PDA

View Full Version : LW2018 GUI gripes



Revanto
01-15-2018, 06:27 PM
I have spent the last hour or so ensuring that when I update LW2018 with the patch that I transfer all my settings and preferences across in a sensible fashion.

In the process, I have come across some basic gripes.

Firstly, why the F can we not save out our GUI colour preferences in both Modeler and Layout? It's not as if it has to be re-set often but it is a bit tedious if I have to re-set the colours manually when I do an update. The option to save our preferences is something small but should be added nonetheless.

Secondly, in Modeler, it's annoying to have to manually set the keypad viewport preferences as well. The worse thing is the flaky background colour option that sometimes doesn't stay. I tolerated this in LW9.6 but this is ridiculous for LW2018. EG I save out view #1 with a bluish background for the top right corner panel. I then set view #3 with a wireframe view and a grey background colour for the same panel. When I switch between them, the background colour does not change even though I set the views to 'independent color' and make sure that the colour option is selected when I save the view out. The ONLY way that I can get the proper background colours for each view is to switch between a single panel view inbetween.

Thirdly, Newtek, please understand that we don't all have HUGE monitors so some of the options on very tall option/numeric panels cannot be reached by those with smaller monitors and more sensibler screen resolutions. Please add scroll bars or at least have the option to have two columns for options instead of one on tall panels.

Lastly, did the height of the buttons change in the update? In my Modeler I have lots of plugins and not the most amount of space to put them in. Even if I can shave off one or two pixels in button height, it would make a huge space difference. So, can I change the button height in Modeler or what?

Revanto

prometheus
01-15-2018, 06:47 PM
I can recognize the pain of having shortened text in tabs, and not being able to change UI colors etc, and having to few colors for wireframe etc, or scaling windows etc.
The lightwave team needs to adress the UI quite soon, it doesn´t look atractive for a 3d software, it´s a selling point they lack regardless of how great some other stuff may be, they won´t have that selling point.

Personally I think there are two major functions within the ui needs adressed asap, the option to scale x,z, y values all at once, as you can in blender or in modo by selecting all the values at once, I think Matt is aware of this, and what is needed, the question is when they can do that I guess.
next would be scaling of windows, zooming in much more closely in nodes, node rubberband AA..it looks horrible in terms of what others have.

Cageman
01-15-2018, 06:50 PM
Firstly, why the F can we not save out our GUI colour preferences in both Modeler and Layout? It's not as if it has to be re-set often but it is a bit tedious if I have to re-set the colours manually when I do an update. The option to save our preferences is something small but should be added nonetheless.

Sounds like a fair thing to ask for. My suggestion is that you fire up that Feature Request tool and send it in.




Secondly, in Modeler, it's annoying to have to manually set the keypad viewport preferences as well. The worse thing is the flaky background colour option that sometimes doesn't stay. I tolerated this in LW9.6 but this is ridiculous for LW2018. EG I save out view #1 with a bluish background for the top right corner panel. I then set view #3 with a wireframe view and a grey background colour for the same panel. When I switch between them, the background colour does not change even though I set the views to 'independent color' and make sure that the colour option is selected when I save the view out. The ONLY way that I can get the proper background colours for each view is to switch between a single panel view inbetween.

This *sounds* like a bug that is part of a design choice, since it has been in LW since v9.x. That said... a lot has changed... but not sure if it is a bugfix or a feature request?




Thirdly, Newtek, please understand that we don't all have HUGE monitors so some of the options on very tall option/numeric panels cannot be reached by those with smaller monitors and more sensibler screen resolutions. Please add scroll bars or at least have the option to have two columns for options instead of one on tall panels.

Feature Request!




Lastly, did the height of the buttons change in the update? In my Modeler I have lots of plugins and not the most amount of space to put them in. Even if I can shave off one or two pixels in button height, it would make a huge space difference. So, can I change the button height in Modeler or what?

Revanto

That one, I have no suggestion for you. :/

139461

DonJMyers
01-15-2018, 07:15 PM
Before anyone complains about needed UI tweaks I would like to say I LOVE LW's all-text interface and I think the fact that it has one is a big selling point to coders, english majors (like me) and others. Maya and 3d Studio Max look like an explosion in a confetti factory user interface wise. Their default UI of colorful icons trying to symbolize concepts like "boolean NOT" turn me off completely. I prefer the words "lights" or "camera" even though I know abstract icons are "language independent." I'd rather have a text UI translated into spanish or russian or whatever.

Marander
01-16-2018, 12:53 AM
LW3DG has done an incredible poor job UX / UI wise the last 3 years and before. I see the lack of passion from development in so many areas of its interface presentation.

In my opinion there were many 'low hanging fruits' that would have made a difference in user experience.

Asking for feature requests for something so obvious is pointless. And its obvious to me that LW3DG is simply not capable of doing it better, considering how bad even some new 2018 features are presented in the viewport.

I have accepted the fact that LW has a complete outdated UI and workflow and use it just for very basic volumetrics (within their limited capabilities).

Shloime
01-16-2018, 01:02 AM
DonJMyers, +1. I also don't like fancy icons with lots of guesswork or bubbles popping up to explain them. Keep the text UI at least an option, if it should ever be rewritten.

gar26lw
01-16-2018, 01:16 AM
i will just add that lightwave needs alternative navigation keys in addition to its own.
maya nav - industry standard, max etc..

i do it understand why this didn’t make it in to 2018.

just let’s us customize this to how we, the user wants his/her workflow to be!

it’s easy enough and i don’t get why newtek/lwg do not do it.

Romizer
01-16-2018, 01:20 AM
DonJMyers, Shloime +1
Exactly my words.
Love the text UI. :-)

I also work with various CAD software and there it is always a search what is what with the icons.
New release, new icons.

MichaelT
01-16-2018, 01:47 AM
I like the text UI myself.. that never bothered me. But since they are moving over to QT UI (it seems) now is the time to use that feature request option :)

next_n00b
01-16-2018, 03:13 AM
I like the text UI, too. It was one of the important factors for choosing LW over others. Icons are just a noise to an old eye. And if I somehow get used to them, they will change them sooner or later anyway. Less icons, more power to the viewport.

Revanto
01-16-2018, 03:48 AM
The first three of my gripes are definitely something that I have had for ages and I know for sure that even if I made them a feature request/bug fix that Newtek will ignore them. However, I think my last point has some validity because I took a screenshot of LW before I updated with the patch and the buttons were definitely less taller originally. I thought that somehow there may be an option to adjust the button height.

In regards to the text vs icon buttons, for Lightwave the text is better as long as there are variations in button colour and/or dividers to help differentiate when one does a quick scan with the eyes to locate a specific button/tool. However, Photoshop and Illustrator use icons for most of their tools and I've grown accustomed to that. I think that in some cases icons can be a good choice depending on how well the icon is defined. Think of the icons used whenever you play a video or audio file. Imagine the difference if they just wrote 'Play', 'Pause', 'Stop' and 'Record' instead of using icons.
I'm a big fan of a balanced discussion so I thought I'd throw that in.

Revanto :p

sadkkf
01-16-2018, 07:34 AM
Developing for the web and for desktops my entire life I've learned UI design is entirely subjective. Colors not withstanding, some people prefer icons over text and vice-versa. Then, some people believe the icons are never representative and should be different and the text isn't always descriptive enough.

An ideal interface is fully customizable, but that can lead to issues with scaling and wrapping. Not knowing much about how LW's interface is coded, I wonder if it's possible to allow users this kind of flexibility.

gar26lw
01-16-2018, 07:43 AM
if everything is able to be set by the user, then EVERYONE is happy. LW fanboys get perfect LW, people who want industry standards get sanity FM; its a win win :P

prometheus
01-16-2018, 08:06 AM
Developing for the web and for desktops my entire life I've learned UI design is entirely subjective. Colors not withstanding, some people prefer icons over text and vice-versa. Then, some people believe the icons are never representative and should be different and the text isn't always descriptive enough.

An ideal interface is fully customizable, but that can lead to issues with scaling and wrapping. Not knowing much about how LW's interface is coded, I wonder if it's possible to allow users this kind of flexibility.

Entirely subjective?
give 20 lightwavers two lightwave versions, one with the option to rescale any of the window modules fully, and one version that is just the same as we have today, then ask them to send back one of the lightwave versions, then take a look at what versions you will have gotten back. :)

sadkkf
01-16-2018, 08:25 AM
Entirely subjective?
give 20 lightwavers two lightwave versions, one with the option to rescale any of the window modules fully, and one version that is just the same as we have today, then ask them to send back one of the lightwave versions, then take a look at what versions you will have gotten back. :)

I've learned to never make blanket statements, but I agree. Being able to scale these windows seems undeniable, but I'm sure there are those who don't care or may even have some bizarre reason for keeping them as they are. My broader point was to address merely the main UI buttons and tabs, not fly-out windows.

SBowie
01-16-2018, 09:09 AM
if everything is able to be set by the user, then EVERYONE is happy. LW fanboys get perfect LW, people who want industry standards get sanity FM; its a win win :PMany would agree, which makes it all the more difficult for the poor beleaguered UI designer who not only has to do his best to provide a simple, clear interface, but also endure the slings and arrows coming his way as he does so.

Commonly, a certain type of user thinks everything should be customisable. This approach, however, would frequently result in a ton of work, a kludgy resource-hog UI that takes massive effort to maintain and update, and pandemonium amongst another group of users. Seemingly small changes often require many, many hours of discussion in (sometimes vain) attempts to ferret out unforeseen consequences, never mind the time to implement and thoroughly test, and new suport headaches. And this is without considering the varied requirements of two platforms and the divergent demands of their respective communities. Too, a large and endlessly growing 'prefs' panel is not a thing of beauty.

This is not to say that every last pixel must be locked down, but just to point out that a good UI designer fights tooth and nail to avoid unnecessary options, and that things which seem so brain-dead easy and obvious to an end user are often anything but. Much has been written about these matters, not least by this highly regarded fellow:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/12/choices/
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/03/04/nothing-is-as-simple-as-it-seems/

sadkkf
01-16-2018, 10:46 AM
Many would agree, which makes it all the more difficult for the poor beleaguered UI designer who not only has to do his best to provide a simple, clear interface, but also endure the slings and arrows coming his way as he does so.

Commonly, a certain type of user thinks everything should be customisable. This approach, however, would frequently result in a ton of work, a kludgy resource-hog UI that takes massive effort to maintain and update, and pandemonium amongst another group of users. Seemingly small changes often require many, many hours of discussion in (sometimes vain) attempts to ferret out unforeseen consequences, never mind the time to implement and thoroughly test, and new suport headaches. And this is without considering the varied requirements of two platforms and the divergent demands of their respective communities. Too, a large and endlessly growing 'prefs' panel is not a thing of beauty.

This is not to say that every last pixel must be locked down, but just to point out that a good UI designer fights tooth and nail to avoid unnecessary options, and that things which seem so brain-dead easy and obvious to an end user are often anything but. Much has been written about these matters, not least by this highly regarded fellow:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/12/choices/
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/03/04/nothing-is-as-simple-as-it-seems/


I've developed UIs where I've allowed users to change text and icons for buttons, but only within certain parameters. Buttons on the interface would never expand or contract to fit changes. They are a constant size.

If a user wanted to change the word "Box" to "Cube," for example, that's fine. If the whole word didn't fit the user would live with it or change it. The same with icons. I've allowed them to provide .PNG files at specific dimensions only. Only the top left of the new image would display; it would be up to the user to scale an image to fit the button.

Please don't interpret this as a guide or suggestion for LightWave's UI. I have no idea what's involved with it on your end and can fully appreciate the blood, sweat and tears shed to make it look and work nice.

SBowie
01-16-2018, 01:24 PM
Please don't interpret this as a guide or suggestion for LightWave's UI. I have no idea what's involved with it on your end and can fully appreciate the blood, sweat and tears shed to make it look and work nice.Oh, I have nothing to do with the LW interface (but a lot to do with our video products)... just some general thoughts on customizability. It's an area with a lot of pitfalls, not to say there aren't cases where it is desirable.

gar26lw
01-16-2018, 02:50 PM
Oh, I have nothing to do with the LW interface (but a lot to do with our video products)... just some general thoughts on customizability. It's an area with a lot of pitfalls, not to say there aren't cases where it is desirable.

how hard is it to allow the user to set the keyboard preferences for navigation? so it can be like lightwave default or like modo default or like maya default or like max default. EASY but it is ever done.

auto reload of images is great but as i say, ages to get it in. i’d also say that sometimes we don’t want to have options taken out of the interface just cos it’s possible. that has resulted in functionality that was in lightwave being lost and now feature requests must be made to try and get it back. ordinarily that would not be too much of a problem but given the track record of having to wait up to ten years to get a feature in, that becomes a big problem.

there are parts of lw 2018 where things have been changed because someone doesn’t see the need in their/our workflow and that has resulted in a slower less flexible system. other parts are using one way of doing things, another for something else. i don’t want to wail on the ui designer as these things can be hard to do and i would like to get suggestions and ideas implemented but please don’t make the ui adustments with the delete key ;)

one other thing, while i’m on this soapbox; for the love if god, if another 3d app does something well, rip it off!
examplle - imho, the gizmos in layout should look and function like those in maya, as should the snapping system and the transformation boxes (be like the outliner with multichannel hauling and input possible)

these things WILL make lightwave so much better and easier to use, like the auto reload of images does.
personally i don’t want to see functionality removed, i want to see it added, with thought given to simplicity of use for speed of setup while allowing complex control a click away ( when this is practically possible)

i will try and make a case for some of this stuff to hopefully convince the powers that be to adjust the ui and workflow via the fr system. imho, it’s seems 2018 is a wip and this might be possible as things move to the qt version.

ok i’ll step down and take a deep breath :)

SBowie
01-16-2018, 03:14 PM
ok i’ll step down and take a deep breath :)I agree consistent conventions are highly desirable, but I bet there are some here who feel quite differently about many of the items on your list. That's the point I wanted to make, that a feature request that seems a no-brainer to some is often by no means either easy to implement or universally welcome. So by all means, make suggestions, but don't imagine that their not being adopted is simple truculence on the party of the developrrs.

Ztreem
01-16-2018, 03:23 PM
I must admit that after trying out Blender for a couple of weeks, LW starts to feel clunky and slow. We always relate to LW as fast but I feel that for every new version it gets more clicky and things are spread out everywhere so it gets clunky and slow to get things done. The new principle shader is a disapointment UI wise, compared to Blender its hard to use and reflections is ticked off by default for some odd reason? I must test it more, but the first impression wasn’t that good. Nodes are placed in a overlapping pile in a too small window by default so you have to manually drag everything in place. Some windows is not even resizable even if you need it to to read everything displayed there. I could go on forever but its no use, the gui needs a rewrite and it just takes too long for NT to solve it, sad!

gar26lw
01-16-2018, 04:39 PM
I agree consistent conventions are highly desirable, but I bet there are some here who feel quite differently about many of the items on your list. That's the point I wanted to make, that a feature request that seems a no-brainer to some is often by no means either easy to implement or universally welcome. So by all means, make suggestions, but don't imagine that their not being adopted is simple truculence on the party of the developrrs.

Certainly, I agree that while I may feel strongly about the need for something, others may not but I do wager that with the popularity of maya and the prevalence of the navigational paradigm in many if not most/all apps used in various production pipelines, a lot of users would appreciate those features and inclusions. I would also wager that LW fanboys would warm to some/all of those features once implemented, even sing their praises and fanboy away at their desk of an evening due to them. :D

But, yeah I concede, everyone has their own way of doing things and thinks it the right way, even the only way. The thing is, to build market share and be included or adopted in the 3D community, some of these standard features and options SHOULD be an option. Case in point - look at what the ex lw devs did in modo. Prior to modo, LW never took up this mindset of catering to all tastes in a pipeline, with modo, they changed their tune and openly embraced these features. I think, imho, it is one of the reasons that modo has done well over the years. Just saying :)

I will also add that I generally like the lightwave UI the way it is and was one of those in the core debacle that advocated for lightwaveyness and less of the maya clone BUT I would like to see a hybrid and adoption of some featues, workflows and UI elements that make 3d content creation WAY less painful and much faster and enjoyable. A lot in XSI as well, btw , which I loved.

gar26lw
01-16-2018, 04:47 PM
I must admit that after trying out Blender for a couple of weeks, LW starts to feel clunky and slow. We always relate to LW as fast but I feel that for every new version it gets more clicky and things are spread out everywhere so it gets clunky and slow to get things done. The new principle shader is a disapointment UI wise, compared to Blender its hard to use and reflections is ticked off by default for some odd reason? I must test it more, but the first impression wasn’t that good. Nodes are placed in a overlapping pile in a too small window by default so you have to manually drag everything in place. Some windows is not even resizable even if you need it to to read everything displayed there. I could go on forever but its no use, the gui needs a rewrite and it just takes too long for NT to solve it, sad!

what I do not understand is that the examples you point out are "as plain as a Bulgarian pinup" and so blindingly oblivious that I cant fathom how or why the UI/UX made it out the door in that state after 3 yrs? I only conclude that this version had to be put out without time to get it cleaned up and optimized for us lot; I like to think so anyway as that gives me hope :D

MichaelT
01-16-2018, 05:05 PM
As always, the "help->Submit a Feature Request" is right there. Instead of iterating on new versions of "bad".. step up.. fill in that form. Do a good deed.. today! ;)

LW iterates faster now, we've seen this with the speed of a new release already. So take the opportunity and hand over your ideas to the team.

Ztreem
01-16-2018, 05:10 PM
what I do not understand is that the examples you point out are "as plain as a Bulgarian pinup" and so blindingly oblivious that I cant fathom how or why the UI/UX made it out the door in that state after 3 yrs? I only conclude that this version had to be put out without time to get it cleaned up and optimized for us lot; I like to think so anyway as that gives me hope :D

I agree, but this release is not giving me any hope. I actually start to think that I and NT don’t have the same picture of the goal for LW and I have waited here for too long...
How many years was it since Matt did the LWX interface mockup? How many years has he worked for NT now? How much has changed in ui since he did LWX mockup?
The topics of LW interface, unification & undo system goes on year after year and NT doesn’t do anything about it, and now I start to realize that they maybe don’t want to, that has never been their plan. So now I have waited for these things for over 10-15 years and nothing has happend in any of these areas so I’m not going to wait 10 more years. They said that 2018 would be aware of point, polys and edges but so far that seens like a lie. How long will it take to get a modern interface? A working undo? Poly selection and manipulation in layout?

Ztreem
01-16-2018, 05:23 PM
As always, the "help->Submit a Feature Request" is right there. Instead of iterating on new versions of "bad".. step up.. fill in that form. Do a good deed.. today! ;)

LW iterates faster now, we've seen this with the speed of a new release already. So take the opportunity and hand over your ideas to the team.

I have bug reports and feature requests that are 10 years old and still not fixed or added, so I lost my faith. And many things are so obvious that a report shouldn’t be needed.

jeric_synergy
01-16-2018, 06:06 PM
It's a mystery why the UI toolset hasn't been changed for millenia. It's MASSIVELY weak, or they would have enhanced the cosmetic look years ago.

non-sizable panels? c'mmmmMMMOOOOOOOOOOoooooonnnnnnn. It's the 21st Century already. :grumpy:

Revanto
01-16-2018, 06:45 PM
Zbrush is probably a way bigger and more complex program but they have a great amount of ability to customise things. Yesterday I was watching a secrets video about Zbrush and there was an awesome function that took into consideration those with smaller screens and resolutions. Because of that one tip, I discovered that more things could be crammed into the interface, making it better for us 'smallies' ('Smallie' is just a word I made up now that refers to people who use small screens and resolutions) without having to sacrifice anything unnecessary.

But, I still don't get the reason why everything needs to get crammed into one column for the numeric/option panels in LW when there is as much screen real estate on the screen width as well to work with. The idea of a scroll bar does not seem like a complex option to add, either.

Rev.