Hi labuzz, thanks for your feedback!


> maybe a subtle hue change (RGB) in the grid...

I've thought about that a bit, but I've sort of been trying to avoid showing colors for different axes because it tends to lead to confusion later on when the construction planes can be re-oriented to arbitrary planes instead of along a world plane. For V1 they are always aligned to world planes, but I'd like to allow them to have different orientations in the future.


> If I open an obj export in modo or maya ( right handed but Y up by default ) I must rotate 90
> counterclockwise around the x axis to work in the same space. I think you should provide a
> little bit of matrix manipulations options for the exporter like in Zbrush for example ( there's
> a lots of different pipelines around !).

Hmmm, there actually already is a rotation happening by default for OBJ export that is supposed to solve this problem. I just tried a quick test export into modo, and it seemed to import into the expected orientation there. What steps are you using to get a different result?

The .ini file option Petr mentions above:
[OBJ Export]
SwapAxes=n

will disable the rotation and allow you to export as z-up, but by default this is supposed to be turned on to enable Y-up export as you are requesting.


> BTW you should change the icon for the rotate axis command ( Left handed ! ), this
> can be very confusing for some artists!

Wow, good catch! Indeed this was showing the wrong direction of rotation, I have fixed this icon for the next beta.


> There's also some scale issues. If I open the file ( I have set meters as the unit )
> in modo no problems but in maya which is in centimeters by default ( not sure how
> maya deals with obj ...) I get 1 meter = 1 centimeter...So you must provide a multiply
> just to be safe for all the cases.

If you're always exporting to one system, you can currently set the OBJ scale factor using the other .ini flag that Petr mentioned above. I'm going to try and reorganize the settings UI pretty soon and I will try to put a setting in the UI for this.


> This way the grid would become more "adaptative".

This is an interesting idea... But adaptive grids can be troublesome in some ways too, I find those programs that alter the visible grid scale all the time to be very disorienting, it tends to cause me to lose my sense of scale. Is there another program that handles the grid in the adaptive way that you're describing that I can look at for a reference?


> *about transformations in the 3d view

Yeah, this stuff tends to be useful for editing objects by surface control point manipulation. This type of manipulation hasn't really been a focus for version 1.0. Version 1.0 is more focused on creating surfaces by construction methods based on drawing curves, not really so much on moving surface control points around. I think it will be possible to add stuff in this area in a future version though.


> *about history: I have try to build a surface based on 4 curves. I can tweak the curve
> after the fact but as soon as I edit the control points for the surface I loose the history.
> It would be really cool to have 2 levels.

That's going to be tough to do in general. The points that you manipulated on the surface may not even exist after certain types of edits to the original curves, for instance if you delete some control points from the original curves.


> *shear and taper are the more useful for hard surface modeling...Now if you could
> provide different type of interpolation ( not just linear ) for those deformations that
> would be really nice.

Unfortunately taper is in the same category as those other difficult transforms like bend. Shear is different because it is actually an "affine transformation" - one where lines that are parallel before the transformation are also parallel after the transformation.


> I will send you an eps file from modo....I must check that.

Great! I could use any eps or ai files for testing.

Thanks,

- Michael