Is there a design philosophy behind the decision not to implement permanent viewport construction guides?
All  1-6  7-10

Previous
Next
 From:  jonmoore
6363.7 In reply to 6363.2 
>Having construction lines clear out at the end of commands solves that problem, you don't have to do any extra steps to eliminate the guides that you created for getting a >particular strategic point pick.

>Since you don't need to spend any extra effort to get rid of them it also kind of takes away any hesitation about putting them in. It just generally makes it easier for them to >be used more frequently.

Everything you state here makes complete sense to me and I'd agree that for many users this strategy of having constructions lines automatically clear after every command could make it easier for those users to make greater use of construction lines as they're a whole lot less hassle to manage. It's certainly one of the things that I've enjoyed about working with MoI. However architectural modelling is based on a lot of repeating design patterns (a simple example being the spacing of window openings on a wall) and in this case you need permanent construction guides to aid you when designing these aspects so it's great that there's a script available that enables the user to keep their guides after completing a command should they choose.

I think it will really benefit end users when you've been able to implement the scripts browser within MoI we've discussed previously so that access to this kind of script is made as simple as possible. I wouldn't suggest for a second that MoI should ship with all the scripts listed on Petr's page but a pick of the best and an ability for users to easily add new scripts to the library.
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
6363.8 In reply to 6363.7 
Hi Jon yes in the future I would like to figure out some way to have "sticking" construction lines in some built in way.

Mainly it's intended that if you need persistent construction geometry you would just draw whatever regular lines, circles, planes, etc... and just name them or assign them a particular style to keep them separated somehow from your regular objects.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
Next
 From:  Michael Gibson
6363.9 In reply to 6363.6 
Hi Jon,

> This is of course less important to the character modelers in gaming/FX but
> for ArchViz, accuracy is essential.

Yeah sorry I was over generalizing the term "poly modeling" and referring more to sub-d modeling for character animation / movie effects type stuff.

Certainly ArchViz is a different area. A lot of people that I've known in the past doing ArchViz actually do come from a long ago drafting / 2D CAD type background though too, instead of only being familiar with poly modeling only...

Often times poly modeling tools themselves are heavily oriented around character animation / fx type stuff as well. Now I seem to remember you mentioning Form-Z - that's a rather unique poly modeling case that has a lot of architectural background in it.

- Michael
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged

Previous
 From:  jonmoore
6363.10 In reply to 6363.9 
>Yeah sorry I was over generalizing the term "poly modeling" and referring more to sub-d modeling for character animation / movie effects type stuff.

No problem at all.

The lines are getting blurred these days. Some architects are using sculpting tools like Mudbox & Hollywood VFX houses are using the likes of Revit to create virtual set designs so it's role reversal time in so many cases. One of the few good things that has come out of Autodesk's Pacman like tendency to gobble up any product it sees as a potential threat, is that practitioners in design business are being exposed to a wider choice of tools and this has had the end effect of making some of the more adventurous firms more agnostic in their choice of tools. Visualisation businesses used only need to worry about translating CAD files ready for texturing, rendering & animation in the likes of Max & C4D but now we're using gaming engines such as Unity 3D to create interactive walkthroughs or having to ensure the models we create for rendering workflows are also shipshape for prototyping via 3D printing technologies. IMHO the better studios out there need a mix of 3D design specialists and more free thinking generalists if they're going to be able to deliver on ever more ambitious client demands. This is one of the reasons that I've been looking at the likes of MoI/Rhino as an extra toolset for my team. Nurbs tools enable us to deliver on certain design briefs with much greater efficiency. They also make a designer think differently about the challenges of the brief, which can only be a good thing.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain some of your thinking behind the way MoI functions, it's greatly appreciated.

jm
  Reply Reply More Options
Post Options
Reply as PM Reply as PM
Print Print
Mark as unread Mark as unread
Relationship Relationship
IP Logged
 

Reply to All Reply to All

 

 
 
Show messages: All  1-6  7-10