Yes I could fiddle and adjust - But see, i dont want that. I want a modeler that works how i want, some things that work like Blender and others that work a different way.

Adding scripts into an existing product does not serve this.

I think we are entering into a new era where we don’t need to accept fully featured software with all of its decisions should they not fit ours.

▲

t-writescode 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You might be surprised just how much you can rewrite of Blender's UI if you want to.

And you get battle-tested software and a huge collection of existing plugins, operational modes, export formats, all that. Fully bespoke software for everything you want is a way toward losing interoperability between people and platforms.

	▲	dyarosla an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It doesnt have to be one or the other: you can have custom software that still works within existing/interoperable formats, as I’m doing here (im not planning to reinvent OBJ/FBX/BLEND) But building up as opposed to building down or rewriting is freeing. I can pull in ideas from Houdini and mix them in. I can use Blender’s source as reference for specific implementations should I need. I can keep my tooling specific to the projects Im working on and design it to fit that as opposed to build a workflow within a software meant to be general purpose. IMO, this kind of full customization is going to become far more commonplace.