What I like & what I don't

Hi there!
Originally I wanted to make a list of all the things I like about NVIL and all the stuff I'd rather have another way. But I couldn't manage to get started on the writing so I decided to make a topic where I can put all those things, once they come to mind.
You are more than welcome to comment and join the conversation. A plus (+) means I like it and a minus (-) means I don't.
So in no particular order I will begin:

+ customizable window layout
  + "slide in"-windows

+ radial menus

+ tool search, SmartTips

+ when the central position of my selection is outside the view, the manipulator moves somewhere I can see it! NEAT!

+ snap to orthographic views via shift when rotating the camera

+ using mousewheel to alter the number of inbetweens when extruding/beveling etc.

+ round bevel/chamfer (MMB)

+ Objects keep rotation. The lack of that was a big disappointment in Silo for me, because it made non-organic modelling hard. I need the possibility to "zero things out". In NVIL this is done real quick by RMB/MMB on any axis (the letter) in the manipulation/object list window.

+ numeric inuput for move works with (some) arithmetic expressions
  - multiplication doesn't work
- division and multiplication don't work with rotation and scale/size
- addition/substraction don't work with rotation

+ visualizing snap handle

There sure is much more about this software that I like, but I can't remember right now. I also barely scratched the surface. And a lot of things I didn't mention are a no-brainer to me (soft-selection, symmetry etc.). But as my new notebook is up and running and don't have to live in agonizing pain and fear of the next bluescreen anymore, I'm ready to put NVIL to some practical uses and get to know the pros and cons.

+ the possobility to shade backfaces in a different way. This makes it possible to instantly see flipped faces. In some other applications you can't tell if it's a backface or a hole at first glance.

+ Did I mention the huge set of functionality?!

- With great functionality comes great responsibility. ^^ Seriously: the disadvantage of this is that it's hard to overview the software. It feels a bit cluttered, overwhelming, often redundant.
I know there are other topics that deal with similar issues. I feel the same, that is: there are things that need trimming, streamlining and polishing.
I already find NVIL better than Silo (functionality-wise) and I spent something like 90 €uros for that many years ago. It would be a shame if too complex and sometimes confusing functionality would turn people away and keep them from throwing money at their screens when the time is right. All the hard work and implementation of user wishes should be rewarded someday, right?
Now here's my point: It is still time for big changes. Let's be honest: the user base doesn't seem to be that huge yet. There are 134 forum members, a few of them posting. I can remember someone on the forum didn't wish for a particular change, because he and maybe others would have already set up their version. I feel more like we are all beta-testers and change is part of the process. At some point you probably need to redo your settings. You've got to break some eggs if you want to make an omelet.
But now to the task. Let's start simple and look at how you are able to manipulate stuff by typing in numbers.
There's the manipulation window, the manipulation input, and the object list in the scene explorer. That's redundant and I would suggest trimming it down. I would either put it all into one window or a maximum of 2 windows where one contains tranformation and pivot tools and the other the stepping-settings and direct input fields. For my personal taste I wouldn't recommend taking direct input and stepping settings apart.
The direct input fields that feel the best for me personally are the ones in the object list inside the scene explorer. You have the following: Position, Orientation, Scale and Size. I like the distinction between scale and size. Scale is a relative value, size an absolute. Note that in the manipulation window and manipulation input window scale is mistaken for size! I also like to be able to click&drag on one of the axis letters to manipulate it and RMB/MMB click it to set it to 0. And what's more about this part of the view: No Offset-fields! That's right. You wouldn't need them, if you'd be able to use arithmetic expressions (+ - / *) in all of the input fields.

To sum it up what I think: The manipulation input window should be replaced entirely ( I know, I know, it's not that old and I supported it, before I knew about the object list). The Input fields should be removed from the manipulation window and the stepping-settings should be moved to the 'new' manipulation input window. The input fields of the object list should be moved to the same manipulation input window with all it's existing functionality plus the ability to use arithmetic expressions. Now you've got all your inputs in one and only one place. One addition: I think the "local move" checkbox beneath the position fields should have an effect on the input. The input should switch to 0.00(object space), so I could input 1.0 to move it exactly  1 unit along a local axis. At the moment the steppings (shift/ctrl) don't work when local move is active and you click&drag on the axis letter.

I hope my suggestions with the subsequent discussions will help improve the usability for everyone, especially people that are new to this fine piece of software. I think the developer (IStonia) has made quite an impressive job so far and is on the home stretch. Of course, I didn't even get started on the streamline tools, that also seem to need some polishing.

I´m a bit pessimistic at your topic. I totally agree that a cleanup is more than necessary. Functionality is just half of the show. UI is even more important. But we most probably won`t see big changings at the UI anymore.

I can even undestand why. Some changings would simply make too much work. Some changings are a thing of personal preference and taste, and so not really necessary. And some changings would break the current UI concept. Which is made to please professionals with an addiction to hotkeys at the speed end. Not really the masses. (I see a small market problem here. Pros buys big boys like Max, Maya, Cinema ...)

One last important point: Nvil is already highly customizable. One of the things i love at Nvil. But that`s a two sided sword because Users wants to use a software, not build their software first. And with customizations we have the problem that folks cannot longer talk with each other when the tools are at different locations or even have another name. Which easily happens with the self made streamline tools or customized radial menus.

Anyways. I am back at my hot loved dinosaur called trueSpace to do my work. It has much less functionality, and is really limited compared to Nvil. But it`s much easier and faster to use for me. And this not only because i am used to.

I don`t need to remember and use this much hotkeys for the same workflow speed. The tool names makes sense in case i have to dig for a long time unused tool. The UI is clean and uncluttered. I don`t need to dig in sub menus to find my tools. And everything important is in reach and not hidden. Without blocking each other like it would do in Nvil, with its lots of big and space eating panels. I don`t need to customize or even create my tools first to allow a comfortable workflow. And i get my work done. Which can`t be said from NVil in all cases yet. You named the arithmetic expressions for example, which would really be a nice addition. I can`t preview normalmaps to judge the final result, and so on.

I will nevertheless keep an eye at NVil, and keep toying around with it. It`s already a great modeler, featurewise

Thanks for your reply on the topic.

I see a small market problem here. Pros buys big boys like Max, Maya, Cinema ...

I don't agree on this one. I worked at a professional game studio for 5 years and I didn't need to buy maya, because the compny bought the licences. As I didn't felt much like spending 2000 bucks on a software, I needed something to work with at home. Silo is incredibly streamlined and didn't cost much. But it has its annoying disadvantages (numeric transform input resets, tools behave strangely at higher distances from the center, undo errors... to name a few). But at the time it still had more modelling capabilities (including UVs) than any of the major applications! Maya didn't even have bridge or slide loop, selection highlighting and tweaking, retopo tools etc. You had to install the bonus tools to get the basic stuff. Today some of this is still true. Just last week I saw a plugin on the web that enables Maya 2013 to mimic the behaviour Silo and Nvil have in common. And boy, maya crashed all the time (as did Silo...). If I recall correctly, at a time when we were like 10 artists or less, 3 of us used Silo, and we even HAD access to maya. And some more 'prominent' people of the modelling scene like Glen Southern praised Silo as well.
So concerning the target audience, NVIL should do things better than comparable products like Silo. My guess is, many modellers already have a Silo licence and aren't willing to pay for the same piece of software again. If it costs triple the amount, they won't pay. I'm fairly new to NVIL and I don't know how the project got started, but it's good to have in mind what modellers are complaining about in other software to improve upon that. If there's no 64Bit version, NVIL will only be smiled upon. 'Utilizing modern GPU-Power' is always a good catchphrase. For a SubD modeller, you can count on, that people would want to display millions of faces and still be able to work fluently.
One aspect that got annoying with Silo was the supported file formats. Model in Silo-> export to Obj -> import to maya -> adjust scale in maya -> reset texture paths -> save in maya binary format. The OBJ was only good for transfering. I probably wouldn't mind working in FBX format all the time. But I think application links are the way to go! You 'just' need to support all the majors. Second file format concerns textures: a lot of them should be supported. Best case scenario: even PSDs because you probably got your textures in that format anyway. To save memory the programm could temporarily bake the PSD down internally to a lighter format.
Enough mumbling aready.

+ Hey, I also like the "sticky help window" of the streamline tools that pops up when you activate a tool! Help and tool information really feels like the nuts and bolts in a software with that many, but still similar tools.

... And what's more about this part of the view: No Offset-fields! That's right. You wouldn't need them, if you'd be able to use arithmetic expressions (+ - / *) in all of the input fields...

How can I tell -200 is absolute value or offset value without the offset field?

By starting with the absolute value for the calculation. In trueSpace i have just the absolute value. I have for example the X value of 12. Now i add in the same edit box a simple /2 behind the 12, hit enter, the calculation starts: 12/2, and the value changes to 6. And my mesh jumps to this new position.

I see. But for rotation input it is different. eg. I have (45, 45, 45) rotation and the absolute input (45, 45 + 45, 45) is not the same as offset input (0, 45, 0).

But should. What`s the difference?

You can try that out. Absolute (45, 45 + 45, 45) is value predictable. Offset (0, 45, 0) is visually predictable.

I don`t see a difference. Thus my question. When i type in four times 30 into the offset box then i am at 120. When i add 30 four times to the absolute value, then i am also at 120.

The only difference is that i need to do that in an extra edit box. And that i don`t need to add a mathematical sign like a plus or a minus. But in case of a multiplication it`s already better to be able to calculate instead of working with an offset box.

I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean. Or maybe not. In a way it is related to world/object space manipulation. The expressions always worked in Maya, I never had a problem with just one input field. But Maya handles rotation differently than NVIL. Because I can't remember the details I will do some research on the web, maybe ask a few colleagues about that. What I can remember is, that in some space the rotational axes weren't forced to be perpendicular to one another. You could tell Maya in which order the rotation axes should be handled. But to be honest: that was a pain in the ... Perpendicular axes work better for me.

As I said, the "local" checkbox should have an impact on the input fields. Or even better: Forget about the local checkbox, remove it and control it via the manipulation setting as you would normally do. So these two don't work against each other and you always know where to set your space. Translation/Position would turn to 0.0.0 in the input fields when in local, scale would stay the same as it is local already (in some windows it is confused with size), and rotation... well, let me think about that while I play around with it in NVIl.

The way I see it the absolute values for rotation work with world space axes and the offset works in object space. I can't quite concentrate right now, but when operating in object space, the inputs for the rotation axes should do their magic on the local axes, and when operating in world space they should concern with world orientation axes. Or am I missing something?

I'm still trying to understand how things work and what the implication of my suggestions are. I feel the concept of the input fields in Nvil is not quite intuitive, maybe I even found a bug.

Translation/Move/Position: When I am in object space and enter a value on one axis into absolute, it translates/rotates by world axes. But when I click&drag the axis letter in front of absolute, it translates by local object axis? The numeric input should also work on local axes, just like click&drag. Remember, that when changing to object space the input fields should all be set to 0 (at origin/pivot of the object) and everything I enter in this mode would be an offset along the local axis. The world space holds the absolute position of the object.

Rotation/Orientation: This time the behaviour should be the other way around. Object space holds the rotation in relation to world space axes. Nvil already does that, but there's a small bug, that got me confused. The absolute input of the x-axis rotates around the world x axis in object mode! It should defintately rotate around the local axis as do the y and z axes. The click&drag of the x-axis works fine though. Now in world space, rotation always displays as 0.0.0 and everything I enter there is an offset around world axes. The values for all the axes in object space would change accordingly. When I would now enter an expression for rotation into one field while in object space, only this axis would update. Nvil does that already.

In this setting I don't see the need for "Offset Fields" if I would be able to use + - / * in the input fields.

I attached a simple scene to play around with that I used to visualize what is happening when fiddling around with local rotation and move.

+ I didn't yet mention that I totally dig the way you are able to use the steppings in every tool I encountered up until now!