[Bf-modeling] Proportional Edit Mode (Connected)

Thu Jun 20 20:28:50 CEST 2013

Fantastic! Thanks so much for the x-mirror PET :)

Jonathan Williamson
http://cgcookie.com

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-modeling mailing list
> Bf-modeling at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20130620/8708dc5c/attachment.html>