[Bf-committers] Shapes / Shape Keys - confusing terminology

joe joeedh at gmail.com
Mon Nov 2 04:26:26 CET 2009


I think this is too foriegn to standard terminology to work. Why can't
we just go with "blend shape" or something?

Joe

On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Fabrizio Cali <fabcali at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think the term 'shape' is too generic and a too commonly used
> English word in arts and crafts - digital or otherwise. This would
> make things more confusing - not less - to explain.
>
> Just imagine: "Yes. An object can have a certain shape ...but when we
> say shape, we actually mean various varied shapes of the original
> shape stored in the file that we can later key to in varying amounts.
> This gives us lots of inbetween new shapes..."  uhm......WHAT?!  8-/
>
> ;)
>
> How about 'Mold'?
> I know it can have the exact same problems as Shape but it's a much
> less frequent used term in computer terminology. It also has stronger
> 3D connotations than Shape which is a common term even in 2D programs
> and it is also more apt as when you an make an RVK/VK  target, what
> you're doing is preparing a 'Mold' for your mesh to conform to...
> So we can now shape a Mold, key a Mold, sculpt a Mold etc etc. :)
>
> Otherwise I'd prefer MorphTarget or even Blendshape but 'shape' on its
> own will be problematic linguistically imo.
>
>
> And guys: Thanks for the great work you're doing on 2.5!!! :)
> Have a good week!
> :)
> Fabs
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list