[Bf-committers] Simple Deform modifier setting removed?

[Campbell Barton]

Ah, I mis-remembered how the option was used, your correct that this
is only for objects.

Even in this case though I think its quite arbitrary to have this
option for simple-deform, it could just as easily apply to
cast/warp/wave/array/mirror/hook/screw.

IMHO theres a real advantage to having the point of interest
(pivot/center) being WYSIWYG, even when that means you need to parent
the object.


If this ability is really useful, then we miss it for all the other modifiers.

We could have a XYZ center point offset (to be applied in object
localspace), then if you really wanted to control with an objects
absolute coords, the XYZ values could be driven.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:19 AM, Linus Wiklander
<linus.wiklander at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Campbell, but I'm not sure we have a common view of how the
> setting works.
>
> The 'relative' checkbox only affects the modifier if the origin-box
> references an object. If I just add the modifier and adjust the values
> without selecting an origin object, I can still move it around without
> the deform changing, which is good. The checkbox does not make a
> difference here, all good.
>
> If I add an empty at (0,0,0), reference it and uncheck the relative box,
> I can move the object around without the deform changing.
>
> If, on the other hand, I add an empty at (0,0,0), reference it and check
> the relative box, the deformed object will change when I move it.
>
> In both cases, if the empty is moved, the deform changes, but relative
> mode takes into account the object to empty relation and non-relative
> mode takes into account the empty to origin relation. I guess this is
> what you refer to in your last post.
>
> The new version removes the checkbox and works as if 'relative' is
> always checked, which makes the object deform when it is moved. This
> requires the empty to be parented to the object in order to move it
> around, which perhaps is a better way going forward, but it is
> unfortunate that the other mode is removed altogether, breaking
> compatibility with files created in previous versions.
>
> I thought compatibility breaking was planned for 2.7, so I don't see why
> this came now?
>
> Is it possible to have a general approach with these types of changes?
> Some sort of transitional legacy or advanced option?
>
>
> I just managed to find a workaround to another change that allowed me to
> move from 2.64 to the current release when I work with these files, but
> then this issue came along instead =/
>
>
> Since parenting is required to retain the shape of an object when it's
> moved, could this be added to the modifier options directly? Would make
> sense to me, but certain special cases perhaps need to be though through.
> This should be suggested somewhere else perhaps?
>
> / Linus
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers



-- 
- Campbell