[Bf-committers] Component Group Proposal

[Mike Belanger]

True - RIG in front of all bone names is obtrusive.

+1 from me for a visual distinction.


On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <
zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:

> That proves my point, there is a need for a distinction, and its not that
> simple. You would need to also name all your bones starting with RIG
> because
> vgroups are linked to bones by the names
>
> Daniel Salazar
> www.3developer.com
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Mike Belanger
> <mikejamesbelanger at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > In current ( 2.49b) to make a distinction between modifier and rigging
> vert
> > groups, I just prefix names with RIG or VERT.  Does this help?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <
> > zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also I want to mention this would help on the tasks of deleting all
> > vgroups
> > > used on an armature without deleting the ones used on hair or similar
> > > stuff.
> > > Currently I use a simple py script with an exclusion list for this
> > > repetitive task. Would be nice if we could do this kind of operations
> for
> > > the relevant set only
> > >
> > > Daniel Salazar
> > > www.3developer.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com <
> > > zanqdo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yah I mentioned this is a visual separation I'm proposing
> > > > and completely optional. A group belonging to one set or another
> > woudn't
> > > > have any effect on the group's usage all over blender.
> > > >
> > > > Daniel Salazar
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Brandon Phoenix <ktbluear at yahoo.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hey Daniel,
> > > >> Just to clarify: "Maybe you can expand this concept to include Group
> > > >> Sets? This would be bags of data groups that could
> > > >> classifyvertes/edges/groups for their usage". Here you're
> essentially
> > > >> suggesting groups of groups? So that all of the vert groups used in
> > > rigging
> > > >> are kept separate from, say, the groups used to emit hair etc.?
> > > >> I'm not sure I agree with this though: "example the set of vertex
> > > >> groups that an specific armature modifier uses should not be
> visually
> > > >> mixed with the ones that are just used to feed another modifier". I
> > can
> > > >> think of cases that it may be beneficial to use the same edge group
> > for
> > > >> multiple things. For example, it is often beneficial to seam UVs
> along
> > > hard
> > > >> normal edges, so the sharp marked edge group could just be passed
> into
> > > the
> > > >> UV set, if that makes sense. Perhaps if it was at the user's
> > discretion
> > > to
> > > >> separate the group sets. I'll need to speak to matt_e about a UI
> > > >> implementation of this, because I'm not sure I've seen something
> like
> > it
> > > >> (outside of the outliner). I like the idea though, I'll see what I
> can
> > > draw
> > > >> up.
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> -Brandon Phoenix
> > > >> (I realized in my initial e-mail, I signed my name "Brandon
> Phoenix?".
> > > >> Oops.)
> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------Date:
> Sun,
> > 20
> > > >> Jun 2010 21:11:04 -0600
> > > >> From: "Daniel Salazar - 3Developer.com" <zanqdo at gmail.com>
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Component Group Proposal
> > > >> To: bf-blender developers <bf-committers at blender.org>
> > > >> Message-ID:
> > > >>     <AANLkTilmAVQruRz6nq-M4G2Os-N4hWy58BdUrxSk6qKC at mail.gmail.com>
> > > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > > >>
> > > >> This is something that has been a real need since the introduction
> of
> > > >> modifiers. Maybe you can expand this concept to include Group Sets?
> > > >> This would be bags of data groups that could classify
> > > >> vertes/edges/groups for their usage, example the set of vertex
> groups
> > > >> that an specific armature modifier uses should not be visually mixed
> > > >> with the ones that are just used to feed another modifier
> > > >>
> > > >> cheers
> > > >>
> > > >> Daniel Salazar
> > > >> www.3developer.com
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Brandon Phoenix <
> ktbluear at yahoo.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > This proposal is aimed at expanding the functionality of vertex
> > groups
> > > >> and unifying the UI by adding both vertex and face grouping. This
> may
> > be
> > > a
> > > >> bit late for the 2.6 release, but should probably be considered for
> > the
> > > >> future. I would like to solicit as much discussion on the topic as
> > > possible.
> > > >> The document is here:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > http://dim.blenderge.com/Documents/componentGroupProposal.pdf
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thank you,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Brandon Phoenix
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > > >> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > > >> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Bf-committers mailing list
> > > >> Bf-committers at blender.org
> > > >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Bf-committers mailing list
> > > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.watchmike.ca
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers at blender.org
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>



-- 
www.watchmike.ca