[Bf-committers] Re: Re: Bugtracker lost me again....

[Robert Wenzlaff]

> Meino.Cramer at gmx.de (2004-12-26 at 1716.58 +0100):
> > > Size in the panel describes the scaling of the object. You can have
> > > any object with size 1, 1, 1 and any apparent size. Or the inverse,
> > > multiple objects that look the same, but have different sizes in the
> > > panel. Try scaling inside edit mode and outside, and check when the
> > > Size values changes. Also try subsurf (best way to get ultra round
> > > spheres from a icosphere), and enjoy the manual positioning (with
> > > plain spheres you can scale by 0.7 and get an acceptable solution).
> >
> >   Yes, yes and yes.
> >
> >   I know. how it _does_ work, GSR. That's why I am posting.

The way I read it, it all comes down to is he prefers his default spheres 
inscribed instead of curcumscribed.   (He wants his default sphere to fit 
inside the default cube, not the other way around.)

If you do your example viewed from the top, you will see that the corners of 
your plane (maximum extent of the shape) align perfectly with the radius of 
your sphere (also a maximum extent, as is evey point on a sphere).  The same  
is true of a default cube.  All 8 corners align with the surface of the 
sphere.   The sizes are chosen such that the point (1,1) is on the radii.  
Other apps tend to think more in terms of unit bounding boxes (it's probably 
the more common philosophy).

As far as changing the internals, no need.  If all he is talking about is the 
default shapes, then the data could simply be changed for the default shape.  
Any previous .blends already have their size and data recorded, and any calls 
to Add->Sphere in a newer version would simply have verts added a little 
closer to the center.  It would not affect spheres that already exist.  It 
would only become a problem in tutes that used the fact that a default cube 
fits inside a default sphere (or some other assuption that follows from that 
fact)...

As far as this goes, there's no point arguing an arbitrary descision unless 
you can show that a far greater number of people prefer it inscribed to 
circumscribed.   But it is certainly not a "bug".  At best (and I hesitate to 
say this because they are being abused for so much already) it should be a 
userpref.  

As to this being pointless, yes, I'm inclinded to think so.  As less than 2% 
of the work I've ever seen (including new users' stuff) has extensive use of 
default primitives.  

If this is not what he wants, but he really wants to change the meaning of 
SizeX/Y/Z, then it is an excedingly bad idea.  All internal problems aside 
(and there are plenty),  what if you want 2 objects to use the same mesh but 
at different sizes?   
-- 
*************************************************************
You may be a hacker if. . . 
 More than 15% of your Hard Drive consists of core dumps. . .
         And you buy a larger drive so you can keep them.
*************************************************************
Robert Wenzlaff                   rwenzlaff at soylent-green.com