* @MizManFryingP * In the proposal says to remove by default. I understand that the idea is that they can be activated. But I agree with you, "the arrows" are very important, they should be visually renewed too. My vote

* @MizManFryingP * They do have a purpose, but in Cinema 4d and 3dsMax, the rotation along the length of the spline is a lot smarter when the spline is being created. I don't remember having nearly as many issues with twisting as I've had with Blender. In otherwords, the arrows are necessary in Blender . Not really in other programs.

* @dpdpforlife * For what it's worth, the "arrows" (better referred to as curve normals) are also an important indicator for animation purposes. For better or worse, the way that curves currently work for animation is that travel time is determined from one control point to the next. So if you have a bunch of control points, travel will be slower in that part of the curve, versus an area that's sparse on control points. The crowding of those curve normals is a visual indication of the time an object will take when following that path.

* @Jason van Gumster * Other software use small ticks along the path instead of the arrows which clutter the viewport in comparison. Also, 3ds Max and, from what I remember, Maya normalize the spline first so, the rate is based on distance travelled ignoring the curvature and tension in the spline. Adjusting the speed can be done in the curve editor, if needed.

* @Frozen Death Knight * I like this a lot. It's far less busy than the arrows. I really, really hate the arrows.

* @dpdpforlife * Glad you liked it! Crush those pesky arrows! :P

* @Frozen Death Knight * that is Cinema 4d. Probbaly the software with the best interaction with its tools. Too bad that just like Blender (but unlike it seriously overpriced) is otherwise limited at every corner. It had lots of potential for advancd modeling but now the focus is only on motion graphics there. Viewport and built in renderer doesnt support its ambitions though. Its I dont know how many dozens time slower than Maya one which can preview in real time Cinema 4d motion graphics something that Cinema can only dream.

* @Orphydian * Never used Cinema 4D, but it's cool that my suggestion is similar to that then if you think its tools are that good. :)

* @Orphydian * I used cinema for over 7 years, i still miss some tools in blender, but the workflow is just so much better and smoother. Everything makes much more sense and i love NODES! And is love the UI!

With functionnodes, mograph can be rebuild completely, also sweepnurbs with all it's functions i hope. Modifiers definitely need some ui handles. Outliner already gets some love, last thing that is missing would be performance and undo, but this will also be tackled the next year i guess.

* @danielpaulus90 * Ui handles, whats that ?

Im not making to much hopes for Blender other than being more usable in the near future ( by that meaning more than one year). Im new to Blender and this open source thing development it such a weird thing. For proprietary software you kinda know what to expect or not, like Autodesk has recently made a road map for 3ds max with some powerfull feature like automatic retopology, complex booleans etc. They are already tackling with these in Maya (there are some hidden nodes that some users discovered). Either they will have their own development or they will buy external plugins and integrate them, for end user there shouldnt too much bother for that. The sure thing is they will deliver. Im not sure I understand the development of open source and the valencies of Blender dev team engagements. Furthermore, I dont appreciate that a big part of the development is left to addons creators which often creates such a disjointed experience asociated with the workflows and learning paths etc. I see some are added by default in Blender, some are just someplacet out there to be dicovered, I mean why? The fact that these addons have to be mantain by their creators also doesnt make them viable on long run. There is also a serious issue witht he quality of the code in these addons. To me it seems that this Gooogle summer of code thing is the only non-negligible art of blender dev. Blame me but this open source development seems like a total mess for me.

* @Orphydian * Modifiers in Cinema have nice interaction gizmos in the viewport and are really easy to set up. I use blender for 2 years daily now, and still struggle with the modifiers.

* @Orphydian * This is a weird and very off topic comment. Having said that, I'll take the bait. I have tens of thousands of dollars worth of 3ds Max plugins that have long been abandoned. I would have to install 3ds Max 5 and dig out my old parallel port dongle...and buy a computer with a parallel port...and find a copy of Windows 2000 just to use MetaReyes. So, I don't really see maintenance by the addon creators being an issue unique to Blender. What is unique to Blender is that I have maybe $200 invested in addons and if they are abandoned, I can maintain the parts I need myself or pay someone to do it for me, because I have access to the code. 3ds Max has always relied on it's addon architecture and outside developers. Maya as well - some of the most powerful animation tools are made by outside developers and require their desire to continue maintenance.

I would also like to point out that 3ds Max released a road map back in 2011 for XBR. Ever heard of it? Probably not because the powers that be at mighty Autodesk decided to can the project.

* @danielpaulus90 * yeah, that was what I hinted at with the nice interaction with its tools in Cinema. Before modifers it has to refine the interaction of the modeling tools per se via this UI helpers instead of (mostly) relying on hotkeys. Also many blender modifiers are kinda bare bones so before adding more interaction there should be some decent content and features instead of working arounds (hinting at arrays, deform one etc)

* @Craig Jones * then the very concept of addon and addon developer for an open source software becomes instantly weird and redundant for me. How is that effectively too much different and moral superior from an end user perspective from the same phenomenon with proprietary software ? Im talking about the free scripts and addons out there. In that case they dont have access and modify the source code so many clever users write this addons.

If we all already can see and take part in the development unlike proprietary software and the software is build by community why there are external, 3rd party like addons and addon developers that pretty much act as software owners when they can contribute to the main blender ? I see many addons developers long time maintaining their addons (so that protocol I guess cannot be the reason, correct me if Im wrong) but they still dont allow to be shipped with blender. Why is that ? Vanity, other interests ? certainly not too much adherence to this open source philosophy. Another thing that annoys me is that each addon developers wants to make sure their addons is clearly evidentiated in the program which leads to a poor integration and so much redundancy in the UI even for the minor ones. Ideally all this Blender open source development should be a lot more coordinated, tidy and long term viable. Finnaly this addon concept need to be rethink under new terms such as this Google summer of code stuff which, I regret to say it again it seems the only less neglijable and more rigurous part of blender dev.

* @Orphydian * I can't speak for all add-on developers, but I can think of a few reasons why a free add-on developer might not want to have their add-on ship with Blender proper. Maybe for them the Blender release cycle is too fast (or too slow). Or they have a specific coding style and they don't want to conform to the PEP-8 standard that Blender developers require. Or maybe their add-on requires that the user install an additional application (like another python module or an image library). Or maybe they just want to be the only canonical source for procuring the add-on.

The point is that there are many reasons why an add-on developer may not want their add-on to ship with Blender. It's not always that an add-on developer submits their work for inclusion and the Blender development team just outright says, "no." That's actually very rare... despite the fact that inclusion with Blender usually means that the Blender development team takes more responsibility for the maintenance of the add-on.

Furthermore, you asked why someone would develop an add-on when they have access to the source. That's actually easier to answer. Python-based add-ons are easier to develop and distribute than patches to Blender. If you write a patch for Blender that you want other people to use, you need to either make your own builds of Blender (or users need to compile it themselves) or you need to try and get it integrated into Blender proper... which means going through the patch review process. Sometimes it takes a while for a patch to get reviewed by the development team, so if you want your feature out there for people to test and play with, it's often easier to prototype it as an add-on.

* @Orphydian * Well for the longest time it was only 1 person working on it and in recent years it seems they're up to a grand total of sometimes almost 10 people working on it almost full time. If you have the money, give it to Autodesk if that's what you'd prefer.