Hello,

I'm trying to figure out some simple flow scenario.

Here's a flow along curve try.



I'm working in front view, create the text, the base curve, and a target curve.


and here's the result :




For some reason I cant get the text align in the front view. How can I force MOI to bend the text in the Z/X axis ?

Hi PaQ - there is a bug currently in curve-to-curve flow when some tangent directions inside the curves are pointing upwards towards the world z axis.

So for the moment until this is fixed you've got to place the base curve and the target curve to be both in the world x/y plane. You can have the objects that are being modified in any direction, just the base and target curves need to be in that x/y plane. I should be able to fix that up for the next release, I've got an idea what is going wrong.

See the attached example for how it can work in the current beta though.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the workaround !

Second question (and please excuse me if it has allready be discussed).
Would be possible to have an option to flip the UV direction with the flow to surface command ?



In this example, I cant manage to have the flow along the U (x direction) for example.

Hi PaQ,

> Would be possible to have an option to flip the UV direction
> with the flow to surface command ?

Yup, I just finished up that part for the next v3 beta. In the next beta it will pay attention to where you click on both surfaces and it will match the uv directions so that the edges that you clicked near are aligned to one another, you click near to one side of an edge.

For now it only aligns by the built in natural UV directions, so to make the case you've got there work in the current beta you've got to take your plane and squish it so that it is narrow and tall instead of short and wide, and then rotate it by 90 degrees, and possibly flip it upside down - that will then put its uv directions to be how you need it. But that won't be necessary in the next v3 beta, you'll just click on each edge where you want to have things aligned.

- Michael

Michael,

The flow tool displaces an object based on the surface orientation of the target surface. (UV direction ???)...

Would you ever consider implementing an option to switch off or maintain placement in any given XYZ direction?



This could only be effective on surfaces that do not change more than 180 degrees of course, like a cylinder,
but good for effecting patterns for surfaces, type and whatnot while maintaining a fixed direction.


Just a suggestion.

Mike

Hi Mike, you can actually get the text pattern that you're showing there already by doing a flow between a plane and an extrusion like this:



As far as restricting the surface normal instead - like you already mention that's a kind of special case type thing since anything with a 90 degree bend in it won't work.

It would also need some additional options in the UI to control which particular direction would be used.

I guess it would help me to see a particular kind of model that you were trying to create where the restricted surface normal option would be useful. For the most part if you want things going in a straight direction you can instead just have regular extrusions that get cut at the top and bottom with a boolean, you typically don't need to use flow for something like this:







- Michael

Thanks for the pointers.
Having a UV lock control to that nature would be useful for flowing object structures with more complexity that could not be created by extrusion alone. But, no doubt a future FFD type distortion command would allow for that as well.

I didn't notice before, but your first example appears to be similar in effect to Corel's good old trusty Envelope (distortion) command.
I'll find that useful in the future.

Hi Mike,

> Having a UV lock control to that nature would be
> useful for flowing object structures with more complexity
> that could not be created by extrusion alone.

Yeah but that seems to be kind of theoretical - is there a particular practical situation that you've run into before similar to this where an extrusion + boolean would not have worked?

It helps if I can understand how it would help in an actual modeling scenario.

- Michael

The easiest example I could think of at the moment would be block type being flowed on a surface with convolutions in all directions.
Where features within the type could not be simply extruded one way or the other.

This 'type' element could be substituted with other type of geometry.

It's kind of an esoteric action to think of, but in years of using Corel's 2D Artistic Brush with is a "flow along path", various enveloping distortion tools and the fit text to path features - I've run into little problems where type can bunch up into areas, paths invert, and other off phenomena due to the distance from the path exceeding the given space due to tighter radius of the underlying base path.
I havn't had the chance to play with the Flow tool yet, except what I could remember from using the Rhino demo - but I remember bunching and folding of surfaces that were a problem. Not that this IS a real problem. There are a myriad of thing one could do before hand to keep there objects from having unexpected results. And, no, I was not implying that a rigid vertical or directional driven lock to the displacement was a fix to that type of thing.

It would be just an option for a different variation of a theme, or a way to achieve a particular result.

Of course, your new Flow command, from what I've seen the others use is utterly fantastic and full of all kinds of promise... I can't wait to sink my teeth into it!

Hi Mike,

> The easiest example I could think of at the moment would be
> block type being flowed on a surface with convolutions in all
> directions.

Well I mean do you have an actual model example that would match with what you're describing here?

Like for example what kind of object do you want to create where you would need this particular thing in order to finish it.

I understand that it's possible to come up with some theoretical shapes that would require it - but I'm more interested to know how this would have helped some of your already existing modeling work rather than just how it would enable some esoteric theoretical situation.

For example, are there any physical objects that have these characteristics which that particular option would help to create? If you have any links to examples like that it would help!

Basically if I can understand how a new option opens up a new avenue of usefulness for things that people actually are trying to build, then that carries a lot more weight than just "it would be kind of cool"...

Adding too many things that are primarily based on "cool factor" and not on actual "usefulness factor" is a pretty good way to end up with a complex UI that is loaded with stuff that only applies to special case situations.

The problem is that a complex UI comes with a cost in reduced ease of use.

- Michael

Yes, yes, I do agree with your point. And nothing is as scary in the 3D modeling world as the side panes in 3DS Max! (Whoa!)
Where every feature in the book has been added.

I don't have anything handy to show, just a seed of a notion from the recesses of my inner-mind, considering the possibilities. ;-)
But this is the positive side of this forum and the whole beta testing thing: If its a good seed then it will grow, if not, better to cast it off now, than to try and prune the wild tree later.

Hi Mike, let me know in the future if it clicks for use with a particular model!

And yes - it's especially a good time during the beta period to discuss new ideas, particularly for the tools that are right now under development.

Thanks,
- Michael

>> Yup, I just finished up that part for the next v3 beta. In the next beta it will pay attention to where you click on both surfaces and it will match the uv directions so that the edges that you clicked near are aligned to one another, you click near to one side of an edge.

Sounds perfect !