Option request: Primitives creation - orientation

The interface, modeling, 3d editing tools, import/export, feature requests, etc

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Bellorum
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Option request: Primitives creation - orientation

Post by Bellorum »

I know this isn't vital. It's more of a personal taste. I've always disliked that the orientation of the primitive is always perpendicular to the user's view(moi) Would it be too much of a hassle to have an option to have a default orientation along either the x, y or z-axis(or perpendicular to view, of course)? That way one could create directly in perspective view, and wouldn't have to worry about switching to an ortographic view first.
There's no such thing as democracy. There's only the tyranny of one, and the tyranny of many.

Snargle
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:37 pm

Post by Snargle »

I totally agree. Perhaps shift-click for default orientation?

BTW Bellorum, you can also use zlt-R to clear rotation.

Cyberdigitus
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Belgium

Post by Cyberdigitus »

a solution to this and a lot of other potential would be to make the 3d cursor have an orientation too. 3d cursor is a bit of a misnomer now, being only screen aligned. there could be a method then to align the pivot to objects or mesh structures, just like snap (shift-s) now, and a numerical input like it has for it's coordinates.

any thoughts?

malCanDo
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 1:44 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact:

Post by malCanDo »

I absolutely agree with this one.

It is a real pain to have to switch viewports to add a primitive.

Thinking of the scene as a table top, you would always add objects with their Z axis aligned with the world axis. If users wanted to add objects aligned to the viewport, this could of course be an option. This is also the way that most other 3D modelling packages work.

This would make it a LOT easier for new users of Blender.

Mal

bertram
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:03 am

Post by bertram »

malCanDo wrote:If users wanted to add objects aligned to the viewport, this could of course be an option.
Yes. Users want to add viewport aligned objects! At least I want!
Please don't again (not you personally, Mal) discredit such a very valuable feature. If I want to add an object to my "table top" it's only one key away. But re-orienting an object that has been set on the table-top by default needs rotating X, rotating Y, rotating Z and relocating and so on...

Really, isn't it intuitive that transformations are relative to the view? Isn't this the same concept as with rotating objects/vertices (unless they are locked to an axis)?
I have already been very disappointed by the new mirroring of objects (amongst a lot of other users). The old one was a damn fast solution. S-X / S-Y ... BANG, BANG,...!
Even if it is only noticeable in seconds but the new solution takes me a lot longer to think about and decide which axis I want the object to be mirrored (irrespective the fact that mirroring "global" isn't even working as expected).
Before, it was more kind of WYSIWYG. I've been having my view and everything that happens in this view is relative to it. Perfect, logic, straight forward!
malCanDo wrote:This is also the way that most other 3D modelling packages work.
Oh please do not open the "pandora's box" with all the stuff-like-it-works-in-other-3d-packages again. I thought we agreed on that allegedly proven concepts may yet be NOT the best choice (Think of the establishment of the VHS video standard over betamax, Video2000 and so on!).
malCanDo wrote:This would make it a LOT easier for new users of Blender.
I cannot follow the focussing on the new users. Surely one shouldn't implement barriers for them by breaking "historic" conventions like setting numeric inputs to hex numbers.
But the main goal should be not to inhibit the advanced user in favour of a workflow targeting on the novice user. This makes no sense. Every new user of blender, and amongst them at least the ones with the intention of seriously using blender for a longer period of time, should be aware of this condition if they later - with increasing experience - benefit from the smarter workflow.

(Sorry again, Mal, no offence, you've just dropped the "right" buzzwords ;-))

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

I'm glad my response got lost in translation.

I think it's a bad idea bellorum.
Blender is not a construction program, it tries to be a creative program.
(no rulers, no value typing, no 4 view modeling!).

What I do find a good idea is the 3d cursor being the holder of the global coordinate system: rotate the 3d cursor and X, Y or Z point another way. Scale the 3d cursor by 10 and everything you add will be 10x as small.
alt-r, alt-s, alt-g and the cursor is all 'normal' again.

bertram
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:03 am

Post by bertram »

Small addition: Features like this haven't been implemented accidentially. Ask yourself why things have been designed like they are. Blender has grown mature by repeatedly being readjusted in production. This is almost the same as shaping a car body in a wind tunnel - and therefore the most effective way of optimizing.
The arguments that are brought forward changing the interface/functionality of blender are neither wrong nor right as long as they don't relate to the kind of car that the submitter of the respective change requests wants to drive (and there again it is... the car-metaphor ;-)) - whether they expect a forklift, an ATV or a sports car.
Installing a giant vertical exhaust pipe to the ATV may be the right choice whereas it would be complete nonsense for the sports car.
I just want to express that I'm aware of the fact that there are no feature requests that are 'wrong'. They simply do fit more or less into the concept behind blender. And yes, it really scares me that one day blender may have turned into a toy like Bryce.

edit: just corrected some typo and grammar mistakes
Last edited by bertram on Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Cyberdigitus
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 3:27 pm
Location: Belgium

Post by Cyberdigitus »

again, the cursor is key here.

new objects are placed at the location of the 3d cursor right? so why not it's orientation to?

all existing functionality could be kept like it works by setting it to a screen space alignment mode (that is persistent and auto-updates), malcando could set it to persistent global space. and now and then we could use it to align objects to any vector, be it an object or a mesh element like a face or something you enter numerically.


what's the difference between complaining new users interested in blender but confused, complaining die hard old-skool users, and complaining people who see both ends but get baffled away by previous two? right the last group wasn't really complaining. Am i complaining now? or are we all creating Blender into an even greater package together?

what's the difference between [new] users refering to other applications to explain a concept or tool, and familiar [blender] users refering to a previous version? right, none, they're both speaking from what they have experience in.

leave all this bashing behind, it doesn't add a thing to the discussion.

Bellorum
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Post by Bellorum »

I think it's a bad idea bellorum.
Blender is not a construction program, it tries to be a creative program.
(no rulers, no value typing, no 4 view modeling!).
Well, sorry, but that's not an argument. How would creativity be lost by having an option (notice I said option) to do it the way I propose? Unless by creativity you actually refer to being too anal retentive to view things from other persons perspectives(absolutely no pun intended) I'm getting pretty fed up with this obsession to always do things the absolute opposite way it's done in other apps.

@Bertram - I'm aware that there has been a design process in the evolution of Blender, but other apps have gone through the same process as well. Who's to say they're wrong and Blender's right all the time? There was no reason whatsoever for you top get upset, since all I, and others proposing the same idea were suggesting was an option. Whatever, like I said, it's not vital.
There's no such thing as democracy. There's only the tyranny of one, and the tyranny of many.

theeth
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:47 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by theeth »

I'll address various points in this post (probably making a bfvietnam of myself) so please bear with me.


Regarding the old way to mirror versus the new one.

The old way to do it was very klunky. Not many people unfamiliar with the concept would have guessed that you'd mirror an object by scaling it. It was as much a trial and error process as the mirror menu is, except that you'd see the result faster since it involved a single keypress (even though the menu entries can be accessed similarly with the number corresponding).
Also, keeping X and Y as mirroring functions in Scaling mode wasn't an option if we wanted it to be compliant with the current use of those keys as transformation modifiers.
While the new mirror menu is much less visual than the old mirror, I don't think it would take much to make it better. Maybe just turning on draw axis automaticly, calling a refresh and then poping the menu. Either way, we're always open to suggestions.


3D cursor holding additional information

This has been discussed in the past, but not extensively. It raises a lot of small useability questions though:
1 - Are we considering the new cursor as a singleton object (one per scene) which the user could transform like any other object?
1.1 - Can it be selected?
1.1.B - If so, can it be selected with other objects or must it stay alone when selected?
1.1.A - If not, how can Blender know you want to transform the cursor?
1.2 - When calling transform on the cursor, how do we handle the transformation center modes?
2 - Same as 1.1.A, if not an object, how does Blender know you want to affect it with transform?
3 - Do we still keep the click to position the cursor?
3.1 - Does it align it's rotation with the view when clicking to position it?

And more. I'm just quoting those as they come to mind.

A good thing is that having the cursor define a vectorial space would give us a new space to constraint to with Transform (this is good, but not necesarely needed).


The whole created object orientation business
Bellorum wrote:That way one could create directly in perspective view, and wouldn't have to worry about switching to an ortographic view first.
Orthographic vs Perspective doesn't affect the orientation of the created objects. Only the orientation of the viewport does. Being in perspective view doesn't disalign your object if your view is aligned with an axis.
Cyberdigitus wrote:3d cursor is a bit of a misnomer now, being only screen aligned.
Well, it does hold 3D coordinates. Is a lamp anyless 3D because rotation doesn't affect it? (yes, I know, semantics... :P)
malCanDo wrote:Thinking of the scene as a table top, you would always add objects with their Z axis aligned with the world axis. If users wanted to add objects aligned to the viewport, this could of course be an option.
Having it as a user option is fine by me.
malCanDo wrote:This is also the way that most other 3D modelling packages work.
I wish people would stop using that as if it were an argument. MS Word holds a large proportion of the text processor market, does that mean all the other should have the hellish animated paper clip helper?

Convenience VS Efficiancy.

If the majority of the 3D softwares used overlapping windows, does that mean we should rip out the non overlapping window principles that Blender uses just to make people feel "better"?

We had a fun debate on that matter regarding the order of the new texture blending mode.

I'd like to point out that I'm not against boworing ideas from other software, as long as our reason to do so is because those ideas are good, not just because "others do it so lets do it too".
Bellorum wrote:Who's to say they're wrong and Blender's right all the time?
Who's to say both can't be right (or both wrong, for that matter). It all depends on the target audience (there, someone dropped another buzz word ;) ).

Random points
joeri wrote:no value typing
That's not particularly true. *hint, just try typing in values when rotating, grabing or scaling an object.*
Betram wrote:setting numeric inputs to hex numbers.
Now, THAT is an idea. :P

Martin
PS: crap, that was long...
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon

Bellorum
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Post by Bellorum »

Orthographic vs Perspective doesn't affect the orientation of the created objects. Only the orientation of the viewport does. Being in perspective view doesn't disalign your object if your view is aligned with an axis.
That's nitpicking. You know what I mean :roll:
Having it as a user option is fine by me.
Thank you.
This is also the way that most other 3D modelling packages work.
I wish people would stop using that as if it were an argument. MS Word holds a large proportion of the text processor market, does that mean all the other should have the hellish animated paper clip helper?
Well, considering people use the exact opposite argument, I don't see why it couldn't be just as valid. You're using the same rhetoric as Joeri here, in that you make analogies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. To clarify, I don't propose to copy everything hands down from every 3d app out there. I propose what I feel is benefitial to my workfllow, simple as that. What irritates me is when people object to proposals because the feature in question is used in other applications, like it would somehow pollute Blender's "sacred philosophy". My point is, that there usually is a reason why so many people request something. Most people rejoiced, when we got the new UI. Traditionalists grumbled in the background. When Blender got an Undo-function, it was overwhelmingly appreciated by the large masses. People became exstatic when the new selection modes were introduced. All issues that had been debated to death before.
Who's to say both can't be right (or both wrong, for that matter)
Absolutely nothing. That's why I proposed an option to begin with, since I can appreciate that others have a different workflow.
There's no such thing as democracy. There's only the tyranny of one, and the tyranny of many.

theeth
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:47 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by theeth »

Bellorum wrote:
Orthographic vs Perspective doesn't affect the orientation of the created objects. Only the orientation of the viewport does. Being in perspective view doesn't disalign your object if your view is aligned with an axis.
That's nitpicking. You know what I mean :roll:
Of course I do, but I'm not the only one that's going to read this thread, am I? :)
Bellorum wrote:You're using the same rhetoric as Joeri here, in that you make analogies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Not quite. While it's true that we used the same kind of analogies, joeri's has a much more provacative edge to it (it's in his nature, I hope you can forgive him. :P ), I used mine to get my point accros. Which you seemed to have missed so I'll have to quote myself:
theeth wrote:I'd like to point out that I'm not against boworing ideas from other software, as long as our reason to do so is because those ideas are good, not just because "others do it so lets do it too".
It's all a matter of intents and reasons.

Stupid yet simple and to the point analogy follows, consider yourself warned.

User Bob posts a feature request. He wants the color of the Z axis to be indigo instead of blue because software X does it.

OR

User Bob posts a feature request. He wants the color of the Z axis to be indigo instead of blue because he saw software X do it and he argues that it is more visible than blue.

Now, which one would have more credibility?

My point (and only that) was that a feature request using the presence of said feature in another software in itself as an argument is pretty much bogus (that particular request is, not the feature it's requesting).

whoa lenghty again...

Martin
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon

Bellorum
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Post by Bellorum »

Not quite. While it's true that we used the same kind of analogies, joeri's has a much more provacative edge to it (it's in his nature, I hope you can forgive him. icon_razz.gif )
As for the Joeri - i noticed :roll: As for your analogy, I stilll think it's uncalled for. What I specifically react to is this:
MS Word holds a large proportion of the text processor market, does that mean all the other should have the hellish animated paper clip helper?
That's turning my argument into something it is not. I've never claimed to want to copy every ridiculous feature of every other application, just the ones that, again, are beneficial to my workflow.
I'd like to point out that I'm not against boworing ideas from other software, as long as our reason to do so is because those ideas are good, not just because "others do it so lets do it too".
From earlier post. Just wanted to point out that I agree in full.
Stupid yet simple and to the point analogy follows, consider yourself warned.
Preparing myself :wink:
Stupid yet simple and to the point analogy follows, consider yourself warned.

User Bob posts a feature request. He wants the color of the Z axis to be indigo instead of blue because software X does it.

OR

User Bob posts a feature request. He wants the color of the Z axis to be indigo instead of blue because he saw software X do it and he argues that it is more visible than blue.

Now, which one would have more credibility?

My point (and only that) was that a feature request using the presence of said feature in another software in itself as an argument is pretty much bogus (that particular request is, not the feature it's requesting).
We are in agreement again. And I think I clearly stated why, in the beginning of this thread why I, not necessarily needed, but wouldn't mind this feature. The "Every other app"-argument should be read as "Is everyone else wrong?"
I meant for a debate on this issue, but instead I got the usual sarcastic reaction from Joeri et al, telling me how I want to dummify Blender and that my suggestion would would in some way inhibit the creativity in Blender.

So in final, I have no beef with you being of another opinion. Heck, you're doing the coding, in the end you have the power, I have not. We do, essentially agree on a lot. But don't tell me that I'm trying to ruin Blender, because that deeply upsets me :?
There's no such thing as democracy. There's only the tyranny of one, and the tyranny of many.

joeri
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:41 pm
Contact:

Post by joeri »

now I have to quote myself
Joeri wrote: I think it's a bad idea bellorum.
Blender is not a construction program, it tries to be a creative program.
(no rulers, no value typing, no 4 view modeling!).
How is this sarcastic?
I'm trying to explain the spirit of blender and how your suggestion does not fit in that spirit. How your taste is different from the taste I want blender to have.
I'm hardly ever sarcastic.
Bellorum wrote:... The "Every other app"-argument should be read as "Is everyone else wrong?"
Wrong smong*,... If it doesn't fit the blender workflow, then it's not suited for blender.

But yes, on most issues others are wrong.
For example; it's well known that the question box "Are you sure you want to quit, because you didn't save yet" [YES] [NO] [CANCEL] is very wrong, yet most applications use it.
Another example: overlapping windows: bad idea. Most apps use it.

So, adding objects in the origin facing one way: wrong.
As wrong as adding faces in the origin facing one way.
Or adding verteces in the origin and move them with the 'G' key.
If there is one spot where an object does not needs to be it's in the origin facing front. That would make some very boring images/animations.

See, but now I'm putting time and effort in explaining my point of view without you ever having to do that. You just state: "I like cherry" and get all upset if I state that cherry's are bad.
I meant for a debate on this issue, but instead I got the usual sarcastic reaction from Joeri et al, telling me how I want to dummify Blender and that my suggestion would in some way inhibit the creativity in Blender.
You wish I was sarcastic. It's a dump idea. No sarcasm here.
I also know why it's a dump idea, Maya has it, I use it every day.
The 3d cursor/viewport idea is far more superiour then any other solution.
Debate? Where are your arguments on how blender users novice & experts will benefit from your personal taste?

I didn't say you want to dummify blender, what I said was that in my opinion a feature like that would dummify blender.
In my world it does not revolve around you.
We do, essentially agree on a lot. But don't tell me that I'm trying to ruin Blender, because that deeply upsets me :?
I can imagine, yet you have no trouble to discredit others.


Another issue that keeps popping up in feature requests is:
"Just turn it off", "It's optional!"
So, why put it in then?
-(Be sure that iv'e deleted a big part of my post here)-
To put it blunt: I'm against any feature that I'll tick off. And I'll state that in this forum.
Why would I be for it? "Bellorum wants it", "Theeth was bored".

Lets first add features that nobody wants to tick off:
- Driven keys.
- Every blender value animatable. by IPO, expression or python.
- NLA
- Tools related to IK/FK managing and switching.
- Flexible vertex binding.
- Shareble weightmaps.
- Senseble blend shapes (relative vertex keys that users understand)
You know, the normal animation tools that the other packages have.

*little NaN joke.

Bellorum
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:27 pm

Post by Bellorum »

*sigh* :roll: I'm not going to continue this discussion, because I have more productive discussions with the birds in the park.
There's no such thing as democracy. There's only the tyranny of one, and the tyranny of many.

Post Reply