Incredible!

Uffff...you are an artist!

I like very very much, and only in the firts steps with the arrays! :-)

Bye

Very cool Pilou, I thought that you would have fun with that function!

- Michael

I have playing too, but I have a modest results. :-)

Good bye!

David

Those make me want to blow on them to see if they will make bubbles! :)

- Michael

Yes the array functions are the abyssis "vertigo" of the Computer Graphic land :)

@ David :it's the beginning - make your exploration of this crazzy prog :)
It's not difficult, just press some buttons and test some functions !

Hi Pilou, I forgot to answer these parts:

> In general on the array functions does exist a limit (security) of numbers of "Copies"?

No, there is no special limit. I thought about this for a bit, but it is hard to decide on a limit that works everywhere, if you have a complex object then the limit would need to be smaller, if you have a simple object it is possible to make a lot more copies of it. So I just decided not to set any limit on it.


> Pss When you take a "face" of a "Box3D" and make an "Array circular" function ---> crash !

Good testing, Pilou! Thanks for finding this, I will work on fixing this for the next release.


> Psss Why in the Array / Grid , Nb of copies X Y Z is not enable by minimun
> default = 1?
> Because if you put "0" in anyone of them nothing is made !

This is a good idea, I think it is possible that someone could put in "0" for the number of copies in Z thinking to disable z copies. I'll fix this one up too.

- Michael

Damn Frenchy - looks like you were having some fun!

Very cool indeed. I'm loving the circular array too for less fanciful reasons - makes setting up things like tank-tread rollers and turbine fans sooo easy. My love is with the mechanical so the new array functions just warm my clockwork heart.

It is great the array is working really nice and the 3ds exporter is also great, thank you,

Hi Michael
Happy new year!
I am come back :)
And some reading lateness :)

And of course with a little wish about the array function and very easy I presume :)
Why not add an "Scale" function X / Y / Z when an array function is made?
That will be be very fun and maybe useful for some people!

Hi Frenchy,

Welcome back and Happy New Year ! ;-)

Hey, you come back with a pretty cool suggestion ! Array with a scale option would be really fun (and useful) I think !
So, Michael, what do you think of this ???

Hi Pilou, welcome back and Happy New Year!

re: Array scale function

Are you talking about for grid-type array, circular-type array, or curve-type array?

Could you describe a little bit more about how it would work?

- Michael

> Are you talking about for grid-type array, circular-type array, or curve-type array?

Yes these three one :)
That works very simply : at any time an objet is redraw during the array function, its "scale" is increased :)
For example if "scale" is 1.2
You will obtain 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6 etc
if "scale" is 0.5
You will obtain 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125 etc
And all that for the X Y Z
So you can have an homothetic scaling if X =Y =Z or not if X <> Y <> Z :)
Is it more clear?
Of course user must make a good choice of scale :)

Very practical for natural shells for example :)
(a sphere on an arc will be a very cool snail :)

A supreme refinement will be the "line action" of the redraw of object (gravity center, corner, side, ...)

Hi Pilou - for grid scale this isn't very clear, since grid scale doesn't just copy an object along one single path, it can go in the x, y, and z directions.

I'm afraid this one may have to wait for a while... I agree it would be cool and good for seashells, but not quite so practical in general.

I get a little worried about adding too many parameters on things. Adding parameters can add to the power of a tool, but there can get to be a certain point when there are so many parameters that the ones that need to be used most frequently become obscured in the big list...

Maybe this would be good to have as a sort of "super-array" special plugin later on at some point.

- Michael

< for grid scale this isn't very clear, since grid scale doesn't just copy an object along one single path, it can go in the x, y, and z directions
It's sure than some objects will be intersected :D

So only on the "Curve array" will be terrific
With only that : it's just one parameter to add :)

But wouldn't the circular array be the one for making shells?

There's kind of another problem though too - scaling doesn't happen just to an object by itself, scaling happens around an origin point. Where would you expect the origin for the scaling to be?

I guess probably the most expected scale origin would be around some kind of pivot of the object, but as you know right now MoI does not have the concept of a separate pivot axis associated with each object.

- Michael

< circular array
...is just a particular aspect of the "Curve Array" :)
An artificial Pivot of the first object can't be X,Y,Z max/min of the object selected ?
So the scale will be possible to calculate

> An artificial Pivot of the first object can't be X,Y,Z
> max/min of the object selected ?
> So the scale will be possible to calculate

That's certainly one possibility - but it would have some side-effects. For example if you had a line, as your line scaled down it would shrink around its own midpoint which would in effect move it away from touching the curve, even if it started out touching the curve. I'm not really sure that would always be the expected result - the problem is that you may need to control the origin of the scaling to get what you want.

This is one area where having a pivot point available on each object can be helpful.

- Michael

< This is one area where having a pivot point available on each object can be helpful
Of course yes :)

I don't know what is exactly your actual "point P" of an object when you make an array curve function
(but you have something else the function is effective :)
It's not possible to make that ? (Image follow)
Replace the previous by the scaled at the same Point of curve tangence

Yeah, for array curve (not grid or circular), there is that point on the curve available as an origin point. But using that would mean that an object that was to the side of the curve would get progressively moved closer to the curve on every scaling, instead of it scaling "in place".

It kind of feels odd to me to put in scaling as an option just only for array curve - I mean right now array curve does not have other "per step" options for additional movements (like Array Circular)... Why scaling and not movement and/or rotation options per-step? Is uniform scale enough or does it need separate scales in x/y/z ...

It just doesn't quite feel right.

- Michael

< Is uniform scale enough or does it need separate scales in x/y/z ...
Seems Uniform is suffisant, Separate will be a refinement :)
but we have also a proverb "Qui peut le plus, peu le moins"
Who can more, can less :)
And you have that in the normal Scaling function :)

< would get progressively moved closer to the curve on every scaling, instead of it scaling "in place"
Object "snaped on a curve" is the more easy to understand for this sort of manipulations

All that was a suggestion wait if some people are also interested of that :)