[Bf-committers] Proportional editing distance calculation ?
Jace Priester
jacepriester at threespaceimaging.com
Fri Apr 12 21:51:29 CEST 2013
I can think of a reason. Say you want to use proportional edit along a
curve, either an actual curve object or mesh representing a curve, and this
curve is some sort of camera or object path or whatnot. It seems likely
that in this situation one would be interested in proportional editing
based on the distance traversed down the path, rather than based on simply
nearest points in 3d space. This is actually the mode that I use sometimes
since I frequently deal with curve-based motion paths which occasional loop
back around on themselves and such. IMO it shouldn't be switched to one or
the other, but a new option added instead so that both methods can be
accommodated.
Label suggestions ... ?
Connected/By 3D Distance
Connected/By Distance Along Path
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Bradley Smith <bradley at baysmith.com> wrote:
> Proportional editing connected mode is using the graph distance (the
> distance calculated when traversing the mesh to find connected
> vertices) rather than the Euclidean distance. The behavior seems to
> have been altered on Feb 1, 2010, with commit 26537 "Proportional Edit
> Connected: Use connectivity distance for falloff (connectivity
> distance now also calculated across inner face edges)."
>
> Reversing the behavior can be easily accomplished by deleting three
> lines of code (lines 1724-1726 in transform_generics.c). However, I
> don't know what effect this would have beyond fixing the behavior of
> mesh editing with proportional editing connected mode.
>
> Does someone know a reason for using the graph distance rather than
> the Euclidean distance?
>
> Bradley
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Hadrien Brissaud <hadriscus at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have come across an annoying behaviour when using proportional editing
> -
> > connected mode. This mode is very useful for situations where we don't
> want
> > nearby, unconnected areas to be affected by transformations made with
> > proportional editing enabled.
> >
> > This happens with "*proportional edit"* on :
> http://i.imgur.com/FE6uPh1.png
> > Now, this happens with "*proportional editing connected"* on :
> > http://i.imgur.com/U5TZW3i.png
> >
> > I understand this is likely due to the way Blender calculates distance to
> > nearby vertices - for instance, diagonals may be calculated as twice
> > farther than directly-connected vertices. This is verified by attempting
> > the same deformation on a radially-subdivided mesh :
> > http://i.imgur.com/O6PPKVf.png (it works "as expected")
> >
> > As reference, Maya handles both situations the same way, and this is the
> > result : http://imgur.com/B6bQ0sL
> >
> > How easily could this be fixed ?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Hadrien
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jace Priester
Threespace Imaging
jacepriester at threespaceimaging.com
559-284-0904
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Bf-committers
mailing list