[Bf-funboard] ] constraints

Jonathan Bartlett bf-funboard@blender.org
Tue, 8 Jul 2003 07:21:08 -0700 (PDT)


This is excellent, especially when you want to duplivert multiple objects.
If you do it by parenting, you have to duplicate your object for each
duplivert-set you do.  If you do it with some sort of linking, then you
can use the same object to duplivert anything you want.

I ran into this when building tile walls - I kept having to copy my tile,
and when I wanted to modify the tile slightly, I had to modify all of my
copies identically.

Jon


On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Matt Ebb wrote:

> Sorry, maybe I didn't explain well - let me clarify.
>
> I wasn't suggesting to simply remove the parenting function, and leave
> things as they are (with copy location/rotation constraints).
>
> My suggestion was to remove the parenting function, and in its place create
> *new*, additional constraints that add/inherit (I guess that's the same
> thing) transformation from the object, which would function in exactly the
> same way as parenting currently does (child object inheriting
> transformations from the parent object, but still free to be transformed on
> its own).
>
> To keep the interface backwards compatible, using CTRL-P could automatically
> create an 'inherit location', an 'inherit rotation' and an 'inherit scale'
> constraint, which would then function in exactly the same way as the current
> parenting system does (without the track-following, dupliverting, etc.
> etc.). For extra flexibility, you could then turn off selected constraints
> to do things like inheriting the location, but not rotation (which we now
> have to do with messy vertex parents).
>
> Is this what you were concerned about?
>
> Cheers
>
> Matt
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jean Montambeault" <coussin@videotron.ca>
> To: <bf-funboard@blender.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 10:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bf-funboard] ] constraints
>
>
> > Ton Roosendaal wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I miss the point as well Jean...
> > > Please elaborate the statements below:
> > >
> > >> split up it's kind of constraints
> > >> (which are and utterly different animal than what we call
> > >> constraints  in Blender for now, I hope that we can agree on that at
> > >> least)
> > >
> >
> > The way parenting 'constraints' its children let us free to transform
> > the children at will.
> > The way our present constraints operates, if you 'Copy location' the
> > constrained object can't be moved independantly.
> >  From the user's point of view the difference is absolute although it
> > could not be so from the programmer's point of view.
> >
> > Something else that probably has no meaning from the programmer's point
> > of view but makes a lot of sense from the user's :
> > when defining a mini-coordinate system, I fine tune my animation and,
> > once satisfied, give to every element a parent, usually an empty.
> >  From the programmers standpoint this is just constraining as usual.
> >  From my user's point I have no use for the concept of constraint at all
> > ; it wouldn't be fertile. What I'd rather see is a bunch of children
> > *using* the parent to extract coordinates from it. Other than that the
> > parent has no influence and could be in China for what I care.
> >  If you accept that conceptualisation you get an unexpected extention of
> > the tool that can proove very rich.
> > I understand that this is not what the algorithm says but it has no
> > importance. The use extends the tool : always.
> > I am sure that if we go Matt's way and invent all kinds of constraints,
> > even when some may seem to be of limited usefullness at first, you never
> > know what side effect might develop, you never know what the creativity
> > of the user will extract out of them. The perspective really fills me
> > with enthousiasm.
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > and:
> > >
> > >> But entirely getting rid of a simple, efficient , universally
> > >> understood and used tool won't ever make the smallest bit of sense
> > >> to  me.
> > >
> >
> > Then again this must be seen from the user's point of vue, who, sorry to
> > say, doesn't care for the underlying algorithms.
> > The user's may come from another software and chances are that he is
> > familiar with parenting since it is of an almost universal use : why
> > make his life difficult when leaving a minimal parenting system to greet
> > him would make the transition so much easier : universality and
> > efficiency since it facilitates the communication.
> > ( Not to worry : with a powerful constraining system as discussed here
> > nobody will want to live without it.)
> > 'Make parent' is also a quite simple way to access to an often used set
> > of constraints : simplicity and efficiency.
> >
> > Give the poor soul that much no matter how it is achieved : use your new
> > constraint system at will but make it transparent on that occasion for
> > the user.
> >
> > Hope this is clearer.
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Jean
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-funboard mailing list
> > Bf-funboard@blender.org
> > http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard@blender.org
> http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>