Full Version: V4 Wish List

Show messages:  1-20  …  201-220  221-240  241-260  261-280  281-300  301-320  321-340  …  561-574

Hi Michael!

Any chance to add really small little option for viewport navigation or in "Rotate/Pan/Zoom options". Since i am using Maya as my main software i got really used to its navigation so one of the cool little things about Moi is that navigation is very similar to Maya - except zooming.
In Maya i am zooming by pressing Alt+RMB (left-right) but in Moi i am doing it by pressing Alt+RMB (up-down).

> Any chance to add option in "Rotate/Pan/Zoom options" in Moi do be able "reverse" zoom from Alt+RMB (up-down drag) into Alt+RMB (left-right drag)?

It's small thing but it would greatly help going back and forward between software as working.

Thanks!

---

Hi klaudio, so I originally did that Alt key view navigation to be compatible with Maya. I don't remember why I ended up with the up/down movement for zoom instead of left/right motion, maybe Maya behaved that way a long time ago and switched at some point. At any rate I think what I'll do is change the default for v4 to work same as Maya with left-right motions and have an option in moi.ini to switch it back to the old way.

- Michael

---

Hi klaudio, ok I see now that Alt is using up/down because it does the same thing currently as Ctrl+RMB which is used in Rhino for zoom and Rhino does it with up/down motions. So I'll leave Ctrl+RMB using up/down but switch Alt+RMB to use left/right with an option to switch it back to up/down if needed.

- Michael

---

Hi Michael!

Perfect! Option to choose between up-down or left-right while pressing Alt+RMB is all i need! Thank you very much. ;)

Interesting thing in Maya is that you can zoom either going up-down or left-right movement with ALT+RMB pressed. I find left-right more natural and easier since up-down usually requires the whole arm movement in the shoulder even a bit often.

Could be just my personal preference and that some people actually use up-down in Maya too so you can keep all the navigation as it is now but add that option to switch to Alt+RMB (left-right).


Best,
Klaudio

---

Hi Klaudio, thanks for letting me know that Maya actually works with both directions.

> Could be just my personal preference and that some people actually use up-down in Maya too so
> you can keep all the navigation as it is now but add that option to switch to Alt+RMB (left-right).

Yes, that's probably best, I've got it set up now so the first v4 beta will have this, it will be a moi.ini option under the [View] section:

[View]
<.....>
MouseZoomLeftRight=y

- Michael

---

Might there be a some way to output a PNG with a transparent background?
I'd be nice.
-- Mindset

---

Hi Mindset,

re:
> Might there be a some way to output a PNG with a transparent background?
> I'd be nice.

In the current version, if you export solids to an .ai file (with shaded background option enabled) a PNG file with a transparent background will be generated alongside the .ai file, it will have _bkgnd appended to the filename.

- Michael

---

NICE!

---

Hello Michael,
is it possible to add in a scaling option that can be set to reduce the amount of scale from farther away in version 4, like a taper effect? Or possibly being able to control the extrude by also adding an option to extrude less when farther away from the point of extrusion if selected. Another 1 it would be very cool once setting up a lined section if you could possibly hit a button that says all corner section turn into a 90 degree rounded instead of hard edge. Just some ideas that would save a lot of time when modeling. If you need more details on this I will show some examples of what I mean.

Take care.

---

Hi 3DFanatic,

re:
> is it possible to add in a scaling option that can be set to reduce the amount of scale
> from farther away in version 4, like a taper effect?

I do want to add in a "Cage edit" type deformation command which could be used for tapering. Right now I'm not sure when it will happen though - hopefully in v4.


> Or possibly being able to control the extrude by also adding an option to extrude less when farther
> away from the point of extrusion if selected.

There is a tapered extrusion option in the current version already, you activate it by pushing this button in the Extrude command:



> Another 1 it would be very cool once setting up a lined section if you could possibly hit a
> button that says all corner section turn into a 90 degree rounded instead of hard edge.

You can use the Construct > Fillet command to do that- if you have a polyline like this:



Select it and run the Construct > Fillet command. Points will be displayed on the corner and the prompt will read "Select corners or push done to do all". If you only want to round off some corners, select those and right click. If you want to do all corners just right click.


Then set a radius and smooth arc pieces will be put into those corner areas:


If those don't do what you were asking about then yes please post an example.

- Michael

Image Attachments:
round_corners1.jpg  round_corners2.jpg  round_corners3.jpg  tapered_extrude.jpg 

---

Thanks for all that great information this will help me progress thanks. Also thanks for the consideration on the scaling

---

Hi Michael,

For V4 what about the inclusion of a Mirror Plane which doesnt actually create mirror parts just mirror visual for a live modelling aid when happy with model create an actual mirror - I know history sort of does this but gets broken when you start moving things around.
Another one for the list!
Thanks
Alex.

---

One thing i noticed using straight lines to cut an object that has depth it will cut without issue. Basically all sides stay intact but once you fillet the point section then when cutting the edges then the edge is gone maybe to complicated to hold the edge any thought thanks

---

Hi 3DFanatic,

re:
> One thing i noticed using straight lines to cut an object that has depth it will cut
> without issue. Basically all sides stay intact but once you fillet the point section then
> when cutting the edges then the edge is gone maybe to complicated to hold the edge
> any thought thanks

Can you please post the 3DM model file with the object in it that you're having this problem with? It's hard to figure out what might be going on by just a text description like that, I'd need to be able to take a look at your object.

- Michael

---

Good evening Michael,
I tried to emulate the same issue but all the test I did created the same open edge. Maybe you can give me some recommendations on how to reduce this issue from happing. I know to close the edge on the hard edge is very simple what becomes more complicated is the curved sections. I kept the lines and main objects that I swept before doing the second action which is what is causing the removal of the edge.

I was able to keep the edge when I extruded the line shape and then Boolean it. However once that is done the edge does not like to be fillet again causes all kind of artifacting.

Again always thanks for your assistance you make this program what it is, thanks

Attachments:
testing object.3dm

---

Hi 3Dfanatic,

re:
> I kept the lines and main objects that I swept before doing the second action which
> is what is causing the removal of the edge.

What is the second action that you're referring to here, is it using Trim ? If so then when you're cutting a solid it is easier to use boolean difference instead of Trim. Trim operates only on surfaces, while the booleans work on solid volumes and are able to make a solid result automatically joining in the pieces of the extruded cutting curve. You can get the same result with Trim but it's more work because you'd need to extrude the curve into a surface and then trim that surface and join the results together. Booleans basically do all that work for you.

So for your case here with your solid you made from your sweep, select the solid and run Construct > Boolean > Difference, and then select your curve as the cutting object:



That will divide it into 2 solid pieces:



Delete the pieces you don't want and you'll be left with a full solid and won't have to worry about closing up holes as you would if you work only at the surface level with Trim:



One thing to note is that although it works ok for your case here, it's generally not good to have your cutting curve overlap right over top of other areas of the model like in this region here:



That can tend to complicate booleans because it's going to extrude out a cutting surface from that curve and the extrusion is going to be skimming right along the same surface area of your main shape and it's more difficult to get a clean intersection curve from stuff like that. In order to do booleans, a well formed closed intersection loop of curves have to be generated to divide the object up into different clean pieces. If the intersection curves are complex and criss-cross over each other that might not happen.

So instead if possible it's better to have a cutting curve like this where it shoots out a ways instead of having spots that hug right along the same shape:



Then for filleting, the problem there is your shape is very thin and so there isn't much room to fit fillets in, about the maximum size that will fit is around 0.01 units, if you try to use a radius much larger than that it would cause the fillets to collide into each other and cause the type of artifacting that you're describing.

So use a fillet radius of 0.01 or smaller for your particular case here, here's an example of what it looks like with 0.01 :


Hope that helps!

- Michael

Image Attachments:
boolean1.jpg  boolean2.jpg  boolean3.jpg  boolean4.jpg  boolean5.jpg  fillet.jpg 

---

Thanks Michael!
That info helped, after all that do you have plans to give more control on skinnier objects so the fillet can be reduced past the .01 setting? Thanks for all your support

---

Hi 3DFanatic, you're welcome!

re:
> do you have plans to give more control on skinnier objects so the fillet can
> be reduced past the .01 setting?

You can do that currently, for your particular case here 0.01 is about the maximum size that will fit, but you can go smaller than that if you want. For example here it is with 0.001 units:



With skinny objects if you get weird results try using smaller and smaller values, don't stop at say 0.1 units, keep going smaller and smaller to get a good idea of what's going to be possible to actually fit there.

With your shape here, a fillet of radius 0.05 takes up this much room just for one side:



It can be a good idea for objects with very small sized features like this to be modeled at a larger scale, like say build this object at 10 times larger than what you've got right now so that you're not working with too tiny values.

- Michael

Image Attachments:
fillet2.jpg  fillet3.jpg 

---

Thank you great advice i will increase the whole thing

---

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but here are two suggestions:

Extend surfaces X amount (like in Catia)

Remove chamfer/fillet by selecting and adjacent surface automatically extend (like in Powershape)

---

Show messages:  1-20  …  201-220  221-240  241-260  261-280  281-300  301-320  321-340  …  561-574