Move Light Linking from a Collection Level to a Object Level
Currently light linking is done at a collection level, meaning any objects you want to link to a certain light needs to be in a collection.
This can be annoying since studios and people have completely different workflows and structures when setting up there collections, if a studio decides they want all the Characters/Props/ Sets ect to be in a certain structure, some studios may have strict guidelines for keeping the collection structure, weather for pipeline or workflow reasons, this workflow restricts useability.
If they want to light link the eyes of certain characters then they need to move those eye to there own special collection, this can create a unnecessary mess of collections for more complex scenes.
The better and simpler solution would be to have a picker of sorts and you can select the "objects" you want to link your lights to and they will be added to the list this way you wont have to break the structure of your collections.
Then the minus button will remove the object from the light-link list and not delete the object from the actual scene which is what it does currently.
3 Comments
You don't have to move your objects to a collection, nor change any of the existing collection structure. Objects can be in as many collections as you want, just add the objects you need to the collection, don't move them.
Basically your light linking collections are your object-based selection.
The request is asking the collection has not be used in this way, yet your reply is.... "continue using collections for this and don't dislike it."
Artists have different ways of organizing their scenes, using view layers for output, etc. Having a certain things tied to the collection level instead of at the object level, means more overhead for scene management. The fact that objects can exist in multiple collections might be a nice feature for some, but others do not work this way and don't wish to.
I didn't write anything about " continue using collections " nor " don't dislike it ".
I merely pointed out some inaccuracies in the premise of the proposal, which doesn't invalidate it, but give a make-do solution for dealing with the issue in the meantime, as well as a more accurate portrayal of the situation.
Which both help to have an informed discussion about it.