Hello!
It’s all a matter of personal preference, I know. However, I would very much like to see a few changes to the Layer context menu, for usability’s sake:
Thanks!!
Hello - yeah, I tend to agree about the menu arrangement. If we change it, I’ll have to re-learn! But I’ll add it to the pile.
https://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-56269
-Pascal
Thank you, Pascal!
We all will. But if you get it right we’ll all love relearning it.
You’d think that after 2 decades of experience a lot of other menus could benefit from a revisitation as well.
Just thought: how about opening menus up to customization. Numerous other 3d application can do this.
But then, will people really use this? Many want to stick to office or even industry standards. I’ve seen it in my workplace.
I think the confusion caused by user configurable menus would make support that much more difficult.
This is one of the reasons that pull-down menus are not user configurable.
We need a common U/I to troubleshoot problems.
+1 for user-configurable layer context menu. There are plenty of actions I think some user may want to add there (e.g. merge layer, select layer to N depth, duplicate layers and move objects)
I just started using rhino 8 and so far it gets me bothered every time I use the context layer menu. I keep thinking why aren’t the context layer menus the same. I find it really disrupts the workflow and habits learned from using previous versions of rhino. For example rename is way at the bottom whereas in previous versions it was called rename layer and in a different location. It makes it really akward and sorry to say annoying to jump between versions with those sorts of inconsistencies. It breaks your workflow and it’s no longer automatic to use which is a real shame. I like when you’ve built so much muscle menu the tool becomes automatic to use. Now I have to read a menu to figure out where the command is and it slows things down.These anomolies are similar to some of the inconsistencies in grasshopper, for examples why call a planar surace, a boundary surface. Why would the language and command change from rhino to grasshopper. It makes it clumsy to use. The same can be said for a compnent being called mesh explode but yet the same sort of component for breps is called deconstruct brep. Why not keep the language the same (make them all deconstruct or all explode but don’t mix terminology when performing similar functions) to help make things as easy as possible for the user. I love using rhino and gh but that doesn’t mean I don’t get a little bothered every time I search for planar surface in gh and go nope it’s actually called boundary surface. That sort of minor annyance is the experience I now find myself having in the layer context menu. With that being said the shrinkwrap tool is phenomonal.
Just to make this a complete conversation, here’s Rhino 7 for Windows and Rhino 8 for Windows side by side:
And Rhino 7 for Mac:
I agree that changing muscle memory takes effort. Now that Rhino for Mac and Rhino for Windows have the same layer dialog and same context menus, I’m not sure we can accommodate everyone.
As for Grasshopper, we all agree - I think David would be the first. But in the spirit of maintaining muscle memory, it’s too late to change it all now.
That might me true. I for my part am happy with the resorted menu entries. The important stuff is quicker to reach. Takes some nerve re-routing, and even I still stumble when working R7 and 8 in parallel, but so what. I will get used to it (I have forgotten more 3d apps again than some ever knew).
