[Bf-funboard] ] constraints

Jean Montambeault bf-funboard@blender.org
Tue, 08 Jul 2003 10:42:46 -0400

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).
> 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).
That would be perfect : so we would have an 'inherited' type of 
constraint behaving like those in use in parenting
and a 'copied' type, likely a 'tracking' type and any other that we 
would imagine... Yes, this should be experimented on unsuspecting ;) 
users but I'm pretty sure it is close.
I want to avoid for the user to have to fight any confusion that may 
arise which could give birth to a whole new serie of Q&A on Elysiun.
Just consider how often we have to explain what 'Size' means in Blender, 
because the word is used for something that make sense in the program 
but is way off the  meaning most people, users, artists expect.

>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).

Again that would be perfect. :)
I am not unaware that backward (the naming probably isn't innocent) 
compatibility  can become a drag. If we can find a naming strategy that 
will quickly connect with what the user is used to and respect the new 
constraints system at the same time that would be ideal. I guess that I 
am thinking a bit like a marketing person who think that, let's say, 
Econocar will mean more to the user than 'Gas-electric Hybrid', unless 
he wants to limit himself to the techno-ecolo crowd .

>Is this what you were concerned about?
Was I concerned ?
I guess that I was to some point. Yet I wish that I can keep things in 
perspective and keep the fun in functionality.

Thanks Matt for clarifying.