please refer to the many posts regarding general UI size that have been posted in the last few months. in particular, h9 still is very space inefficient compared to h8.

This is pretty much what I did when I designed the Compact mode. In some areas, yes, h9 is still lagging behind, simply because there were many other things needing my attention. Compact was designed to make H9 use the same (or less) space than H8. One of the spots I didn't get to was thinning down the input fields and menu buttons, which was on the todo, so as a result parm dialogs use a bit more space in H9 compact than H8.

However, in general, the H9 main interface in Compact mode is almost identical to a corresponding H8 main interface (run both at 100% scale, maximized, and turn off the shelf in H9 because it's an obvious addition to the interface, and flip between the two). What I mean by this is that the toolbars, pane headers, stowbars, spliters, etc.. are all very close to their H8 size.

i think you misunderstand how people like to layout their space when they have a high rez screen.

Some people, yes. Others don't like to go blind But that's why it's a user setting. It's also a bit of future proofing for resolutions beyond 2560x1500 which will likely be appearing in the next few years. Also useful for demoing Houdini on a projector, which is really neither here nor there.

ok, rant off. getting back to the issue - here's some specifics:

(these all refer to H9 Compact UI mode):

- Compact reduces the split bar & stowbar width by 25%, making it much closer to H8. Any smaller and the > arrows can't be drawn effectively. Anyways, H9's stowbars are 1 pixel wider in most cases (the size for stowbars wasn't consistent in 8, so your mileage may vary)
- The playbar in Compact mode is exactly the same height as in H8. The range slider is taller, however, in H8 there are a couple of pixels of wasted space beneath it. Horizontal spacing could use a bit of trimming in Compact, I agree. I think what you may be referring to here wrt vertical space is the status bar, which is a bit larger than H8's (and would get smaller if menu buttons were trimmed slightly).
- The 3D viewport toolbars are comparable in width to 8. The icons are larger but extend all the way to the edge of the bar, unlike H8, which is padded. This makes a small difference in the overall vertical size (though h8 again has more spacing between the icons).
- The pane headers are actually smaller in 9 (you can also stow various bits of it as well through the (v) button, “Pane Interface”).
- Horizontally, the menu buttons in H8 aren't much smaller than the ones in H9 (see the Rx/Ry/Rz menu in a geo object). However, the H9 font is larger, so the longer the label, the greater the difference.
- In H9, you can move the main menu, shelf, and status bar to any pane, much like you can with the playbar in H8 (this is part of the desktop). So you can reclaim a decent amount of space this way as well (pane menu, Pane Interface, “Move ___ Here”)

I'm not trying to be contrary, just pointing out that many things have been worked on in direct response to user's requests in this area. I'll see what I can do to handle some of the remaining hotspots. The network editor is a whole different ball of wax, though.

Edit: Note that Matt's image above was taken in Normal UI size. In Compact, the gear icons are smaller and have a negligible impact. “Compact” is really what users desiring more UI space should use, not UI scale.

mchaput
I don't think it's nearly as big an issue as that. The vertical difference between the two parameter editors is negligible in the header area, and would probably be equal if we switched to small (16x16) icons in the name/gear/info row instead of medium sized ones.

sure - one example on it's own doesn't look so bad. but in real world production - i want as many parameters and node editors on the screen at the same time. all these little xy additions add up - and do turn into a big issue once your not able to display what you want. so,

mchaput
The text areas are bigger to make the textboxes easier to hit

you really serious here? this sounds like a post rationalisation. i - and no one i've ever worked with has had any problems hitting a textbox. we animators are pretty used to the mouse thingy. sure, oversize buttons are useful for pre-schools or geriatrics - but c'mon - we're a pretty dexterous lot. i'd rather have the UI space ay day ;-)

mchaput
and so you don't have the text butting right up to the border and looking like crap. Even so the difference doesn't amount to a whole lot in this example. And for people who prefer less humane UI in exchange for showing more parms at once, that's what the UI scale is for.

hmmm, crap to me is where the ui doesn't fit into the screen. sorry, thats a sorry excuse. you could fit much more information with better design/font and colour usage. and keeping it humane is working faster and not pinging between different tabs/desktops to fiddle with parameters. but, hey - what do i know. i just animate.

lets not confuse form over function…

the network tile Connection areas are way too small. I hope we will be able to use the whole width of the tile as places to connect nodes.

This is what I think is the most workflow inhibiting ui issue so far in H9. You really have to aim for that connection now.

Another idea is making the connections draggable, like in fusion. Those you can really pop in and out very quickly.

Hi all.

I`m not power houdini master, but i think, what H9 UI have some problems with snapping connection lines.

When i connect in H8, i have a more flexible connections, . (look to files attached to message). when i want connect or disconnect nodes, is a more simple than in H9 UI.

When i connect in H9, i see the nice glow around connection area, glow make the snapping, not coonect, or disconnect, glow area cover the most area between nodes.

What i do? (and, maybe, what do all users, who use H8 UI) - i decrease the nodes network density.

What is bad? We have to see a small nodes and a big amount of a free* workspace*. Then we see all “beauty” of the truetype antialiasing.

When hands remember H8 usability, H9 is.. Not make me happy..
= = = =

Interface speed?
H8 use low color depth images and icons. H8 UI not use gradients. H8 UI is a CAD UI. simple, fast as a gun shot.

When i work in graphics, I* must do* the graphics, no package interface.. UI must be gray. fast. Second. For lightind setup - low colored.
= = = =
Again about fonts.. H8 fonts is more readable. In UI in expressions. It a fact. this antialiasing engine produse the new UI look.. And some new hard work for eyes.

May be implement UI variables for nodes snapping values? Low color depth interface is dream for minimalists, who happy with fast mind+hand+workspace job.
H9 UI need some ajusting and need some time.

Sorry for my english

H8 use low color depth images and icons. H8 UI not use gradients. H8 UI is a CAD UI. simple, fast as a gun shot.

We were planning on releasing a Dark scheme with H9 for lighting and color correction, but do to some unresolved technical issues, it didn't make the cut. Hopefully soon.

All the “bling” in the H9 UI is optimized for modern* graphics cards (icons, AA'd text, gradients). Aesthetics aside, it should not be a performance issue. In fact, the H8 UI uses bitmapped fonts, which we are finding are remarkably slower on Nvidia 8800-based video cards, so what you see isn't always what you'd expect in terms of performance (textures are orders of magnitude faster in this case, but there are similar cases to this in other areas).

Edit: By “modern” I mean cards sold in the past 4-5 years. The H8 and lower rendering engine was still optimized for SGI machines.

shikung444
the network tile Connection areas are way too small. I hope we will be able to use the whole width of the tile as places to connect nodes.

In fact, you already can. The entire width of the tile, as well as some area above it, can be clicked on to start and end connections. Also, you can end connections by clicking on the node itself, which gives you a nice big target.

twod
One of the spots I didn't get to was thinning down the input fields and menu buttons, which was on the todo, so as a result parm dialogs use a bit more space in H9 compact than H8.

hey, thanks for your response. i hear you with the compact mode - right now i'm using the small - but still feel it needs tightening up in the areas i specified. i hope that this can further be refined now that you all managed to deliver the .0 realise.

However, in general, the H9 main interface in Compact mode is almost identical to a corresponding H8 main interface (run both at 100% scale, maximized, and turn off the shelf in H9 because it's an obvious addition to the interface, and flip between the two). What I mean by this is that the toolbars, pane headers, stowbars, spliters, etc.. are all very close to their H8 size.

just not close enough! ;-) i've just fired up h9 with the “small” ui - and for instance, there's a terrific vertical wastage in the xform SOP parameters. sure, that's just one SOP, but many of our DA's have 10's of parameters. i would like to see a further round of tweaks. it needs to be tight in X and Y!

Some people, yes. Others don't like to go blind But that's why it's a user setting. It's also a bit of future proofing for resolutions beyond 2560x1500 which will likely be appearing in the next few years. Also useful for demoing Houdini on a projector, which is really neither here nor there.

future proofing is a good. today proofing is more important.

I'm not trying to be contrary, just pointing out that many things have been worked on in direct response to user's requests in this area. I'll see what I can do to handle some of the remaining hotspots. The network editor is a whole different ball of wax, though.

hey - thats cool - the new small/compact modes made h9 *much* better than before. so, there's been forward progress. i just want the momentum to be maintained. i think the last 5% is always the hardest - but can make all the difference. :-)

and yes, the network editor is a different ball of wax which deserves it's own thread.

twod, big thanks you

New interface look is good step for commercial. It a right step. It work. When the new user see H9 UI, then H9 in action, what first he said? he said - “i need to try it”..

When i see H9 first time, i was shocked. I minimalict. I use linux with custom lightweight kernel and windowmaker desktop on fourquad computer with 4 Gb memory. I like fast and simple UI-s.

My frend, is old* maya user, see my probes in H9, and said: “wow, nice UI.. hm.. how i can install it? can you help me? and when?”. He learn H9 now. Every day.

Connections and snapping between nodes connection areas must be ajusted, i think. May be a smaller snap area? If do this, networks can be more dense.
Thanks

Input fields, buttons and menu buttons are now a bit shorter in Compact UI mode. The playbar toolbar has also been tweaked a bit to allow for more playbar space (build 9.0.740). Anyone using Small UI mode may want to try to Compact (be sure to unset HOUDINI_UISCALE if you have it set first).

The parameter pane resize border was increased in yesterday's build (739).

If I may add to the frenzy, when you're comparing UIs between 8 and 9, are you comparing 8 with HOUDINI_UISCALE set to 80? That's the standard, IMO. The 8 UI is too big too if you haven't set HOUDINI_UISCALE to 80 or 90.

I do like the snapping for the most part, it has some issues on 4 input nodes like a POPnet node, but generally wiring is easier than in 8. Visually, however, as I've pointed out in the past, having the snapping _and_ a wider connector widget would be ideal as your brain see the small input and tries to hit it. After months of using the snapping, that still happens so I'm guessing it always will. Honestly, it would look better too. But, snapping good

Cheers,

Peter B

No, I've always been comparing H8 at 100% to H9 Compact. “Small”, which is tinier than Compact, is for you Peter It makes all the fonts one size smaller, which scales down most gadgets, and font-less gadgets are scaled down by 10%. Compact just attempts to tighten things up without adjusting font sizes. Personally, I find “Small” mode hard to read - but that may be due my monitor (20", 1680x1050) and how far away I like to keep it.

Other advances in H9 may make such scaling less necessary - for example, pane tabs. These allow you to get much more out of your desktop with fewer panes. Also, the ability to move the various main interface bars to panes (main menu, status bar, shelf) can also improve real estate for other panes. So we've tried to attack the problem on multiple fronts, rather than just shrink everything.

twod
We were planning on releasing a Dark scheme with H9 for lighting and color correction, but do to some unresolved technical issues, it didn't make the cut. Hopefully soon.

In my opinion the color scheme for H8 was very good. Maybe you can have in sight a “gray” theme (so not light neither black, but using the gray of H8's UI).

Dragos

As we talk about a screen space:




The red arrow takes 10% of my working space in height and as far as I know this can't be changed now! More than 110 pixels in 1200x1600 resolution….

I know I can close the shelfs and play bar. But this gray, useless hole stays in place whatever I do.

Well, this would be a nice space for shelf tools for dealing with curve editing but after so big effort in new UI design it's still not scriptable…

RE: wide tiles: maybe they had something crazy planned…
:shock:

LOL

That thought has crossed my mind, and I liked it

S

cpb
RE: wide tiles: maybe they had something crazy planned…
:shock:

See Matt! I hope you are looking at this. I told you it was a great design and that you should spread it across the whole system

Part of the problem with the VOP-style nodes is that they're even bigger than the current nodes, which would make the problem of seeing less nodes in the network editor even worse. The other issues are:

- the label area is actually quite small, leading to rather terse input names
- all currently vertical networks become horizontal
- for very linear networks (1 in, 1 out, like POPs and many SOPs) it tends to be a waste of space

So I'm not convinced that the slightly increased readability of networks due to this style balances off these tradeoffs. After all, part of the readability of a network is the ability to see a relatively large portion of it to follow connections.

IMHO, I'm not convinced its a great idea either this horizontal layout thing, but I do think that the proportions and design of SOPs as they are can definitely be tweaked somewhat to improve their legibility, as already mentioned in the previous posts already.

I am worried about their (rendering) speed already; considering that having 5,000 nodes are so sluggish to move around (panning & zooming, let alone select and drag). Its funny to think the viewport is rendering 1.5million, lit, shaded, texturemapped polygons and the network editor is struggling over 5000 2D boxes. Perhaps they should be texturemapped 3D polygons instead?

:twisted:

i`m still using 8, as so far i have no reason to go to 9.. and frankly i`m scared of it.. ive seen it in action.. and heard first hand reports of it and apparently theres some cool functionality..

but why mess with the interface at all.. it was fantastic the way it was.. we dont want to look at shiny buttons and all that crap.. we want to make good looking things, we dont need a `good looking` (playschool) ui.

its a tool.. tools are best when they are utilitarian.

the reason i love Houdini 8, and dont get frustrated with it like i do with the others is through that pure effortless interface.. i know where i am, what i`m doing.. its clear, concise and effective. and once you get your head around it initially.. its seamless with any part of the software.. you learn a method.. not memorise where all the buttons and menus are hiding as with other 3d packages…

i use Maya at work and the interface is loathesome..its confusing and badly organised due to its bolt on as opposed to integration approach to expansion. i understand that sesi want to attract new users.. but new users will come for softwares merits and with the knowledge of its existence.. why try to imitate?

grrrrrrr…

rant over.

Seriously, why can't the user create a custom icon. Surely the code has been written in such a way as to provide adequate abstraction that it should be easy to redeclare the various hot spots on the icon. Modifying the animated parts might be a hassle, but they're useless for me; switch it off. The cursor state change is a good addition, it's plenty of visual feedback. There's lots of toolkits out there for building GUI's, making widgets isn't, umm, rocket science.

I too would have had liked to see valuable development resources applied to other parts of Houdini and wish they approached these GUI changes in a less radical, more flexible manner. The addition of the Python interface is extremely welcome, though it still looks like there's work to do. Finally there's some sort of fluid solvers, yet much more needs to be done there as well. Both POPs and CHOPs need a another pass …

There's so much of the new interface that gets in the way, and I can't get rid of it (e.g. collapsing the shelves still eat up a few precious pixels of real estate). Frustrating.


Mark