< 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 :)

I'll see if I can write a macro to do the scaling after the array is finished. If this is possible then it would also be possible to adapt the script macro to do other effects beyond scaling as well.

- Michael

Cool ! Make as you want before after or during just compt the result :)

I think I need to add one scripting method to make it work, so that it is possible to get the point coordinates of a point object from a script macro. What I'm thinking of is that you could do an array, and include a point object along with your object that is being copied. The point object would act as the local pivot for the object. Then the script macro would go to every result object from the array and scale it around that point object, and then delete all the point objects.

One nice thing about this method is that you could use any type of array command to generate the object+point copies.

But I think I'd better wait until I finish the image background stuff before trying this though.

- Michael