized in, otherwise your eye or mind would be scanning all the button texts of all categories at once...instead of the section it should be in, with less buttons to sort out.

the Ui is not particulary pretty..it does itīs job and is clean somehow..but could be made better, it is however not as distracting as blender and max interfaces.

erikals
04-11-2016, 11:26 AM
talking Blender, i feel Blender is the worst Ui of them all... (color scheme = ok)

Modo seems nice, at times... at times.


ultimately there is no Fantastic Ui out there...


("close all" but the two last active windows function would be nice)
(i could make an AHK script that did that... but... time... )

TheLexx
04-11-2016, 11:34 AM
I apologise in advance if my views are over-strong, but the Lightwave interface is the best I have ever seen in any software by a very, very long mile. The thing I love is purely and simply that the buttons are labelled in English without the gauntlet of hundreds of mindless custom icons to navigate. I really do loathe the sign language mentality of other software I have seen. Maybe different people have different eye/brain interpretations, but I really do appreciate the common sense approach of just labelling the buttons.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2016, 11:36 AM
I would appreciate a little more color, mostly to differentiate things. The C4D ui is mostly grey, but has nice appropriate splashes of color where you need it. Maybe split the difference.

(IIRC I could reintroduce color by hand, and in Modeler color can differentiate between Tools and Commands (and 3 other things) which is useful, even if I only ever remember it subliminally.)

Panels: one thing I don't like about LW panels is their inconsistency. Some panels toggle one and off when you hit their hotkey, some do not. :devil: To me, that kind of inconsistency is inexcusable. And it might lead to the next thing: panels can get buried under other panels. If a panel doesn't TOGGLE and COME TO THE FRONT, it's quite easy to lose that panel under another, larger one. This is not good.

On a two monitor system, the small alerts that pop up always seem to be where-ever I'm not looking. If the materialization of the panel were a bit more conspicuous, like a collapsing border, that would help with this, and is basically what the Mac does, but in reverse. Basically designed to catch the corner of the eye, to NOT be discreet. The reason this is an issue is that the alerts lock the app, and if you don't notice them, you wind up wondering what the hell is wrong for several seconds. I don't enjoy that.

Such increased visibility schemes could all be optional. But it's like MAP creation in LWM-- it needs a little more fanfare. Not a lot, just some.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2016, 11:44 AM
It's interesting that the Blender h8ing continues, no matter how hard they try.

One thing I appreciate about LW is there's not those horrible scrolling panels as in 3DM (iirc). Those things must have been designed by mouse makers because you freekin' scroll and scroll and scrolll....................

OTOH, many of the LW panels have very bad layouts, and are comically narrow. Comically in the same manner that Pennywise is a 'funny' clown.

Kaptive
04-11-2016, 11:45 AM
I would appreciate a little more color, mostly to differentiate things. The C4D ui is mostly grey, but has nice appropriate splashes of color where you need it. Maybe split the difference.

(IIRC I could reintroduce color by hand, and in Modeler color can differentiate between Tools and Commands (and 3 other things) which is useful, even if I only ever remember it subliminally.)

Panels: one thing I don't like about LW panels is their inconsistency. Some panels toggle one and off when you hit their hotkey, some do not. :devil: To me, that kind of inconsistency is inexcusable. And it might lead to the next thing: panels can get buried under other panels. If a panel doesn't TOGGLE and COME TO THE FRONT, it's quite easy to lose that panel under another, larger one. This is not good.

On a two monitor system, the small alerts that pop up always seem to be where-ever I'm not looking. If the materialization of the panel were a bit more conspicuous, like a collapsing border, that would help with this, and is basically what the Mac does, but in reverse. Basically designed to catch the corner of the eye, to NOT be discreet. The reason this is an issue is that the alerts lock the app, and if you don't notice them, you wind up wondering what the hell is wrong for several seconds. I don't enjoy that.

Such increased visibility schemes could all be optional. But it's like MAP creation in LWM-- it needs a little more fanfare. Not a lot, just some.

True dat.

Let's all play find the Effects panel! :)

jeric_synergy
04-11-2016, 12:00 PM
Let's all play find the Effects panel! :)
LOL, no kidding.

I could swear the NSE isn't toggling last time I used it! I hope I'm wrong-- it covers a LOT of the screen. Since toggling is my main method of finding some panels, that some of them DON'T toggle is a pretty good-size headache.

prometheus
04-11-2016, 12:02 PM
talking Blender, i feel Blender is the worst Ui of them all... (color scheme = ok)

Modo seems nice, at times... at times.


ultimately there is no Fantastic Ui out there...


Agree completly, blenders color scheme is actually ok..but it comes with some presets so itīs of course based on what you choose and like, I like the tonal options for some buttons and menus, and the fact I can change the UI and see it update directly in the software unlike lightwave...so it is easier to fine tune as you want..but that said, itīs button is bouth rounded and not rounded and sometimes with space apart and sometimes not..and sometimes it has too many different colors in the button menus depending on what it does ..if it is selected etc..all that is a mess, and also how you drag and close windows, and the fact that you can not maximize minimize from quad to single viewports in the same way as lightwave does..lightwave does that better.

Modo...the general scheme of colors is nice and the graphic icons are pretty nice too, a simple on off icon button I am not sure if that exists...the problem for me has always been the workflow with the shader tree, and the category Vertically text description...who the hell leans their head 90 degree in order to read that, my mind is not made to read things like that, so the first thing that hitīs you when confronted with that..it is the mind telling you to turn your head in an awkward angle, but then it tells you...no try to adapt the mind and solve the reading..huh, if the text was running vertically, it shouldnīt at least be aligned perpendicular to the verticl flow.


It's interesting that the Blender h8ing continues, no matter how hard they try.

OTOH, many of the LW panels have very bad layouts, and are comically narrow. Comically in the same manner that Pennywise is a 'funny' clown.

Wrong..they obviously do not try hard enough.

True about lw panels, I just hate working with the sk sunsky because of the xpanel issues, sometimes it is cut off when it is fixed in the properties panel, I have to close it in the menu then reopen it again..and then it opens not fixed but in another window module..but then I can at least read all the settings..wich otherwise is cut off prematurly.
And as you say..x panels can for some windows be comicly narrow.

so there is really two major window panel issues that needs to be solved, fully resizable windows, and docking panels..and to that also expand/collapse any drop down menu.

One thing I also would like to see with lightwave UI, itīs the new implemented stuff like bullet..it sometimes seem like another world, I mean..the old system you could acess through the objects properties panel, for bullet you canīt ..itīs like saying the object doesnīt have any dynamic property..for newcomers this is confusing, hitting p for properties and not seeing anything there.
Sure we got itīs own bulle world panel for showing all objects, but I am not sure if that is good enough.

Maybe this ultimatly spins out of topic..I guess we should only discuss "pretty" which might be reserved for the "Looks" of it..and not so much the actual function of it.

Michael

jwiede
04-11-2016, 12:55 PM
Hold on, there's one more thing that irks me when using lightwave.

No dockable panels. Everything is floating around.

Definitely! Stop a LW user mid-session and LW's GUI typically looks MUCH more cluttered and disorganized than when stopping users of other 3D pkgs mid-session. Most of that disorder comes down to how LW's dialog windows wind up scattered around, instead of having any sort of coherent docking/magnetic attachment between them to provide/retain organization. Playing tutorials at high speed the blinking on/off of random placed/sized dialog windows becomes almost comical.

The fairly common need for resizing LW dialogs to fit contents results in few similarly-sized dialogs over time, increasing the visual chaos. 3D pkgs with "bars" of panes all present, sharing similar width (think side panes in C4D, modo, FormZ, Zbrush, etc), and only sizing vertically on reveal definitely offer more organized appearances mid-session.

Both mentioned factors contribute to making LW's GUI more "visually chaotic" than other 3D packages during work sessions. There are associated ergonomic detriments as well. The UI toolkit desperately needs modern GUI visual organization mechanisms (pane(l)/window docking/magnetism, "bars of palettes"-type displays, etc.), along with ability to quickly switch between multiple user-customizable GUI layouts (as is present in nigh-all other 3D pkgs today).

Newtek/LW3DG has acknowledged the need for such GUI improvements for many years, but that hasn't yet translated into much tangible progress adding such functionality.

jwiede
04-11-2016, 01:29 PM
Have the GUI adapt to font size. I upped the font size and now everthings capped. Fortunately I know where what is, but it looks ugly with everything ending like 'Convert Skel...'

Actually, there are both "font size adaptation", and "high DPI display" adaptation problems with LW's GUI. Without getting into radical changes to the general labeling scheme (iow, text-vs-icons), integrating proper font-size and high-DPI-display handling still remains a necessity for LW. The high-DPI-display issue is quickly resulting in illegible LW GUIs by default, and the limitations around font selection/scaling blocks users from practical mitigation.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2016, 02:18 PM
Newtek/LW3DG has acknowledged the need for such GUI improvements for many years, but that hasn't yet translated into much tangible progress adding such functionality.
Now, there's some British-level understatement.

jasonwestmas
04-11-2016, 08:22 PM
Definitely nuke the UI and keep it in spirit only. ;)

jeric_synergy
04-11-2016, 10:43 PM
I think it's good to identify what we like:


text over icons
muted (or no) colors

And what we don't like:

panel confusion
inconsistancy
truncated UI words

Personally, I feel we could do worse than follow C4D's lead, although in general I think their default color choices are quite bright. For all I know they have a suite of choices, as much software does: bright, medium, darker, and noir.

But a UI isn't a static thing, it's also the verbs that make up the experience. For me, one of the most outdated things in LW's UI is the use of dialogs for simple text input, like naming things. That's archaic, and divorces the value from its conceptual function.

There's also things like having notices be more temporarily noticeable, using, eg, color fading backgrounds. EG, when an alert is posted in the status line, I'd like to see a highlight color appear, but then fade to the default background, kind of an "Hello there!" from the alert.

What I'd like is if LWG flew Ryan Roye out and had a two-day conversation with him about what could be changed for the better.

tburbage
04-11-2016, 11:59 PM
I used to hate LightWave's interface, but actually think it looks simple and quite refined these days after Matt's assistance!
Also, despite not having a dockable UI and things... the way LightWave supports two (or more) monitors is really really nice.
Well, the beauty of dockable means that you can dock it if you just want a well managed full-screen/maximized app frame, but can drag off to a second display when you want to. Some folks prefer a single large display. A good app design works well on either configuration.

I do like the flexibility offered by Maya to have many of its panels/views either docked or floating, and I think the way they have the Channel Box/Attribute Editor/Modeling Toolkit on the right side as vertical tabs (hide or show as you like) is a nice design. Going to the original post though, I generally like the general look/feel of Layout.

Modeler is where docking support would be most useful to me. I just want to have it maximized with Statistics/Layers/Vertex Maps panels docked down the right side. Windows 10 has really screwed up window mgmt. Trying to fake docking by aligning floating panels just doesn't work anymore.

Kaptive
04-12-2016, 02:30 AM
Isn't there a plugin that someone made that organises and resizes the panels on your screen? I remember seeing it a while back but never got around to trying it. I think there was a thread about it on here a year or so ago.
I'd be interested to try it with all this talk of docking. I also wonder if it works over multiple monitors.

spherical
04-12-2016, 02:39 AM
LightWave UI+
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?140889-Lightwave-ui&highlight=ui+panels+dockable

It had issues with multiple monitors. That's why I didn't adopt it. Development stopped after a while.

hrgiger
04-12-2016, 05:21 AM
The lightwave interface is simple and has served Lightwave well enough over the years. But if their intent is to modernize Lightwave as their intent seems to be with the upcoming release then the interface has to change too. It's not in the scope of the next release but it sounds like they're looking at it beyond that.

Norka
04-12-2016, 07:29 AM
Statistics could certainly use just a little love, to make it perfect. I use the hell out of it (and I love being able to hide it too), and for the most part it is marvel of efficiency and ergonomics. But at the minimum, it could use some more padding around each item in there, to make each a little easier to click correctly the first time. And maybe some additional info (selectable) could be added...

prometheus
04-12-2016, 10:51 AM
the node rubber connections arenīt pretty..I donīt fancy the look of the nodes that much either, looking at modo nodes or blender nodes...those are graphicly much more pleasing though.
They could start by fixing antialiased rubber connections..it now looks like itīs back in the 80īs game or something :)

zooming. a lot more is needed, it can sometimes be hard to connect at this level, blender can zoom heck of a lot more, and got nice rubber spline curves colors, even a background grid to employ behind the nodes.

Kaptive
04-12-2016, 10:58 AM
LightWave UI+
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?140889-Lightwave-ui&highlight=ui+panels+dockable

It had issues with multiple monitors. That's why I didn't adopt it. Development stopped after a while.

Bummer :(
That said, I wonder if it'd work using Nvidias Surround/span display option where it treats all the monitors as one (like you'd use for multi-monitor gaming). Might have to give it a try. Though if it isn't being supported, maybe I shouldn't try it and get used to it, only for it to stop working. Will see. Thanks for letting me know though :)

Kaptive
04-12-2016, 11:03 AM
The lightwave interface is simple and has served Lightwave well enough over the years. But if their intent is to modernize Lightwave as their intent seems to be with the upcoming release then the interface has to change too. It's not in the scope of the next release but it sounds like they're looking at it beyond that.

I imagine as we move towards Layout absorbing modeler tools etc, we'll probably see a bit of a rework. Though I'm intrigued by you saying that it "has to change". Do you mean to reflect the growth of the program, or that it just needs to look different? Personally, I'd be happy for it to remain reasonably the same with a few tweaks. I mean, some mention docking, that might be useful (despite my earlier comments), but what would you expect to see? Just intrigued :)

erikals
04-12-2016, 11:10 AM
is part of the LightWave UI based on QuickTroll now ?

might be, at least there is a QT files in the NewTek/LightWave/bin directory.

QT is quite strong AFAIK...   could be part of the solution.

hrgiger
04-12-2016, 11:55 AM
I imagine as we move towards Layout absorbing modeler tools etc, we'll probably see a bit of a rework. Though I'm intrigued by you saying that it "has to change". Do you mean to reflect the growth of the program, or that it just needs to look different? Personally, I'd be happy for it to remain reasonably the same with a few tweaks. I mean, some mention docking, that might be useful (despite my earlier comments), but what would you expect to see? Just intrigued :)

Well it doesnt have to look drastically different but imo, you should be able to make it look different if you want it to. But yes, the introduction of modeling tools is likely going to require some ui changes to give users a ui that is suitable for modeling. We dont need to see the timeline when modeling in most cases and of course you have to add the gui for quick access to selection filters, action centers, tool properties, symmetry, etc... but even beyond that, it would be ideal to have a flexible interface that will allow you to work the way you want so dockable and movable panels and toolbars, quick acess tool menus like pie or strip menus, etc...

pming
04-12-2016, 01:08 PM
Hiya!

I always thought this was a nice interface: http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83146&d=1268783694

I wonder what program that is anyway? Huh...sure seems nice and clean...kinda "warm and familiar" somehow... ;)

*sigh*

MonroePoteet
04-12-2016, 01:12 PM
I'm not sure I'd call the LW interfaces "pretty", but I definitely think they're striking. I *like* the interfaces and am proud to show them off to friends / family / clients, but then again, I've been using them (or their ancestors) since 1996. I use the default color scheme and a larger font, and can sit in front of these interfaces for hours without eyestrain. Of course, I have a 48" HDTV for a monitor and keep it at 1080p resolution, so the buttons and widgets, etc. are BIG!

I like the text buttons rather than icons, as has been stated by numerous people. Resizing the buttons for larger fonts would be nice, or at least have a "tool hint" that pops up when hovering over a particular button with the full text of the button and any hotkey associated with it.

Being able to put a tool on multiple menus, and the ability to create floating menus with work-flow specific toolsets would be nice.

I, for one, will grieve the loss of separate Modeler and Layout interfaces (talk about putting a chicken amongst the foxes! :) ). They are specifically tuned to the job at hand, and can be fine-tuned to my workflow in their separate contexts. IMO, the best combination would have been 1) a shared-memory approach to the mesh information, 2) a shared-memory access to Layout rendering parameters required for VPR, and 3) VPR access in Modeler. The shared-memory would allow Layout and Modeler interfaces to access *the same in-memory copy* of the mesh information (without the cumbersome Hub transferring it back&forth&back&forth), but retain the tuned interfaces, and VPR in Modeler with access to the required Layout rendering parameters would allow rendered surface adjustment in Modeler. The conglomeration of the two interfaces is probably a Done Deal at this point, but I'll miss it.

Consistency in the panel navigation would be wonderful and IMO, critical. As was stated previously, a hotkey should ALWAYS (ALWAYS!!) toggle up *and* down the associated panel. Escape (ESC) should always abort the current panel. The panel positions and sizes should be kept across exit and restart of the interface. The "n" hotkey should always move into the active panel to allow numeric input of parameters. Have a hotkey for the Apply button. Docking would be OK, IMO, but secondary to being able to invoke, navigate, manipulate and drop panels with hotkeys. And, the floating, work-flow-specific toolset menus suggested previously.

As always, just my opinion.

mTp

Kaptive
04-12-2016, 01:26 PM
Well it doesnt have to look drastically different....... quick acess tool menus like pie or strip menus, etc...

Getchya

Schwyhart
04-12-2016, 01:29 PM
Hiya!

I always thought this was a nice interface: http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=83146&d=1268783694

I wonder what program that is anyway? Huh...sure seems nice and clean...kinda "warm and familiar" somehow... ;)

*sigh*

*sigh* yeah...
LW Next looks promising though. Even if the UI isn't changing in design.

wyattharris
04-12-2016, 01:32 PM
Is LW's interface pretty?
Lol, I really have never thought of any program in those terms, since the Kai Power Tools interface fad died out (Thank goodness!). Function is king but I suppose there's a certain beauty in its minimalist style. I've always approached my tech equipment much like I would my toolbox. I never think, "My that's a pretty hammer" but I might say "That framing hammer is huge".


Definitely! Stop a LW user mid-session and LW's GUI typically looks MUCH more cluttered and disorganized than when stopping users of other 3D pkgs mid-session.
I can't disagree with that but in my case it does not effect function. If you are using mostly hotkeys then press 'N' and focus shifts to the numeric panel. Press it again and it shifts back to the main window. Now after a good long session I'll have the numeric, surface, camera/light/GI panel all mixed over each other with several more I'm sure. Looks like a mess but with hotkeys its quick and straight forward. I much prefer having the bulk of my main monitor dedicated to the content in the viewport and not squished to the side by panels. I wish I could pull all of the ZB palettes off and stick them on the second monitor.

HOWEVER, having the option of dockable panels would be great. My Photoshop interface is pretty much that. The second monitor has a mass of docked palettes and the minimized main window so my primary monitor is nothing but content windows. Ahhhh perfect. :D

hrgiger
04-12-2016, 01:37 PM
I, for one, will grieve the loss of separate Modeler and Layout interfaces (talk about putting a chicken amongst the foxes! :) ). They are specifically tuned to the job at hand, and can be fine-tuned to my workflow in their separate contexts. IMO, the best combination would have been 1) a shared-memory approach to the mesh information, 2) a shared-memory access to Layout rendering parameters required for VPR, and 3) VPR access in Modeler. The shared-memory would allow Layout and Modeler interfaces to access *the same in-memory copy* of the mesh information (without the cumbersome Hub transferring it back&forth&back&forth), but retain the tuned interfaces, and VPR in Modeler with access to the required Layout rendering parameters would allow rendered surface adjustment in Modeler. The conglomeration of the two interfaces is probably a Done Deal at this point, but I'll miss it.



You can still have a 'tuned' interface' for modeling or animation in a single application through proper workspaces. There are numerous benefits to having a unified application and no real benefits to keeping them separate. If there is an actual benefit to having them separate, I haven't heard of one yet.

Kaptive
04-12-2016, 01:42 PM
I, for one, will grieve the loss of separate Modeler and Layout interfaces (talk about putting a chicken amongst the foxes! :) ).

You aren't alone, but it all depends on implimentation. Personally, I'd like to see a bit of a compromise in that you switch to a modeler mode within Layout, not totally disimilar to how we see modeler now... so it'll feel like a seperate environment, but you can just toggle it... but then with the advantage that you can access the tools within the scene too and work that way also. I think this is where intelligent design to the interface will be most important.

With 3d programs being essentially a beginning to end film studio (give or take) I've always considered the seperation as logical. What I mean is... If I was making a film, I'd make all of my props and models in a dedicated studio, in isolation. When everything is ready, I bring them all down to the film set (layout) and make the film... lights, camera action!

Now when it comes to set building, some modelling tools would be useful, but set designing is more about bringing all the props together and dressing the environment.

So on that basis, to me, it makes a total logical sense. Integration of both is only advantagous from a technical point of view and advancing what we can achieve (removing limits). So I hope this makes sense as to why I also like the seperation (and why I'd still like some kind of visual UI seperation (even if they are in the same space)).

erikals
04-12-2016, 02:54 PM
regarding efficiency, i never liked apps that split the UI tools to the left and right side.
keep it all on the left, or all on the right.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIGFoshc9Zw

erikals
04-12-2016, 03:32 PM
the same done to an older LightWave Ui example >

cagey5
04-12-2016, 03:56 PM
It's pretty old.
It's pretty functional.
It's pretty nondescript
It's pretty utilitarian.

So yeah it's pretty.. ;)

prometheus
04-12-2016, 04:06 PM
regarding efficiency, i never liked apps that split the UI tools to the left and right side.
keep it all on the left, or all on the right.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIGFoshc9Zw


yes..agreed, as much as possible, blender has a bit of a mess when choosing the sculpt tool and setting brush textures, sure you select the type of texture on the left side and under the brush settings and choose procedural or image map etc under the brush tab, but you have to go to the properties tab on the right side and tweak the texture settings..if you choose image or procedural etc, not fond of that at all, but not sure if itīs actually makes sense for other actions.

Michael

prometheus
04-12-2016, 04:09 PM
*sigh* yeah...
LW Next looks promising though. Even if the UI isn't changing in design.

It is ..major changes in Layout for instance, the old tab called modeler tools, are now called model...and I was all for that, Hey,..itīs a start :)

spherical
04-12-2016, 04:25 PM
Last I tried it, it worked but had some minor glitches when dealing with panels on the second monitor. It's primary purpose is to provide dockability on a single monitor, so it didn't really solve anything for me, as I have all of my discreet panels on the second monitor anyway. Nice implementation, but not an increase in functionality for my workflow. IIRC, it would be unaware of where the panels were and snap them back to the primary monitor. This was in an early version and the dev made several fixes/enhancements since.

Snosrap
04-12-2016, 05:59 PM
the node rubber connections arenīt pretty..I donīt fancy the look of the nodes that much either,

Agreed -they could use some work. Also the color codes need to be looked as sometimes it's okay to mix them and other times it's not allowed - some way to make it better for newbies.


What I mean is... If I was making a film, I'd make all of my props and models in a dedicated studio, in isolation. When everything is ready, I bring them all down to the film set (layout) and make the film... lights, camera action!

That essentially was the philosophy of the original designers of LW - plus the fact that back in the day PC's were not very powerful and this kind of made up for that fact.


I, for one, will grieve the loss of separate Modeler and Layout interfaces (talk about putting a chicken amongst the foxes! :) ). They are specifically tuned to the job at hand, and can be fine-tuned to my workflow in their separate contexts. IMO, the best combination would have been 1) a shared-memory approach to the mesh information, 2) a shared-memory access to Layout rendering parameters required for VPR, and 3) VPR access in Modeler. The shared-memory would allow Layout and Modeler interfaces to access *the same in-memory copy* of the mesh information (without the cumbersome Hub transferring it back&forth&back&forth), but retain the tuned interfaces, and VPR in Modeler with access to the required Layout rendering parameters would allow rendered surface adjustment in Modeler. The conglomeration of the two interfaces is probably a Done Deal at this point, but I'll miss it.

Like others have stated - LW needs unification! If done right both types of workspaces can be handled in one app. Don't be misguided by your fears. :) -- IMO Modo is the closest thing to a nex-gen LW and those devs have managed the unification just fine.

lightscape
04-12-2016, 08:21 PM
I hope this makes sense as to why I also like the seperation

Nope it doesn't. Maybe it does for people who only used lightwave. but not for people who have used unified appz or came from unified appz.
Lw being separate has no advantage.

jeric_synergy
04-13-2016, 12:44 AM
Pretty is as pretty does: there are cases where Layout resets the panel Every Freekin' Time you do something, so the user is forced to hit a combination of tabs REPEATEDLY.

This is the classic "high maintenance girl-friend" scenario: "she" may be pretty, but she's driving you crazy.

But again, this is more of a PROCESS thing than static attractiveness.
++++++++++

Practical example: have an object that is an Emitter. Have another that is a Collision object. Call up the FX tab on one of them, and then switch to the other. Isn't THAT efficient??? (Answer: NO.)

Kaptive
04-13-2016, 04:06 AM
Nope it doesn't. Maybe it does for people who only used lightwave. but not for people who have used unified appz or came from unified appz.
Lw being separate has no advantage.

It makes sense as to why I personally like the seperation... which is the bit you quoted... So "Nope it doesn't" really doesn't make much sense as a response. I was pretty clear.
You can disagree, you can like it all differently, but you don't understand the simple concept I conveyed? Of course it makes sense. It is real world production concepts transposed into a software package. As Sno says, it was the original basic concept of Lightwave. On top of this, I didn't object to unification (I know it has many advantages!), I just favour concentrated tool sets for each process... what is difficult to understand about that?? *shakes head*.

But, whatever.

magiclight
04-13-2016, 04:44 AM
I don't care much what it look like, as long as it works, the LW UI is fine with me, what I miss is tooltip's on things that explains what it does (buttons and so on, also good for rookies), with that I would be happy.

lightscape
04-13-2016, 05:40 AM
It makes sense as to why I personally like the seperation... which is the bit you quoted... So "Nope it doesn't" really doesn't make much sense as a response. I was pretty clear.
You can disagree, you can like it all differently, but you don't understand the simple concept I conveyed? Of course it makes sense. It is real world production concepts transposed into a software package. As Sno says, it was the original basic concept of Lightwave. On top of this, I didn't object to unification (I know it has many advantages!), I just favour concentrated tool sets for each process... what is difficult to understand about that?? *shakes head*.

But, whatever.

Because you assume that lightwaves flawed separation is a workflow that's not doable in other appz. It is possible to work that way for linear minded artists.
Real world production, in other digital software like 3dmax, modo, etc, it is doable like lightwave's split workflow.
Create models with a simplified interface, import those models, setup lights, materials in another scene for animation with a "layout" like interface.
If you think that is an advantage of lightwave its not because its doable in other appz.

Concentrated tool sets for each process is not unique to lightwave, but unfortunately lightwave is stuck and rigid in what it can do because of this split and limited communication between layout and modeller.

Open up modo and check the tabs and what each tab is for. . Real world production in modo. :rolleyes: *shakes head*

jeric_synergy
04-13-2016, 08:16 AM
Do you have trouble with the word "personally"? 'Cuz it seems you do.

erikals
04-13-2016, 10:06 AM
i like the Modeler / Layout split, at times.

i certainly don't like it when having to tweak objects in camera view.

it'll be interesting to see how LW2016 deals with this, and how it works workflow wise...


30 seconds into this video...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMPS6WxAwTo


the trickiest is to tweak individual vertices on Motion Graphics animations though,
and related / other things

Greenlaw
04-13-2016, 10:37 AM
I think the UI is loads better than how it used to be (9.6 and earlier) but it could still be better of course. There are areas where panel layouts are not being used very efficiently--for example, the box for Displacement Plugins is only able to show four plugins but we have this huge blank space just under the box. And there's inconsistent UI behavior here and there with how items and commands are selected. I'm sure this is because there's still a lot of legacy code in LightWave that makes these changes difficult.

But I know that the current dev team is aware of all that and, in the last few releases, they've shown that they are fixing and improving the UI. I've been happy about the recent UI improvements to Layout and Modeler--in fact, I've gotten so used to them that's it's become annoying when I have to go back to work in a pre-2015 version of LightWave.

I don't know what they have planned for future releases but I'm sure things will continue to get better.

G.

prometheus
04-13-2016, 10:50 AM
Do you have trouble with the word "personally"? 'Cuz it seems you do.

who?

qoute from the Movie Heat..."who?" what are you... a f...owl?" :D

Kaptive
04-13-2016, 11:22 AM
Because you assume that lightwaves flawed separation is a workflow that's not doable in other appz. It is possible to work that way for linear minded artists.
Real world production, in other digital software like 3dmax, modo, etc, it is doable like lightwave's split workflow.
Create models with a simplified interface, import those models, setup lights, materials in another scene for animation with a "layout" like interface.
If you think that is an advantage of lightwave its not because its doable in other appz.

Concentrated tool sets for each process is not unique to lightwave, but unfortunately lightwave is stuck and rigid in what it can do because of this split and limited communication between layout and modeller.

Open up modo and check the tabs and what each tab is for. . Real world production in modo. :rolleyes: *shakes head*

What on Earth are you on about? Talk about putting words in my mouth. I made no assumptions like that at all. In fact I didn't even mention ANY other package. In fact, I don't even care what other packages work like, I was mearly replying to someone else about Lightwave and what I like about the way it currently works. If it changes, OH NO!!!!!!! MY WORLD IS COLLAPSING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH. nope.

I don't even really care all that much which ever way it goes... I'd just adapt, who really cares?? It is just a polite conversation. Well, it was. But keep that wheel turning Lightscape, get that axe nice n sharp. GRIIIIIIIND. Yawn.

jwiede
04-13-2016, 01:36 PM
It makes sense as to why I personally like the seperation... which is the bit you quoted... So "Nope it doesn't" really doesn't make much sense as a response. I was pretty clear.

If someone says "I prefer Fords, because their cars let you drive with one hand on the steering wheel", they may be accurately stating their feelings, but they're inaccurately attributing a benefit to Fords which is actually present in all (modern) automobiles (therefore not a legitimate basis by itself for a Ford-specific preference). I think that's the point Lightscape is trying to make: Your statement implies that way of working is specific/limited to Lightwave. In practice, such a workflow is not limited to Lightwave, it can be efficiently used in other packages as well.

Dan Ritchie
04-13-2016, 02:51 PM
Anti-aliasing will always be the style of the times.

Chris S. (Fez)
04-13-2016, 02:55 PM
I like having separate hot keys for Modeler/Layout.
133414

jeric_synergy
04-13-2016, 04:51 PM
I like having separate hot keys for Modeler/Layout.
That's one of the better arguments: I fear there will be a lot of hotkey "collisions" when unification finally happens. Heck, I hate it when PANELS in Layout have their own set of hotkeys that interfere with the main UI's keys. I'm lookin' at you, Surface Editor.

(But the GE is the one that keeps biting me lately.)

Chris S. (Fez)
04-13-2016, 05:05 PM
Heck, I hate it when PANELS in Layout have their own set of hotkeys that interfere with the main UI's keys. I'm lookin' at you, Surface Editor.

(But the GE is the one that keeps biting me lately.)

Yup. As you say: "Low hanging fruit" that hopefully makes it into 2016.

jeric_synergy
04-13-2016, 05:10 PM
Fortunately, you CAN configure the GE hotkeys in the hotkey editor. If you remove a hotkey from the GE, the main UI's definition takes over!! (Thank buddha.)

However, IIRC, this is not true of other panels: TMK they are hardwired. And the freekin' node editor spits in the face of hotkey conventions in the entire rest of LW AND LWM! HOW THE HELL WAS THAT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN???

That's some b.s. right there. Programmer arrogance.

Paul_Boland
04-13-2016, 05:46 PM
I guess the real question here should be, is the Lightwave interface pretty to a first time user? I mean, we've been using it for years and know all the nooks and crannies of the interface, but what does a new comer see?

I came to Lightwave from Caligari's TrueSpace.

133415

Here's an interface that's all icon driver, colourful, and looks inviting. I remember when I bought Lightwave 8, my first copy of Lightwave, and I was really excited about it!! When it arrived in the post, this huge box, I was drooling!! And then I installed it, loaded it, and I saw a grey screen interface with tabs and buttons galore and I was intimidated! LOL!!

Slowly but surely I learned the Lightwave interface and today I love it, I wouldn't change it. But when you compare the grey interface of Lightwave to the colourful interface of Maya, I think Maya would catch a new users eye more. But I certainly wouldn't want to see any radical departure from the current Lightwave interface since I (us all) know it so well.

prometheus
04-13-2016, 06:49 PM
Truespace and imagine was two software I tested before lightwave, truespace one of the first that was a bit serious at the time.
Nice for a while..until you get lost in them..

Again, Icons well defined, and recognizable will help, if not..itīs just confusing.
I am sure we could all live without the text in create tab saying, box, sphere toroid..with so little of complex description for a tool, an image of a cube, sphere toroid would be easier to work with, and actually find and navigate to..it could be a matter of milli milli seconds, but overall it would help the mind find it faster without reading it...I have said that many times before though.

Then again you got this from blenders propeties panel.just confusing, unless you spend a lot of time in it..then the brain will adapt and it feels ok, but since I do not spend so much time with it, it hasnīt adapted nicely.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=133417&d=1460594939

I would prefer simple text like this..even though it takes up more space, hereīs only half the toolset of the properties in blender within the same space...

the modifier is the wrench followed by data which is the triangle followed by material wich is the disc followed by texture which is the checkerboard followed by particles which is the stars..and lastly the physics ..donīt know how to describe that icon :)

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=133419&d=1460596766

Kaptive
04-13-2016, 06:49 PM
If someone says "I prefer Fords, because their cars let you drive with one hand on the steering wheel", they may be accurately stating their feelings, but they're inaccurately attributing a benefit to Fords which is actually present in all (modern) automobiles (therefore not a legitimate basis by itself for a Ford-specific preference). I think that's the point Lightscape is trying to make: Your statement implies that way of working is specific/limited to Lightwave. In practice, such a workflow is not limited to Lightwave, it can be efficiently used in other packages as well.


Very last thing I will say on this pointless waste of time.

Let me quote my bloody self.... LET ME BE CLEAR, lest Lightscape misreads what I originally said... AGAIN.


With 3d programs being essentially a beginning to end film studio (give or take) I've always considered the separation as logical.

Sorry was that specific about Lightwave? "3d programs" is me thinking that only Lightwave has this process?

I FULLY understand what Lightscape meant... I really didn't need it explaining. He thinks I'm dumb, yet he can't even read a simple bloody sentence (repeated above). I don't need schooling, least of all by Lightscape, from whom I've never seen one scrap of work. I've been doing this for 20 years for goodness sake...

Honestly, this is a seriously pointless conversation and is not worth anyone wasting time on it. I was replying to one person. ONE. Lightscape is merely wasting mine and anyone elses time that has bothered reading it or replying to it.

Dumb conversation is over. Please, move along. I will not be replying to this pointless side topic again. DONE. :bangwall:

Kaptive
04-13-2016, 07:09 PM
p.s. Apologies to everyone else on this board/thread if I come across as a little curt and rude above, but this just annoyed me a little. Please, please do just carry on with the actual subject matter ignoring this all, as though it never happened.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/sclafrance2/Thread-MIB-Forget.jpg

KurtF
04-13-2016, 09:26 PM
The original poster asked for opinions. Do we think the interface is pretty? I do not. It's ugly, cluttered, off putting. What it could be is open to debate, but that is my personal feeling on the matter. The abandoned Lightwave development project (we do not speak it's name) had a nicer looking interface. Screen shots and video teasers looked good, but then that software didn't have 20 years of added on, patched together, make room for plug-ins, controls and other gizmos all shoe horned in.

MonroePoteet
04-13-2016, 09:43 PM
Dumb conversation is over. Please, move along. I will not be replying to this pointless side topic again. DONE. :bangwall:

My work is done here. Hi-oh, Silver! Awaaay! :)

mTp

P.S. Sorry for bringing it up

jeric_synergy
04-13-2016, 11:59 PM
The original poster asked for opinions. Do we think the interface is pretty? I do not. It's ugly, cluttered, off putting. What it could be is open to debate, but that is my personal feeling on the matter. The abandoned Lightwave development project (we do not speak it's name) had a nicer looking interface. Screen shots and video teasers looked good, but then that software didn't have 20 years of added on, patched together, make room for plug-ins, controls and other gizmos all shoe horned in.
Monday morning quarterbacking but: when they had the opportunity, before That Which Shall Not Be Mentioned, to move to a more flexible UI foundation, it seemed they didn't take it. And then somehow it translated into an unattractive strait-jacket for the next decade.

I think it had something to do with being cross platform. Anyway, it was a true hobble.

spherical
04-14-2016, 01:52 AM
Honestly, this is a seriously pointless conversation and is not worth anyone wasting time on it. I was replying to one person. ONE. Lightscape is merely wasting mine and anyone elses time that has bothered reading it or replying to it.

That is precisely why there is provided an Ignore List. Similar to a killfile in the, er, golden days of that which has now come to be known as the Interwebs. Make judicial use of it and your life will be far more pleasant. As is wisely said: Life is too short to drink bad wine. You can make the analogy leap.


p.s. Apologies to everyone else on this board/thread if I come across as a little curt and rude above, but this just annoyed me a little.

Not at all. Sometimes, ya just gotta say something. That which is referred to as "stuffing" isn't good for one's well being; on many levels.

pinkmouse
04-14-2016, 02:58 AM
The problem with LW's UI is the problem with LW. Too many different ways of doing stuff with too many individual panels and interfaces to do so, many of which don't talk to each other and require individual and sometimes convoluted processes to set up, all based on individual programmer's ideas of what constitutes a good way of working.

Until the underlying program and workflow is modernized, talking about UI improvements is pretty pointless.

Norka
04-14-2016, 10:43 AM
No icons, except the couple tiny ones that are there currently.. Not even for primitives. Never. Period.

hrgiger
04-14-2016, 11:13 AM
People really get up in arms about icons, seems a little dramatic. While I'm not for a purely icon based interface, they certainly can make sense in places when you're making efficient use of the interface. Like do I need to spell out primitive shape names or would the actual primitive shapes themselves serve as an adequate representation? But as always, I'm going to go with allowing the user to define whether a tool is best served with a text name or an icon as we could choose in CORE.

prometheus
04-14-2016, 12:30 PM
The original poster asked for opinions. Do we think the interface is pretty? I do not. It's ugly, cluttered, off putting. What it could be is open to debate, but that is my personal feeling on the matter. The abandoned Lightwave development project (we do not speak it's name) had a nicer looking interface. Screen shots and video teasers looked good, but then that software didn't have 20 years of added on, patched together, make room for plug-ins, controls and other gizmos all shoe horned in.

I really hated the look on core UI really, a horrible version of modo, the main concept might have been good,(since I actually like parts of modo UI) but it was poorly implemented in my astetic mind..so our taste is divided like our buttocks here.


No icons, except the couple tiny ones that are there currently.. Not even for primitives. Never. Period.
Why no Icons even for primitives?..just curious, would it take up too much space..or would it be harder for you to figure out and find what the icon represent?

One thing about primitive icons, an image that describes a form, does so better by being an image of a form, a text description will be confusing for some type of forms, ergo..I think it might be good to have such, personally I would like a preset shelf, dockable,expandable, scalable..where I got my presets and can also drag and drop the primitives in desired order...I think houdini has nice presentation of that..while the rest is a bitt cluttered with unnecessary icons.

My standings are ..Icons where they make sense and can be applied but mostly not..I wonder if it would make sense to remove upper right corner target, move, orbit and zoom icons..and why do we have icons in the viewport drop down list...wouldnīt it be enough with the text description...personally I would like a remake, and put those icons in the top bar next to the drop down list, there is lotīs of space there to fill with small icons, and I garantie you that it would be faster to click on such icon representing wire, weight, or shaded, than actually go to the drop down list, read the text description and then move the mouse to select viewport typ...in fact I would argue that it is similar to outlook horrible hiding of the log out button, the old hotmail had a log out button, now hidden under an icon and you have to wait till the flash commercial has loaded before you can log out...oh well, thatīs another story.

erikals
04-14-2016, 12:31 PM
if you make tons of buttons on the top line, icons can benefit.
http://coopdesign.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Capture1.jpg

narrow vertical lines "PhotoShop tools" also benefit from icons
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/adobe-photoshop-cc/9780133430837/graphics/app_fig01.jpg

prometheus
04-14-2016, 12:42 PM
if you make tons of buttons on the top line, icons can benefit.
http://coopdesign.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Capture1.jpg

narrow vertical lines "PhotoShop tools" also benefit from icons
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/adobe-photoshop-cc/9780133430837/graphics/app_fig01.jpg

might do a mockup on the lw viewport displays, oddly Layout has icons before the text description, while modeler has none, only text description...two apps :)

prometheus
04-14-2016, 12:49 PM
People really get up in arms about icons, seems a little dramatic. While I'm not for a purely icon based interface, they certainly can make sense in places when you're making efficient use of the interface. Like do I need to spell out primitive shape names or would the actual primitive shapes themselves serve as an adequate representation? But as always, I'm going to go with allowing the user to define whether a tool is best served with a text name or an icon as we could choose in CORE.

Absolutly...+1 three options is better than one, text only, icon only or icon and text...more work for the programmers, more choice to fit our perception best though.

mav3rick
04-14-2016, 12:53 PM
i would say.. it didnt change alott even if i though there will be some real changes once Matt joined.... i can see just menu reorganization and color schemes..... so defo i vote for inteface changes...how much? well i like lw interface but it lacks interactivity (scaling , docking, font resizing -4K), new graph editor, timeline , grouping, etc...

Dexter2999
04-14-2016, 02:07 PM
I find the LW interface "pretty" the way I find this "pretty".133432

But I find this GORGEOUS and hope LW will get there someday.133433

pinkmouse
04-14-2016, 02:50 PM
Well of course, woodworking tools are much sexier than engineering ones! :D

Norka
04-15-2016, 06:30 AM
I say none, ever, period, because adding any more icons, anywhere, would be a pandora's box... next thing you know, LW becomes retarded Blender's ugly cousin.

MichaelT
04-15-2016, 06:53 AM
Just look at Modo.. It didn't start out bloated. And was quite fast to use. Menus etc.. rapid in their responses. Today.. not so much.

lightscape
04-15-2016, 06:56 AM
I don't even care what other packages work like

I didn't say you were dumb.
Uninformed of decades worth of unified workflow, yes.
Like I said, you can work like "real world production", as you described it, in any app. Its not unique to lw.

So why grieve the loss of modeller and layout separation? :screwy:
Probably one of the reasons Core got killed.

jasonwestmas
04-15-2016, 07:11 AM
Just look at Modo.. It didn't start out bloated. And was quite fast to use. Menus etc.. rapid in their responses. Today.. not so much.

This is why I prefer specialized apps. Little more to learn and memorize that way but imo, I get a smoother ride (less buggy with better performance) out of my software with more powerful (because it is specialized) options. This is not to condone the lack of modeling capabilities in layout however. For animators/riggers and a few other reasons that is a must.

prometheus
04-15-2016, 09:35 AM
I say none, ever, period, because adding any more icons, anywhere, would be a pandora's box... next thing you know, LW becomes retarded Blender's ugly cousin.

Fear is always in the way of development, icons placed just for the fun of it...well, I donīt think the lw team would go that way, we would already have had a buckload of them in such case, since vpr arrived they "had" to implement icons for that right.
But no..I didnīt see bullet dynamics icon, or something else really...so I trust their philosophy of not implement weird icons where you do not need them...they know about that, for it to change at that direction you describe..I am sure they would react to a massive crowd screaming for icons..and they donīt have that, or a completly new lw team hired from those who made truespace.

So to sum it up, I think they actually are following a philosophy that matches mine too, icons where it is needed, and where they can be described decently, except for your fear of the pandora box reaction, I do not understand why you wouldnīt
have a preset shelf with your items described with icons.

If we are to have some sort of improved preset system where we could drag and drop objects, wouldnīt you want that? or if you are on a mac or have some 3d browsing system so you can drag and drop objects in the scene or primitives.
I think if such preset system arrives, you wouldnīt want a shelf saying, car 1, car 1, bird eagle, bird swan etc...it wouldnīt make sense and it would take longer time to find your stuff, same with some primitives, why read the icosadodecahedron insteand of visually finding it much faster then drag and drop on to the scene.

As I menitioned before..Like you I do not want the main UI cluttered with icons either, and I showcased the blender properties panel..which I could live without, those are not icons serving itīs purpose well in my opinion.

Michael

caustix
04-15-2016, 09:59 AM
Hi,

for me the interface is "just right" ... I like the HUD too.

Regards.

prometheus
04-15-2016, 10:36 AM
Hi,

for me the interface is "just right" ... I like the HUD too.

Regards.


the huds are nice..icons, but with text description when hovering, it is also tool dependent and not always present in the UI.

prometheus
04-15-2016, 01:22 PM
I really like how well the icons has been introduced in modo though, compared to maya or max or blender icons, careful thoughts on the color scheme on the actual icons, makes them blend in nicely with the UI, if not careful..it will look just horrible and distractive..so they have done that nicely I think, the objections I have with it though..it is the vertical reading of the category menuīs, and the fact that the UI feels sluggish in response..or maybe just modo overall.
but otherwise..the colors of the icons has a nice tone and not too distractive, and it has consistency in terms of being the same along all other tools, mainly it is only bluish soft tone, soft cyan green, a little pinkish pastel red, but not as in max maya Warning red, a 3 element colors mostly, apart from that ..orange highligthing.


from snostraps site...

http://parsons3dstudio.weebly.com/uploads/4/5/7/4/45748681/1441852249.png

Snosrap
04-15-2016, 01:49 PM
from snostraps site...

http://parsons3dstudio.weebly.com/uploads/4/5/7/4/45748681/1441852249.png

Funnily enough those models were all built in LW but I loaded them in Modo for the screenshots because I thought the interface made for a nicer looking website image. I do think LW interface is nice but Modo's is cool too with good use of icons where appropriate and only in moderation.

prometheus
04-15-2016, 03:06 PM
Funnily enough those models were all built in LW but I loaded them in Modo for the screenshots because I thought the interface made for a nicer looking website image. I do think LW interface is nice but Modo's is cool too with good use of icons where appropriate and only in moderation.


Exactly...just a bit sluggish and those vertical text that makes me uneasy and my head falls 90 degrees automaticly, or at least the urge to twist my head..not sure if it would look better if the letters were aligned not perpendicular but just going vertical but still aligned normally? otherwise I think it should be discarded and put in proper left to right text menus, even though it may take a bit more space, unfortunatly blender has that style too, otherwise I really like everything about the color scheme in modo...and the icon graphics are nice too, but it shouldnīt be a self purpose to have fancy icons everywhere though.

erikals
04-15-2016, 06:23 PM
when having many, 1 colored 2d icons are the best, easiest to read fast >
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/adobe-photoshop-cc/9780133430837/graphics/app_fig01.jpg

the simpler icons, the better, to an extent
take the shape of letters in the alphabet as an example >

A B C D E F G H i J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

be careful mixing colors >
A B C D E F G H i J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

but the ultimate test is the squint, if you can still tell the icons apart, it's good.
so this was actually pretty good >
http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=133403&d=1460496726

Photogram
04-15-2016, 09:04 PM
Now after a good long session I'll have the numeric, surface, camera/light/GI panel all mixed over each other with several more I'm sure. Looks like a mess but with hotkeys its quick and straight forward. I much prefer having the bulk of my main monitor dedicated to the content in the viewport and not squished to the side by panels. I wish I could pull all of the ZB palettes off and stick them on the second monitor.

HOWEVER, having the option of dockable panels would be great. My Photoshop interface is pretty much that. The second monitor has a mass of docked palettes and the minimized main window so my primary monitor is nothing but content windows. Ahhhh perfect. :D


The same for me except o work on a single 30" 16:10 monitor (2560x1600) near UHDTV. The text on the buttons are a bit too small. Maybe an option to scale the Lightwave buttons especially for those folks with 4k screens. Maybe an option to add some choosen scripts or plugin into a launch pad with scalable icons... Yes another new cool window ;)

BokadCastle
04-15-2016, 10:45 PM
The same for me except o work on a single 30" 16:10 monitor (2560x1600) near UHDTV. The text on the buttons are a bit too small. Maybe an option to scale the Lightwave buttons especially for those folks with 4k screens. Maybe an option to add some choosen scripts or plugin into a launch pad with scalable icons... Yes another new cool window ;)

I have a 4K monitor with full UHD and win10.
I can already control LW and even Adobe apps quite easily - see attached.
In addition individual elements of a window screen can also be sized.

133452

Photogram
04-16-2016, 10:16 AM
Oh cool i am already think about moving to windows 10 so here's the solution!

Thanks :)

rwhunt99
04-16-2016, 04:17 PM
I like the UI, with icons and an app with hundreds of them, you (I), always have to hover over them to see their names to make sure I am clicking on the right one anyway. One thing that is annoying for me, is when a list pops up and instead of using the mouse scroll wheel to go up or down the list to the one I want, you have to go to the little arrow at the top and/or bottom of the list. I wish they would do away with that, it just bugs me.

At risk of hijacking this thread, I was wondering about I have a three window default layout view and during my play time, I almost always end up going to a single window. When I go back to my default set up, I have to go into the options panel and click on the view setup I want. How can I put a button on the bottom menu where I can just click a default view button instead? I don't know the name of the three window layout view so I can setup my menu layout?

spherical
04-16-2016, 04:28 PM
How are you choosing the single window? On our systems, we choose our normal Layout, er... layout, :) and Save As Default. Then use the little turned page icon in the upper right of each viewport to toggle back and forth between multiple windows and single window. It goes right back to the layout that we started from.

EDIT: Just checked and it appears that Save As Default may not be necessary. It just toggles back to whatever layout you launched a single window from. I've never learned exactly what Save As Default is supposed to do, but I do it anyway just to be sure. :)

jeric_synergy
04-16-2016, 04:33 PM
At risk of hijacking this thread, I was wondering about I have a three window default layout view and during my play time, I almost always end up going to a single window. When I go back to my default set up, I have to go into the options panel and click on the view setup I want. How can I put a button on the bottom menu where I can just click a default view button instead? I don't know the name of the three window layout view so I can setup my menu layout?
3 windows? Diff' strokes. I default to the quad view, but if you want to toggle about use the mouse-position sensitive ZERO-NUMPAD hotkey: the viewport your cursor is over defines which viewport gets maximized. Hitting ZERO-NUMPAD again reverts to the previous layout.

Using the little icon in the uppr right viewport controls requires too much mouse precision IMO.

MonroePoteet
04-16-2016, 04:38 PM
You can create an LScript to set the Layout view setup you want, and then assign it to a hot key or button. For example, this script:


@warnings

generic
{
ViewLayout(6);
}


sets up Layout with one big pane on the left and two panes stacked on the right. Here's the list of Layout view setups from the manual, with the one big window being ViewLayout(0):


133465

mTp

MonroePoteet
04-16-2016, 06:23 PM
Forgot to mention: you can also "scroll through" the various view setups using F4 (+1 view setup) and F3 (-1 view setup).

mTp