Object Group

http://youtu.be/IbbFVOhjREk

This works strange and uncomfortable.

Maybe better as:
When you pressing button "New Group" (better to change on "Group selected) - all checked will move into new group.

agreed Maya has a button for both group selected and empty.

It is improved. When you create a new group, both scene selected and checked objects will be included into the new group.

Thanks IStonia, it is much better.

Could somebody please explain me the conceptual difference between Subobject Groupand Object groups and why it is important to have both concepts in Nvil?
To me all this hierarchy stuff seems totally unnecessary for a modelling only program and really in the way when thinking of simplicity. I'd like to see a convincing example why one needs this.  In Silo one can group all similar entities: Verts, Edges,Faces and Objects. All within one simple interface - beautiful.

groups are actually very useful for modeling, and not just scene organization, since they can have there own origins that can be used to rotate or translate multiple objects around.

I get the impression that sub_object groups where added at a later time to the object groups and never fully integrated.

For example:- I have a polygon_group and a vertex_group. When working with those, I go into polygon selection mode, bring up the polygon_group UI, select the group. If I then use the visual-tools, the group UI is automatically removed, while the group UI is enabled, hotkey tool function will not work, you need to manually remove the sub_object group UI first.
If changing between sub_object selection, the group UI is automatically removed, so you need to keep re-enabling the group UI even when simply trying to change between sub_object group types.

I do think the sub_object groups need better integration. At the moment they are (IMHO) a bit of a pain to work with

groups are actually very useful for modeling, and not just scene organization, since they can have there own origins that can be used to rotate or translate multiple objects around.

Thanks Passerby,
would you see a reason why sub-object groups of items could not have custom origins?
I'm not against groups, definitely not but I simply don't get why there's two grouping features.

I do think the sub_object groups need better integration. At the moment they are (IMHO) a bit of a pain to work with

That's funny, I come along quite well with the sub-object feature but I don't even have an idea what molebox is doing in his threadstarter-video. I think this all needed to be simplified and unified.

I think this all needed to be simplified and unified.

How?

To simplify, that could imply removing current options, which is not something I would like. To unify, place all groups into the scene_explorer?, yes, that I would like.

If the object and sub_object groups are to kept in separate UI. Then I would like to see the sub_object UI to be floating/dock-able, that can be left open during working with/on the sub_object groups.

I don't think that simplification implies feature removal.
I was talking of redundancy. Here's how things work in Silo.
As simple as it gets.

How about naming /re-naming a group? Is that seen as complex?
I like to name a group, not have a possible long list of similar name groups.

In Silo you can give those groups any name by doubleclicking them.
One then can no more see that which type of group that is but one could easily solve
that problem with a small icon for the group-type.

In Silo you can give those groups any name by doubleclicking them.

I was not saying you could not rename them in Silo, just asking if you think naming/re-naming is complex.

One then can no more see that which type of group that is but one could easily solve
that problem with a small icon for the group-type.

Currently, the sub_object groups in NVIL are context sensitive, so while, as example, in vertex mode, only vertex groups are selectable. Is that complex, or possibly a better solution?

What I am struggling with is your putting forward simplifying. I asked how. Please explain.

In Silo you can give those groups any name by doubleclicking them.

I was not saying you could not rename them in Silo, just asking if you think naming/re-naming is complex.

I don't quite follow. In Silo it is as easy as renaming a folder in Windows Explorer.
In Nvil I don't use the Scene Explorer. It in its current implemention indeed seems not straightforward enough for what I want from this program - I typically only have a few items on screen. I don't think it's a good idea anyway to build scenes with many parts and deep object-hierarchies in Nvil. Also I mostly need polygroups because these groups are transferable to Zbrush.

Currently, the sub_object groups in NVIL are context sensitive, so while, as example, in vertex mode, only vertex groups are selectable. Is that complex, or possibly a better solution?
What I am struggling with is your putting forward simplifying. I asked how. Please explain.

To me the concept of context sensitivity is one of the most successful ways to make a Subdivision Modeller slim. It was me who suggested Istonia to organize menus in a way that entries are dependant ofthe currently active subobject mode. So yes, I like that system - it might need an initial understanding but I find it a very powerful way of filtering.

For a useful grouping feature I think that on the model one should only have access to groups of the current subobject type, if at all. From the GUI element which holds all groups one should be able to select groups of all subobject types at all times. Selecting this entry automatically switches the current subobject type and highlights the group in the viewport.