[Bf-committers] Transform Refactoring

Martin Poirier theeth at yahoo.com
Thu Sep 16 18:01:16 CEST 2004

Ah yes, if you had limits (restricting motion on a
face for example), that would be a different matter.

I still don't see where you're going with the
pass/fail part. What do you do if it fails? You'd
still have to do something about it, not just report a
failure (in the case of the face limit, that would
mean snapping to the edges).

In the case of bones rotation limits though, that's
more of an intrinsinct properties of the bones instead
of a generic constraint that would be applied to all
of them.

As far as generic axis/planar constraint goes, it
wouldn't change much from how the current system does
it except in a much more axis unaware way. Add to that
a bit of cleverness to handle constraining to axis
that are semi-perpendicular to the screen (I'll keep
that up my sleeve for now, I'm pretty sure it will
work, but it will need testing).


--- Jeremy Wall <zaphar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah I think I'm not communicating very well. I
> talked about this a
> little several months ago on my armature wiki. It
> goes into more
> detail about what I was thinking. Basically I had
> thought:
> 1.) constraints would hold limits for a given
> transformation action. 
> 2.) before each iteration of the transform loop
> would apply its
> changes it would call a general constraint function
> which would return
> a pass/fail for the transform. the transformation
> only gets applied if
> it passes the constraint test (meaning it doesn't go
> outside the
> limits).
> I guess I was just wondering how you were thinking
> of handling
> constraint evaluation.
> Jeremy Wall
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org

Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list