Hi Steve,

>>any form of widgets (IMHO) should have rotate/scale and move.

You can move an objects simple by dragging it. And that object's widget will move as well, logically.

>>Also, a rotate around where?

e.g. a center of bounding box of a selection.

>>Having a 3D application with 2d widgets, that can scale in 1D or 3D

How often do you need to scale/deform a 3D object by scaling 2D only. For planar object, e.g. curves, it will work like expected - just scale such curves in both directions.


Petr

Hi Petr,

>>>You can move an objects simple by dragging it. And that object's widget will move as well, logically

Yes, but that brings up further questions, possibly further problems, such as: Where is center of rotation:-

>>>e.g. a center of bounding box of a selection.

As asked, how would the center of rotation be changed, you could not simply click on the center pivot and move, as there is the possibility of moving the object instead, or, if you can click on and move pivot, then you could click to move object, but move pivot instead.

>>>How often do you need to scale/deform a 3D object by scaling 2D only.

In a freeform style modeling (that I do often), quite a lot, which I perform in a 2d view.


Widgets in a 3D application should be accessible in a 3D window. An implementation as mentioned by Brian could be accessible in the 3D view and also give easier access to pivot point.

Anyway, if this is implemented, then as long as I can completely disable it, then no problem. For me it is far easier to use current style, as this gives me (for rotate) simple control of pivot and rotate angle


- Steve

Hi Michael,

I like the idea of having a more versatile way of scaling objects, it enables you to do some more free-form modeling stuff. If there was some kind of unobtrusive dialog box that let you type in precise x,y,z dimensions to scale a single object with this method, that would also be great...or would that complicate it too much, and be better suited for another type of scaling tool?

-Jesse

I suppose that is the same system that the "view image" so grid will surely enable or not
Pivot will be works : just move first on the internal surface then rotate in the appropriate view...
but I have not... ;) just supposition ;)
Have external handles seems comfortable for the see all the objects inside

Wow a ton of great feedback/comments/questions here, it will take me a bit to make it through them all.

- Michael

Hi Brian,

You wrote:
> Is there any problem with incorporation perhaps the
> more universal system?

There is a pretty big problem with that system - it shows up right directly in the middle of your object making it get in the way of just looking at your model.

That tends to make it something that can't just be turned on 100% of the time...


Maybe at some point in the future I might add that type of system as another alternative way, especially for working in the 3D view.


> It seems to be becoming pretty well the standard in
> most apps now.

Actually, I'm not familiar with any 2D illustration program that puts the manipulator right in the middle of your objects. Those programs all tend to have a kind of frame that goes around the outside of the selected objects instead of right on top of the objects.

One big goal I have with MoI is to make it feel more like a 2D illustration program when you are working in the Top, Front, or Right views.

- Michael

Hi ash,

you wrote:
> Can i suggest that there is an option to turn them on/off?
> By viewport and on the fly (with key board shortcut), if possible.

There will definitely be a way to turn it off if you want to.

My plan at first is to have a checkbox for it on the Options dialog, and it will also be possible to set up a keyboard shortcut for it.

If it ends up being something that people turn on or off frequently, I could also put a button on the top level UI for it next to Object Snap. However, I'm pretty hesitant to add buttons to the top level unless they provide a significant benefit.

Right now my hope is that this frame will stay far enough out of your way that if you want to use them, you will just always leave them turned on instead of flipping them on or off all the time.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

>>>Actually, I'm not familiar with any 2D illustration program that puts the manipulator right in the middle of your objects

I thought we where discussing 3D applications?

I am no longer sure of your direction with MoI

For this implementation, I could see it working for simple rotate around center, but other option would need to be added such as pivot point manipulation. I cannot see this working as it would need additional options / input.

I really cannot see why you are looking at this first, when I would think such as "layers" and/or "user Cplane" would be higher needs from users. (certainly from my point of view)


- Steve

Hi Dan,

> but as for me I rarely need to scale or rotate an
> object in such a "random" way.

There should be a few simple precision operations that this should help out with as well, for example rotating something by 90 or 180 degrees...

At any rate, the existing system isn't going anywhere, you will still be able to use Transform/Rotate and Transform/Scale as they current exist.

- Michael

Hi Steve,

> I thought we where discussing 3D applications?
>
> I am no longer sure of your direction with MoI

It is a general long term goal of mine to make MoI have a combination of 2D and 3D features.

There is actually already a lot of emphasis on 2D curve drawing already, since 2D curves form the basis of a lot of 3D operations in simple NURBS modeling. That's why you can do things like draw 2D shapes like circles and rectangles, lines, etc... in MoI already. This just builds on that.


> but other option would need to be added such as pivot point
> manipulation. I cannot see this working as it would need
> additional options / input.

The simple method will just be around the center point - that will allow for some useful operations like flipping something around by 90 degrees.

I do have some ideas on enabling additional options and input in a pretty easy way, I have not had a chance to get to that part quite yet though, so I'm not sure yet how that will turn out.


> I really cannot see why you are looking at this first, when I
> would think such as "layers" and/or "user Cplane" would be
> higher needs from users. (certainly from my point of view)

I think that both of those will come pretty soon. I'm not exactly a robot that cranks out work solely oriented along the "highest needs" ranking at every single possible moment. Sometimes if I have a lot of inspiration or curiosity about a particular thing, I may decide to work on that for a while to strike while the iron is hot.

In this case, I had done a chunk of work on this already in V1 to kind of prep this area, and I had been meaning to get back to it for a while.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

>>>There is actually already a lot of emphasis on 2D curve drawing already, since 2D curves form the basis of a lot of 3D operations in simple NURBS modeling.

We see this also with poly modeling, but I do not see widgets based only on 2d views.

I can understand you want your own direction, and I will not argue. There is little point.

>>>The simple method will just be around the center point - that will allow for some useful operations like flipping something around by 90 degrees.

This is already available.

>>>I'm not exactly a robot that cranks out work solely oriented along the "highest needs" ranking at every single possible moment.

I did not infer that.

>>>Sometimes if I have a lot of inspiration or curiosity about a particular thing, I may decide to work on that for a while to strike while the iron is hot.

I can understand that.
I have inspiration/curiosity but find limits to this with the applications ability that I use.
I just thought you would follow more of a "needs for users" path rather then a "inspiration", seeing this is for sales rather than own use.


Just my thoughts, no disrespect intended.


- Steve

Hi Steve,

> We see this also with poly modeling, but I do not see
> widgets based only on 2d views.

Yup, as far as I know this will be another one of MoI's innovations.

I guess it just does not seem to me to be a strange thing to make the 2d views work like a 2d application.


> I just thought you would follow more of a "needs for users"
> path rather then a "inspiration", seeing this is for sales
> rather than own use.

I have heard from a lot of users that get confused with how the current rotate and scale commands work.

So this area of work is definitely addressing an improvement that will help users, it isn't just a random piece of work.

Not every feature that I develop will be used by every single user, so it won't be unusual if you see something that I develop that does not help out you specifically.

- Michael

Hi Fredrik,

> If the widget would snap to the cPlane grid, it could
> also be precise if you want it to...

The widget's starting position is based on the bounding box of the object. When you drag it, if you have grid snap turned on, then that new target point will snap on to the grid.

The way the scaling works, is that it puts the edge of the bounding box through that point that you pick.

So that should be able to give you a certain amount of accuracy in some situations.

But really to get precision results the regular scale command will still be the one to use, that one will have more control over the origin point of the scale, and also you can pick any feature on the shape as the reference point for that one, instead of the bounding box being the reference point.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

>>>Yup, as far as I know this will be another one of MoI's innovations.

It would to me, be a step backwards.

>>>I have heard from a lot of users that get confused with how the current rotate and scale commands work.

This for me would be a lack of info and correct demo on how such works.

I know now I waste my time continuing, so I will leave this thread.


- Steve

Hi Jonah,

> 1. Must have adjustable pivot point (again, look to Adobe as example)

Are you talking about for scaling or rotation here?

I'm not sure about adjusting the center for scaling. Right now it scales around the center of the box instead of the opposite corner (Adobe does around the corner), because that helps a lot with editing symmetrical shapes.

For rotation I do have some ideas on how to adjust that - I haven't had a chance to get to that part yet though.


> 2. The corner handles look much too big

I have tried messing with that to make them smaller, but I think it kind of gives them a stubby look and feels less like a "corner" somehow.

Here is an example:



The corner is drawn using a PNG bitmap which you can edit if you want, so you can adjust that if you would like a different look.

Maybe I'll experiment with that smaller size a bit more though.


> 3. Must be able to do grid/object snapping as you drag the frame

Yup, the new point that you pick when you drag a corner can snap as per normal.

- Michael

Hi Steve,

>> I have heard from a lot of users that get confused with
>> how the current rotate and scale commands work.

> This for me would be a lack of info and correct demo on how such works.

That is one reason why I put quite a bit of effort in the documentation for those, with step-by-step illustrations, etc...

But providing info and demos is not really as good of a solution as having the software work more like someone expects it to right off the bat.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

I did leave the thread, but need to comment:

>>That is one reason why I put quite a bit of effort in the documentation for those, with step-by-step illustrations, etc...

obviously not good documentation/ step-by-step if:-

>>I have heard from a lot of users that get confused with how the current rotate and scale commands work.

- Gone

Hi Ed,

> I've always liked Corel Draw for it's intuitive interface.
>
> Click on an object and a frame containing 8 handles surrounds it.

I had thought before about doing that same kind of 8-handle type thing, but one really big goal with this new system in MoI is to keep it very unobtrusive and stay out of your way as much as possible. A big part of that is trying to not put up too much stuff on the screen, so the fewer handles the better.

I really wanted to eliminate those 4 "side" handles - instead of having those I figured out a way to get that stretching by just moving along the sideways direction instead of grabbing on a totally different handle.

With those gone, it lets me replace just one of those with a rotation handle so that simple rotation is also always immediately available instead of requiring an additional click or mode to trigger it.

- Michael

Hi Steve,

> obviously not good documentation/ step-by-step if:-

Unfortunately it just isn't possible for me to force people to read the documentation.

Some people don't read the documentation, and for those people it doesn't matter how good the documentation is.

Definitely experience tells me that documentation, although certainly helpful to many many users, is not a direct replacement for making the software easier and more expected to use.

Believe me, my job would be a lot easier if it was!

- Michael

Works for me - I'm ready to try it.

I'm glad you're enhancing the 2D capabilities. When I first purchased MoI I was drawing 2D Corel Draw (out of habit and familiarity) and importing into MoI. Now I'm more comfortable doing the entire design in MoI.

I agree with wanting intuitive controls. An application should allow you to do all the basics without opening a manual. Bizarre UI's just frustrate the user - I never did get any use out of TrueSpace for that reason.

Ed