[Bf-modeling] Proportional Edit Mode (Connected)

[Campbell Barton]

ZanQdo requested proportional edit-mode to be enabled for mirror
editing (on IRC),

Committed r57616
http://blender.markmail.org/thread/asl5oj7e6fzr7ynj

This was disabled r40793, fix [#28801], but I cant redo the original
problem so enabling again.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Committed r57608, Called "Projection (2D)" in the proportional menu,
> I found this wasn't useful to mix with `Connected` option, so its
> added as another option in the menu.
>
> http://blender.markmail.org/thread/fat3fx432woeodgp
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Jonathan Williamson
> <jonathan at cgcookie.com> wrote:
>> The 2D aware influence would be very handy in special scenarios but I
>> certainly wouldn't want it to be default. If it can be added as an option
>> then I'm all for it!
>>
>> Jonathan Williamson
>> http://cgcookie.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hah, no worries :) consider the first 2 issues I raised on this list
>>> (extrude-transform and pet-looking-stupid) ended up simply being bugs!
>>>
>>>
>>> But I forgot to mention something regarding PET,
>>>
>>> Someone recently suggested 2D distance measurement option.
>>>
>>> This would be an option so even if 2 points are close on the screen,
>>> that their depths may be different would be ignored (the region of
>>> influence would be a view aligned cylinder rather then a sphere).
>>>
>>> The one use case I can thing of for this is to do a quick bend - and
>>> not have to worry about near/far verts getting different influences.
>>> Feel like I'm doing a poor job of explaining this so if this makes no
>>> sense I could give some other example or a test patch.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Williamson
>>> <jonathan at cgcookie.com> wrote:
>>> > Oh my... I feel like an idiot. It works exactly like I want it to and I
>>> > never realized. I always thought that "Connected" just isolated the PET
>>> > to
>>> > the current mesh island. Ignore my message :)
>>> >
>>> > Jonathan Williamson
>>> > http://cgcookie.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> How would `Topological Length` be different from existing 'Connected'
>>> >> option for proportional editmode?
>>> >>
>>> >> Would it ignore the actual length of edges and treat every edge as if
>>> >> it were the same length?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:21 AM, Jonathan Williamson
>>> >> <jonathan at cgcookie.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Thanks for the improvements Campbell!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > While on the topic of PET, the biggest improvement I think it needs
>>> >> > is
>>> >> > support for Topological Length, rather than just proximity. This
>>> >> > would
>>> >> > work
>>> >> > almost exactly like Select More/Less, such that you can grow out the
>>> >> > area of
>>> >> > influence, based on the adjacent, connected geometry.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Two examples of how this would be used are:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Scaling just the lower lip on a character, without touching the upper
>>> >> > lip.
>>> >> > Posing an arm by rotating around the shoulder, without affecting the
>>> >> > ribcage.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Each of the above is quite tricky to do with the current PET. You
>>> >> > always
>>> >> > have to do a lot of cleanup work. I generally just avoid PET and do
>>> >> > it
>>> >> > manually for these reasons.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Jonathan Williamson
>>> >> > http://cgcookie.com
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Campbell Barton
>>> >> > <ideasman42 at gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> To follow up on this topic, from the feedback so far my impression
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> that PET currently works acceptably, minor improvements are always
>>> >> >> nice but I didn't hear anything very urgent about PET failing or
>>> >> >> being
>>> >> >> broken, or connected behavior being really annoying the way it is
>>> >> >> now.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Aside from Andy's comment about visualizing weight - I'm going to
>>> >> >> call
>>> >> >> this `Good Enough`, and move on (in fact move back to mirror feature
>>> >> >> discussed before).
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Feel free to disagree and raise issues with PET - but think we can
>>> >> >> move onto more important topics.
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> >> >> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> >> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> >> > Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> >> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> - Campbell
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> >> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> > Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Campbell
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>
>
>
>
> --
> - Campbell



-- 
- Campbell