Eliminiting time-wasting procedures
Checker Decker
Many user interaction requires additional approval by pressing Enter (RMB), while there is no need for that at all. There is the Undo function if something fails and it slows down everything when creating something without valid reason.
Confirmation of a command is only required when running the command literally needs it.
As an example when moving an object to 1 m to the right (X axis) looks like this in an efficient way with hotkeys:
Select object, then: G /X /1 /Enter (Grab/ X axis/ 1m/ Confirm)
This is in Plasticity:
Select object, then: G /X /1/ Enter /Enter (The last Enter is totally not needed, wasting the time of the user)
Also there is a lack of consistency, see the video when it comes to vertices.
I could move control points freely without selecting move tool or pressing Enter, but if I want to move it freely with move tool, it requires Enter.
it it true for almost everything I used in Plasticity; unnecessary approvals, not consistent approach on interactions (overall more interaction needed than it should need from UX designer perspective).
It would be great to rethink the approach, Plasticity is a rare gem, it deserves the most efficient workflow.
qunb
yes for me personally it is a waste of time and just annoying, there is no problem to just undo an operation if you did it wrong, for example if you are an experienced modeler do you make mistakes so often that you need this confirmation feature? Absolutely not, you should keep your workflow so smooth that you don't pay attention to it, Blender offers this experience.
Plasticity is a gem because of its fast and artist friendly workflow, it could be even faster. IMO now it's just old-fashioned way of workflow
Pablo Daniel Ruggeri Acción
I'm not in the dev team (but I create some add-ons for Blender), but I can say that the software needs to know when the user wants to stop the "live" command. It needs a trigger (done on purpose by the user) to confirm the stop and be stopped. The enter button is the one that acts as the stop trigger. Otherwise, like when moving objects, the software doesn't know when you have stopped editing. In that example the first enter is to confirm the input 1 in the X axis. At that moment you can readjust the amount (maybe you wanted 1.1 or 1.5 or maybe also move it in other axis too). Once you finished giving the inputs, you stop the tool with the second enter. It could be annoying if you need to run the move tool multiple times to test different movement directions.
Guessing when the user has supposedly finished something without confirming is very hard and can be very subjective. So, IMHO, the enter confirm is ok.
Checker Decker
Pablo Daniel Ruggeri Acción
Then please tell me, why in Blender I could move objects without pressing Enter and pressing enter is only needed when you have to confirm a specific way (numerally given) command. Thanks. I think you missed what I wrote. I am UX/workflow/system designer.
Pablo Daniel Ruggeri Acción
Checker Decker
I see you're trying to streamline the workflow, and it's always good to look for improvements. That said, I’d like to clarify a few points to explain why I believe Plasticity’s current behavior is actually quite consistent and makes sense, especially from a CAD perspective.
Blender vs. Plasticity: Blender is primarily a mesh modeling tool, while Plasticity is a CAD program. Even though some workflows may appear similar, they follow different modeling paradigms. Plasticity is also closer to programs like Rhino, where it's standard to explicitly confirm actions using Enter or right-click.
Confirmation mechanism: Blender also requires confirmation when using commands like "G" (Grab/Move), but the trigger varies depending on context. For example, after pressing G, X, 1, Enter, the action still isn’t finalized until you left-click. That click is a form of confirmation. Likewise, entering or exiting Edit Mode requires pressing Tab again, a form of deliberate user input to confirm intent. The difference is in the trigger, not in the need for confirmation.
Plasticity’s confirmation logic: Plasticity keeps things consistent by using either Enter or right-click to confirm. While this might feel like an extra step if you're coming from Blender, it actually helps avoid ambiguity and aligns with CAD standards. Right-click to confirm, for instance, is very common in Rhino and familiar to many CAD users.
I also read your original post carefully, which is why I responded in the first place. While it's great that, as a UX designer, you're analyzing and offering suggestions, that alone doesn’t automatically validate the point you're making. I'm an Industrial Designer myself, and I only mentioned my Blender add-on background to clarify that I’m just a user, not part of the Plasticity dev team.
To sum up: in my opinion, the current workflow in Plasticity is already well thought out. "Skipping" user confirmation is not possible. If anything, constructive feedback would involve proposing an alternative confirmation method (beyond Enter or right-click) that still offers precision and avoids ambiguity. Both of the current options are already quite standard. Following exactly Blender (which I love, but is full of inconsistencies) is not a good path in my opinion.
I suggest you to try using the right click to confirm the action you may probably feel it natural after a short while.
Checker Decker
Pablo Daniel Ruggeri Acción
Sorry, Short reply:
'Blender vs. Plasticity: Blender is primarily a mesh modeling tool, while Plasticity is a CAD program. '
No one cares if something is a CAD program, a fitness application or a MP3 player, only efficiency matters.
I heard this 'this is Blender, this is Max, this is this or that' arguments too much from developers when tried to stick to inefficient workflows.
'Confirmation mechanism: Blender also requires confirmation when using commands like "G" (Grab/Move), but the trigger varies depending on context. For example, after pressing G, X, 1, Enter, the action still isn’t finalized until you left-click. '
No. Blender does not require it, especially does not require double confirmation.
- Free move: you move the object and left click on position to confirm.
In Plasticity it requires Enter (or RMC instead of LMC) which is time-wasting (when using Enter for that instead of RMC).
- In Blender G+X+1+Enter is the precise movement on X axis with 1 unit with conformation included. No additional action needed.
In Plasticity it needs an additional Enter or RMC) for confirmation. Waste of time.
Mentioning being kind of Blender dev was an interesting move, I did the suggestion work I made here in the last weeks for year for Blender, they at the end usually did my suggestions as they were forced to recognize that their approaches are outdated.
'So sum up: in my opinion, the current workflow in Plasticity is already well thought out. '
Definitely not. Plasticity have serious UX/workflow efficiency problems, it only shines when you compare it with jokes like Moi3D our totally outdated 'we are CAD' approaches.
"Skipping" user confirmation is not possible.
We agree on that.
If anything, constructive feedback would involve proposing an alternative confirmation method (beyond Enter or right-click) that still offers precision and avoids ambiguity.
That is why I made the comparison with Blender. That works well and no extra confirmation needed.
BTW Blender is one of the most consistent apps ever with all these fault and tricks and permanent st.pidity from devs to rearrange everything in every version. I created my 'efficiency menu' for all versions to overcome on these (as Blender devs are definitely not coming from any high scale real production environment where there are business risks when not delivering in time).
So Plasticity approval method is very annoying in many times, also time-consuming. .
C
Christian Grajewski
I feel the same way and did mention it a couple of times on Discord. Specially annoying when manipulating CV‘s with Move and Slide command!
Mark McCoy
Always wondered why there was a "press enter to confirm" as well. Seems redundant to me as well.