> Probably for that you'd build a sweep with scaling rail applied so you had a kind of flat sweep surface shaped how you want your result, and then do a Flow with a surface to surface mapping instead of curve to curve mapping.

Thanks Michael, your devotion to the product and the people that use it is commendable, can't wait to see the reports on the Beta. - take as much time as you need ;-) Inspiration breeds better than pressure.

But, I can't resist...

I'm sure this was asked many times before...
Is there a possible future consideration for some type of basic Free-Form Distortion, controlled by box bounds points?



Of course done by by warping the space that positions all spline curve and mesh point assemblies instead of poly vertexes.
I did see something before about dealing with the hidden point structures of each surface that would make it hard to do this, as they are often larger and occupy more space than the visible trimmed object.

Greg,
""""""""""""Maybe we should all stop pestering the man so he can finish up! (Yeah, I'm impatient to see this bright shiny new version too...)"""""""""""""""

This is the beggining of the "Beta process" for the next version of MoI.. This is where we discuss the features and how they work and get a chance to input into the process.... It will most likely be awhile before the next version is done and released.

> This is where we discuss the features and how they work and get a chance to input into the process....

This makes a great product - a fantastic product! Yup, I'm sure Michael would not be around if he didn't have the same collaborative spirit.

The good thing is, that V3 may be here in time for my financially challenged butt to save up the (small amount of) coin to purchase it. ;-)
I envy you guys that will get to test drive the V3-Beta into the outback to try and see what breaks the suspension!

Hey BurrMan,

That quote was a (lame) attempt at humor having to do with our group impatience, not with the collaborative process. It must be very motivating to have people excited about your work, as apposed to sitting at a computer hour after hour without feedback (as some other developers seem to do). I honestly can't think of any other product (software) out there that I can talk to, and get immediate response from, it's creator. GO Michael! (I just wonder sometimes how he finds time to actually work on V3 AND be so responsive to every one of the threads on this forum!)

-Greg

I have a mental picture of him walking down the street with some kind of Android or Blackberry tablet in one hand and a bagel and coffee in the other whilst talking to family and friends... at the same time fielding forum posts and simultaneously compiling code.

Hmm, actually my mental picture is now more about the bagel... a delicious toasted onion bagel with cream cheese and lox. :-p..

Ain't technology great!

Hi Mike,

> Is there a possible future consideration for some type
> of basic Free-Form Distortion, controlled by box bounds
> points?

Yup, that could be possible in the future at some point - it would be a different tool than the one I'm working on now though, and that would also involve quite a bit more work since it involves interacting with a new set of points instead of just selecting existing objects.

For the most part I mostly assume that if you want to squish things around by manipulating 3D points that you would probably want to be working in a sub-d modeler for that particular kind of modeling rather than in MoI, since 3D point cage squishing is a major focus in those kinds of modeling programs.

MoI is overall more based on a different kind of modeling strategy of drawing curves to create objects, so focusing on a method that allows deformation by using drawn curves is more of an immediate natural fit for right now.

In the future I do want to add more point cage squishing type stuff in as well though, just not sure when though since there are also a lot of other things I want to add in as well too! :)

- Michael

Thanks Michael, I can't wait to see what you cook up!

====


Also,

Any chance of implementing something like this:




There is an amount of manipulation freedom and speed given to modeling when in one of the side projection views and the handles are present.

but it sure would be nice to have the same ability when you're in 3D mode.

I often find myself having to visit all of Top, Right and Front views when I want to scale "on the fly".

The handles are designed to appear only in a flat projection, but I see that the rotation controls are there also there in 3D mode... how'd he get so lucky?

What about scaling on the fly in the 3D view? --- I mean, to non-planar 3D objects.

(By the way - is there a command to turn the rotation rings gizmo on when I want without having to leave the 3D view to activate it on a flat view?)


Thanks!

Hi Mike, by the way if you make a surface using the revolve command you can then turn on control points for it and manipulate them in sections giving you much the same kind of effect in MoI as what you posted in your animated GIF:



So that's something that you can try now if you want to squish a tubular type shape around.

- Michael

Hi Mike,

> Thanks Michael, I can't wait to see what you cook up!

Well like I said it may be a while, it's not quite a fit with the main "drawing/construction" type modeling metaphor that MoI is mostly focused on currently.


> Any chance of implementing something like this:

I've thought about something like that before, the thing I don't like is that it's starting to get the screen kind of filled up with handles and some of them can interfere with being able to select parts of the model:



One thing that's really nice about the 2D edit frame is that it's very low profile - going to the outside of the current selection and not having too many hot spots on it. That's basically what makes it possible for it to just be on all the time without causing problems. Something like you are showing there largely loses these qualities...

Also the corners of a 3D box frame like that can kind of be located a fair ways away from the main part of the object, kind of not giving much room to move them around unless you zoom out kind of a ways.

Still it could be a possible thing in the future - those negative aspects that I described above would basically mean that it would have to be something that you could turn on and off easily instead of just being on all the time though, and needing to turn on and off means having some additional UI to control it, and adding in additional easily available UI is something I'm conservative about since that's how you end up with a zillion buttons and a complex UI, by adding a lot of stuff to it...


> The handles are designed to appear only in a flat
> projection, but I see that the rotation controls are there
> also there in 3D mode... how'd he get so lucky?

If you click on the rotation handle instead of drag on it you'll get a tri-ball rotation widget that will show up in the 3D view as well until you click off of it somewhere. Also while you are in wheel mode you can relocate the rotation origin by dragging it to some particular point to rotate around that point.

More info on how the edit frame works here:
http://moi3d.com/2.0/docs/moi_command_reference11.htm#editframe

- Michael

Ah Greg, I just misunderstood.. It appeared you thought a release was immanent and I was attempting to clear that up, but surely you are aware of what is happening.. Happy MoI'ing. :)

Thanks Michael, I see what you mean about the added clutter. I had that realization when I mocked this example.

There may be a few ways of adding switching of something like that (contingent upon the attractiveness of such a feature),
Another UI icon would be undesirable for obvious reasons. Especially, since it would take as many steps to activate it as it would to use one of the dedicated scaling/rotation features already in the UI.
A keyboard shortcut would be most logical as it would be out of most people's scope of normal use. Like you said, it would have to turned on when needed.
Maybe a timed mouse-over... We'll, it's in the idea bin anyways.

And yes, I use the mentioned circle rotate with center axis control religiously, and by choice over other methods. Corel employs the movable axis, so it's second nature.

Hi Mike,

> A keyboard shortcut would be most logical as it would
> be out of most people's scope of normal use.

Then the problem becomes that it's not easily discoverable, it'll be a kind of hidden feature to many people. But something like that could still be a way to introduce it at some point and then try to figure how to incorporate into the UI afterwards.

It's pretty common for other programs to make a manipulator for scaling/moving/rotating that looks more like an axis tripod thing that goes in the center of the selection rather than around the outside.

But a corner frame mechanism like the 2D edit frame is more snappable since you can actually snap the corners on to other objects in the model when you drag them.

- Michael

Michael,

I enjoy the occasional Rhino tutorial. It's neat to see someone hack away at the zillion-button Rube-Goldberg machine, that is Rhino, doing many things that happen seemingly without effort in MoI.

- well, to that effect.

I could actually see myself learning Rhino with less consternation in the future. It's neat to see guys make things in their tutorials as I think to myself: "I can do that with MoI... I can do that too!". :-)


The following isn't a hardcore request, but another item for the wish-list.




This is some kind of surface tool. But I bet this could be done with an enhanced Blend tool. This seems to be a surface that respects four different side tangencies if needed...

[I thought about doing this kind of thing with a Network mesh, but the Network tool does not work in a way where it sees tangency]


Since the Blend tool works off surface edge tangents, why not possibly allow the option for the blend to add tangency off of the two adjacent side surfaces as well?

But, with no convoluted options or funky dialogs like Rhino would use. - When you activate Blend, you could either just select your two standard surface edges... or add another... and the fourth.


You said a while ago that you might consider allowing Blend to select multiple curve segments (to define one whole of one side edge). Maybe the new Blend will be able to 'see' past T-intersections.

That alone would float my boat.

> But a corner frame mechanism like the 2D edit frame is more snappable since you can actually snap the corners on to other objects in the model when you drag them.

Yes, I like those. I've learned that depending on which way to move the corner handles, you can effect the way that the (z) hidden directions on an object can be scaled also.
I utilize this feature when prepping profile rings, so that I can either shrink them proportionally or just by height.

Hi Mike - that Rhino command you're showing there is Rhino's NetworkSrf command. The equivalent thing in MoI of making a surface from 4 boundary edges is MoI's Network command. Blend is a little different since Blend focuses on building a connection between 2 sides.

But really the main goal for that kind of continuity stuff is to have a separate command like Rhino's MatchSrf that will allow you to tweak a surface to make it smooth to other adjacent surfaces. That's more flexible than only something built into Network since you can use it in many other situations as well. Then later on after that I'd figure out if it's necessary to integrate it into other commands as a kind of bundled operation, but maybe not - it can kind of increase command complexity when trying to kind of bundle things that you could already do with existing commands kind of baked in like that.

- Michael

Hi Mike,

> I've learned that depending on which way to move the
> corner handles, you can effect the way that the (z) hidden
> directions on an object can be scaled also.

Actually if I understand what you're talking about (doing uniform scaling vs only doing 2D scaling and leaving the vertical direction unscaled, right?) then that's controlled by holding down the Shift key when you drag a handle.

Normally when you drag it does a uniform scale but if you hold down shift it will do the non-uniform 2D type scale.

The way you move the corner handles does control whether you'll do a 1 directional stretch or not though - if you track along the horizontal or vertical line when dragging the corner it will do a 1D stretch in that horizontal or vertical direction, you'll get a tracking line displayed when that is active to help you see where you need to keep the mouse nearby to get the stretch.

If you don't want any 1D stretching, move your mouse a ways off of that line and then it will stop doing the 1D stretch stuff - that way you can kind of "shake off" the stretch mode.

- Michael

Hi Mike - also regarding that Network example that you posted - usually you're better off building things as larger surfaces and instead cutting pieces of the big extended surface off rather than trying to build things in little bits at a time.

That will still generally be a better way even at the time that there are continuity controls - continuity controls only adjust shapes at the very edges of a surface, and it's pretty easy for surfaces to have a kind of bunching up in form near the end even if they are technically fully curvature continuous at their edges.

When you build larger more extended surfaces, that tends to make shapes that are more naturally smooth with more evenly distributed curvature throughout themselves rather than trying to tweak a patchwork of little bits just by their edge zones to be smooth to one another.

Doing that kind of "one patch at a time" type modeling doesn't really exploit the greatest strengths of NURBS modeling which are actually more in the areas of being able to cut and slice pieces more freely than you can in polygon modeling. If you want to build things one little patch at a time, a polygon sub-d modeler is actually a better overall technology for that kind of an approach because it kind of more fully melts things together than edge continuity tweaking.

That's why those kinds of tools were not a big priority for MoI initially - they can be useful but they're kind of a workflow that isn't going along the absolute strongest area of NURBS modeling.

- Michael

> usually you're better off building things as larger surfaces and instead cutting pieces of the big extended surface off rather than trying to build things in little bits at a time.
> That will still generally be a better way even at the time that there are continuity controls - ...only adjust shapes at the very edges of a surface, and it's pretty easy for surfaces to have a kind of bunching up in form near the end even if they are technically fully curvature continuous at their edges.


I definitely get you on those points.

So what would be nice to have the NetworkSrf tool and some kind of "super point-cluster/surface/de-buncher smoother" tool... ;-)

Yes, I agree with your insight that a more 'whole'-istically designed surface is a "better" designed surface. And I'm glad you're prime directive with MoI is the KISS principle, which is why it's so attractive to artistic folks like myself in the first place.
Intuitive controls should be preferred over complex ones.

Case in point, with what you said above about the subtle control of the 1D/2D scaling handles. It's more efficient in the long run to be able to do commands with subtle mouse movements than to have to constantly check boxes and tweak settings and depress complex key combos.

With that said - your implementation of (on view) interactive spacing and distance choosing is an absolute Godsend.


Well thank you very much Michael for taking the time to explain and expound these concepts to me! I certainly appreciate the thoughtful feedback, and I think this sentiment goes for many more of us that enjoy using MoI.

Wow Michael that Flow command looks super useful! :D

I can't wait to have a play around with it :)

For the kind of work I do, I'm sure I'll get a lot of use out of it.

Ok - got sidetracked for the past couple of days tracking down an offset bug in the updated geometry library. Now that's fixed and I'm back tuning up the new Flow command. Once that is a bit more finished up it will be time for the v3 beta. Flow will need some more tuning after the first v3 beta to improve surface quality - in the first release when morphing solids with curved pieces it can tend to make kind of lumpy results. But morphing curves works well and also morphing planar surfaces work well so for text right now morphing text that is just a flat planar surface (using the "Create:Surfaces" option in the Text command) and then shelling it to thicken it into a solid once it is in place will work better than morphing solid text directly, at least for now.

- Michael