[Bf-funboard] ] constraints
Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:39:59 +0200
Hrms, then the confusement is in literally translating Constraints, as
something that is 'limiting' or so...
For me a 'Constraint' is a more a general description of a relationship
in Blender. These relations 'constrain' certain aspacts of one object
to another. The fact that you can still select and move a Child Object,
doesn't mean it is not 'constrained'. Do a SHIFT+CTRL+P to find out
what Parenting really is...
For a user, to present this new system, we can simply keep the old
commands in Blender: CTRL+P, ALT+P, CTRL+T, ALT+T. Even the menu that
pops up can keep the old name. So nothing changes... until a user wants
to tweak the parent or tracking relationship further.
We can also rename "Constraint" to "Relationship" or so... I think the
first name is just more common used in other 3d programs.
On Tuesday, Jul 8, 2003, at 14:16 Europe/Amsterdam, Jean Montambeault
> Ton Roosendaal wrote:
>> 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
> 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.
>>> 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.
> Bf-funboard mailing list
Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation email@example.com