[Bf-funboard] alt R

[hovergo at net-tech.com.au]

Hi Mal
Thanks for your response,  I have inserted some comments below yours 
within the email
I too am glad that there is some discussion on this, it iitially had me 
perplexed.
Roger

Mal wrote:

> Hi Roger,
>
> It's great to hear more opinions on this subject.
>
>> If one works with 3 views on monitor screen then the inserted object 
>> orients according to the active view, the view on which the mouse is 
>> operating. I suggest to simply add an object ' within in the view you 
>> wish it to be oriented to '.
>
>
> This raises an imporant issue... Blender doesn't start with 3 views ( 
> or more common in pro setups, 4 views - top, left, front and 
> perspective ).

------>--- I start Blender with one view, usually NUMKEY 1 (side 
elevation) or Num7 Plan (top) view and constantly flick between 7, 1 and 
3 but then I need full screen for the models some of which can be 10 
metres long x 4 metres wide.
One of the confusions I had with StudioMax and others is their 
propensity to start in 4 views.


---->----In fact I reset the keys in Turbocad 3D solid geom (windows) to 
work on 7, 3 and 1.----<----

>
> This means that, in order to explain this not so simple "simply add an 
> object ' within in the view you wish it to be oriented to '." concept, 
> the user firstly needs to know how to create a 3 or 4 screen setup in 
> Blender - more complexity for new users.
>
> ----->-- which I do not reccomend. Instead I set the default user 
> <crtl U> to 1 view with a slightly deformed cube, and get them 
> acustomed  to numkeys 7, 1 and 3 and <lmb> mouse drag for perspective.
>
> This is the way I show learners, they seem to grasp it ok. Look at a 
> match box. It has a top (colored picture),  a side (the striker plate) 
> and an end-  (slider) - no matter what position or how high 
> (orientation) you hold it above the table (in virtual space)  it 
> remains 3 elevations top side and end.

Every object on the planet and in space is a shape variation of a matchbox.
(Note I do not use ball  because it has none of these attributes and a 
cylinder has only 2).
Start Blender with one full screen view only, say num7 (plan/Top),  
position the 3D cursor where you want an object placed and insert a cube.
Go to num1, Side view) move the 3d cursor and insert a cylinder.
Go to num 3 (end view), move the 3d cursor and insert a tube.
Now using num 4 and 8 or num 2 and 6, to get an iso view, move the 3d 
cursor to a clear area and insert a cube, select a vertex and drag it 
out a bit.
Deselect all
Now with the mouse or 2,4,6,8 keys move the view around screen and see 
how each object is oriented in relation to 'where the monitor screen was 
set at the time. I hope I explain this well enough.
--------<------

>
>> The misunderstanding of pre orienting objects comes form one's 
>> training not from Blender.
>
>
> I'd say it's more basic than that... most people starting to work with 
> a 3D app think of placing objects in the virtual world in the same way 
> as placing objects in the real world on a table - facing in the 
> correct up orientation, no matter how tall or short ( Z ) they are, or 
> what angle they are facing the table at ( X and Y ).
>
> --------> Yes I agree with you, I had the same difficulty initially.  
> However if you consider say The Enterprise from Star Trek in deep 
> space as an example.
> Its not relevant to any particular position or plane --- and may be 
> flying uside down or on its side, no one inside or outside on the hull 
> knows or cares because everything in and around the ship is oriented 
> to 3 planes of the ship - top, side and end - note I did not say x, y, 
> and z because everyone should be able to grasp top, side and end of an 
> object .

> In this respect the word  'virtual' is misleading because humans can 
> only relate to a position in space relative to their own body, 
> DaVinci's Man drawing is a good representation of the 3 main views.
> This is why I use the monitor screen as the view on which I work. ----<---

Having objects added in an always up position would comply with this 
physical metaphor.
--------->------
A good example that confuses me considerably is  as follows:
Starting with one view on screen.
in Num 1 view(side elevation, add a bezier curve. In Edit, make it 3d,  
poly, delete a couple of middle verts.
Stretch it to be about 5 metres or 5 major grid squares long.
Grab a vertex at the left end and move it up 4 minor grid squares
Grab the next vertex in and move it up 2 minor grid squares.
Go to plan view num 7
Move the first vertex on the left 2 major grid squares up the grid.
Move the second vertex, one major grid square up.
Deselect all
Moving the view around you will see  a 3d line in the x,y,z directions 
on a virtual plane.
Num1 view somwhere below the line add a besier curve, grab the vertexes 
and move them so you have a semicircle about 3 or 4 minor grid squares 
diameter (from top to bottom) and 1.5 to 2 squares radius so it looks 
like a C or half a tube.
<N> Name the bezier C and position the 3d cursor and centre of the C 
bezier on the bottom vertex end of the semicircle.
Now you have a line which has an upwad kink and a bezier curve in the 
same view.

In BevObj enter C,  and the semicircle  C bezier will extrude along the 
3d bezier line. <Z> will show the extruded object or its wireframe.
But
Its orientation is inside out and on it's side. (Why doesnt it extrude 
exactly as I have drawn it - ) Reason is that the orientation of the C 
bezier is different from the line Bezier.
To get the orientation right, select the C bezier in edit mode and 
rotate it  until the extrusion forms a half pipe with the ends vertical
Apologies for the long wided wordage.
Why are the orientation of the 2 beziers (apparently) 90 or 270 deg out 
of wack I would have thought top was top.

For this reason I tend to avoid pre orientation of an object placement 
and simply rotate it to the correct position after insertng.
---------<-------------------

>
>> If one comes to Blender from a 3D Solid Geometry background where 
>> work planes are required on which to place objects then object 
>> placement is simple as accepting the screen face (the grid) as the 
>> work plane.
>
>
> True... due to previous training in this field, which is a great 
> background to have, but may not be too common.
> ---->-- It comes to mind that  almost everyone draws on a piece of 
> paper, or on the ground in the dust as a means of putting a picture to 
> the words, there's really no difference between drawing these ways or 
> on a monitor. The key for me was understanding that I am working with 
> a pre made match box or cylinder not a few lines which have to be 
> given a thickness.
>
>> If one comes from a 3D space background, the whole process becomes 
>> confusing when trying to relate it to Blender.
>> --->--- Why is this ?  I suspect that in 3d space, there are no x,y 
>> and z and no grid lines so object placement is relative to another 
>> object. -  I would like to be able to use an object's face as an 
>> x,y,z work plane for object placement.---<----
>>
>> ---->----- Another thought, We can only mouse drag a vertex point 
>> across or up and down the monitor screen, there is no 3D. If the 
>> screen  and grid are not parallel the vertex gets dragged diagonally 
>> to the grid and object ' acording to the screen ' not the grid. In 
>> some respects I would rather not have the grid ---<------
>>
>> --->---- I would like to see a differentiation between the camera and 
>> the monitor screen.  The camera allows us to take a snap shot 
>> (render) where as we actually wotk on the screen. Shame we can't get 
>> an F12 render from the screen, I find cameras messy to position. 
>> ----<=====
>>
>
> Again, true, and this is where most people would be coming from ( 3D 
> space = real physical world )
> --->---Thats the trick, there's really no 3d space on a 2d monitor, 
> our mind is trained to see perspective and says its 3d.
>
>> May I suggest that in tutorials,  the first thought process would be, 
>> to teach students is that the monitor screen face (view) is the 'work 
>> plane'  upon which objects are placed.
>
>
> I'm actually writing an article at the moment for BSoD ( regarding the 
> GE ), and it's complex enough to teach the concepts of the tutorial to 
> allow for beginners as well as more advanced users, without having to 
> also bring in additional ( and potentially confusing ) workflow issues.
> ----.>---- If I can help, please let me know ----<--------
>
> Of course, if the student sticks with Blender, then they will learn 
> how to overcome all of these nuances, but if they don't stick with 
> Blender and migrate to another 3D app, then the community has lost a 
> potentially great 3D artist.
>
>
> If you're a pro user, try teaching Blender to someone who hasn't used 
> it before ( even if they have used another 3D app, but preferably 
> coming from scratch and with a great interest in learning ), and you 
> will soon see cracks in the UI for beginners that could be easily fixed.
>
> --->-- Ah Yes! at the moment, I'm trying to teach Blender by email to 
> someone with very little 3d concept  of space.
> I'm trying to work out how he sees things so that I can teach fom his 
> point of observation.

Cracks in the Ui ? ,  I can't comment, my mind doesn't see them.


>
> Let the debate continue! :) Yes please,  Roger
> Mal
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>
>