<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Hi everyone,</div><div><br></div><div>One thing I really miss when using proportional editing is colour coded vertices that show the falloff on the mesh itself. I have always found the selection area circle to be a little clumsy and hard to use well. Sure, we all make do, but I think that showing the selection on the vertices themselves is much more accurate, intuitive and user friendly. :)</div><div><br></div><div>Basically what this entails is that you colour the vertices based upon the strength of the selection area/falloff (based upon the falloff presets). Vertices that are most affected would be red, orange would be next through to yellow, green and blue as the selection strength/falloffs influence wanes blue would be no influence). This would allow people to see exactly which areas are going to be affected before they even move anything on the mesh itself as opposed to the current method which requires the user to transform geometry to see if it is exactly what they wanted or not.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/metalliandy/image_zps4dc0d92c.jpg">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/metalliandy/image_zps4dc0d92c.jpg</a></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers, </div><div><br></div><div>-Andy</div><div><br></div><div><br>On 17 Jun 2013, at 20:28, Campbell Barton <<a href="mailto:ideasman42@gmail.com">ideasman42@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Howard Trickey</span><br><span><<a href="mailto:howard.trickey@gmail.com">howard.trickey@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Campbell Barton <<a href="mailto:ideasman42@gmail.com">ideasman42@gmail.com</a>></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Hi, There are cases where the current proportional edit-mode</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>'Connected' option doesn't give a nice smooth result across a grid for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>example.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>For details see the 2 links below, but these images sum up the problem</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>quite well:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://projects.blender.org/tracker/download.php/9/498/35590/25506/ProportionalEditingBug.png">http://projects.blender.org/tracker/download.php/9/498/35590/25506/ProportionalEditingBug.png</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>* <a href="http://i.imgur.com/U5TZW3i.png">http://i.imgur.com/U5TZW3i.png</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Details... previous discussion and bug report:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=35590&group_id=9&atid=498">http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=35590&group_id=9&atid=498</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>* <a href="http://markmail.org/message/zkon53qzx32b5xek">http://markmail.org/message/zkon53qzx32b5xek</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Probably long discussion is not needed about this.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think there are 2 obvious options....</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>1) Accept that connected works like this, just close the bug and tell</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>users it known limitation with current design.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>2) Add a second "Connected" option, so we have...</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>* "Connected (Topology)" --- what we have now.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>* "Connected (Distance)" --- the real distance would work like it did</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>many years ago, so only connected geometry is effected, but that</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>geometry uses the distance between the 2 points without measuring</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>along the topology.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>{for a less obvious option}</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>3) we could keep the options as they are now, but make "Connected"</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>work without giving ugly artifacts,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>... For example rather them simply measuring along edges we could</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>measure across faces too... this would take longer to do and not</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>necessarily give perfectly smooth results, but could still be worth</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>looking into.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think this 'across-face' rule could possible work. After all, the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>vertices</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>ARE connected via the face so it makes sense that the distance across</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the face should be what is measured for the strength of the effect.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Added support for measuring across the face, r57528 (always enabled)</span><br><span></span><br><span>The falloff is still not nice and rounded, but with diagonals its a</span><br><span>little better with a grid.</span><br><span></span><br><span><a href="http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/pet_diagonal.png">http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/pet_diagonal.png</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>I'm less worried about this artifact then before, I tested the Sintel</span><br><span>model and I cant get it to show any artifacts using pet-connected so</span><br><span>this is not so much a problem unless you are wanting to use pet on</span><br><span>grids.</span><br><span></span><br><span>At least wont look like this anymore.</span><br><span><a href="http://i.imgur.com/U5TZW3i.png">http://i.imgur.com/U5TZW3i.png</a></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>Bug [#35590], was in fact an unrelated error in the connectivity check</span><br><span>(fixed r57532)</span><br><span><a href="http://projects.blender.org/tracker/download.php/9/498/35590/25506/ProportionalEditingBug.png">http://projects.blender.org/tracker/download.php/9/498/35590/25506/ProportionalEditingBug.png</a></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>When I first read this, I though that it would destroy the use case in this</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>mail:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2013-April/039799.html">http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-committers/2013-April/039799.html</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span> -- that is, a long chain of vertices that form a path that comes</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>near itself distance-wise but not topologically, and you only want to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>affect the ones that are near topologically. But here there are no faces</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>across which the vertices that are 'near distance-wise' are near across.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Even if you changed the long chain of vertices into a long strip of quads,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the same argument would hold.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think what we would really like is that proportional edit measures</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>real distances that follow the surface of the mesh, as short as possible</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>following that rule. If there are no faces, it would have to follow edges,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>but measure the length along those edges.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>But this might be hard to calculate, especially if the mesh is non-manifold.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>There may be multiple paths between two points, complicating things even</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>further.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Was thinking over possible ways to get this working and concluded that</span><br><span>its probably too much to calculate...</span><br><span>we could...</span><br><span></span><br><span>- Add more fine grained measurement when walking over the mesh - use</span><br><span>face centers, middle of edges, and walk across these too, the error</span><br><span>will still exist but be less obvious.</span><br><span></span><br><span>- Record the path to the closest vertex, then re-walk the path and</span><br><span>perform a `straighten` on that path based on surrounding faces.</span><br><span></span><br><span>- Fake it and take turning corners into account when walking over</span><br><span>manifold edges, I think this could avoid artifacts across flat</span><br><span>surfaces, but it could interfere with the cases where you just want</span><br><span>direct topology-length without any extra calculations over the top.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>If we don't want to go down the path of trying to implement that, I would be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>in favor of option 2. Or maybe a variant of that where you provide a slider</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that goes from 0->1 to say what proportion to consider topological distance</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>vs distance in 3-space.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Not sure a slider is really needed, we dont have a good place for this</span><br><span>in the UI at the moment either.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>--</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>- Campbell</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Bf-modeling mailing list</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>_______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Bf-modeling mailing list</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>-- </span><br><span>- Campbell</span><br><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Bf-modeling mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>