The best part of the modifier to me is to deform the mesh to make a perfect cilinder, with curve shape or keeping the original shape and the steps that you need. I don't see how to make that with spin, falloff and array in node system.
2018-05-07 22:04 GMT+02:00 Ronan Ducluzeau <[email protected]>: > I agree that spin tool currently do not create an elevation. > But it has a duplicate option in 2.79 and in 2.8, it was separated in > another spin duplicate tool. > > I was just thinking this tool as a node that could be associated with a > falloff node that exists in animation nodes addon. > http://animation-nodes-manual.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_ > guide/nodes/falloff/fade_falloff.html > > I don't deny that proposed way is more intuitive. > But we could imagine a refactor of current array modifier to use > manipulators as simple as that instead of creating a new modifier. > If a radial array was done with a center defined by a manipulator just > activated with a checkbox added to current array modifier; > will you still request proposed modifier with its 3 methods, 4 values and 6 > buttons ? > > 2018-05-07 16:11 GMT+02:00 Alberto Velázquez <[email protected]>: > > > This modifier is obiusly different to spin, spin only extrude a mesh, > this > > modifier create and array in a determinate shape. Actually I'm doing a > work > > where this modifier will help me a lot to reduce times and make less > > destructive the workflow. > > > > 2018-05-07 15:27 GMT+02:00 metalliandy <[email protected]>: > > > > > I've been waiting for ages for a modifier like this. It will be much > more > > > efficient, and significantly simpler than manually rotating objects > with > > an > > > empty or using the spin tool. It should also be noted that the spin > tool > > is > > > destructive too, so it cannot be considered as a direct replacement. > > > > > > Christian, Great work with this. May I suggest you rename the modifier > to > > > Radial Array rather than Circular Array though? Radial is a much more > > > accurate description. :) > > > > > > Ronan, I'm fine with the idea of adding nodes for people who want to do > > > procedural modelling in addition to modifiers, but it's pretty crazy to > > > consider dropping the modifier stack all together. It would be much > > slower > > > for regular modelling and take much more screen real-estate, so I hope > it > > > doesn't come to that. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > On 07/05/2018 07:56, Ronan Ducluzeau wrote: > > > > > >> To model this kind of shape, we can obtain a clean result simply by > > using > > >> a > > >> beveled curve that is an helix. > > >> We can also use dupliframes to obtain duplicates of a mesh following > > such > > >> a > > >> curve. > > >> > > >> So, the purpose of such a modifier is narrowed to animation. > > >> And with an addon like animation nodes, you should be able to convert > a > > >> beveled curve to a mesh that could handle boolean operation to keep > only > > >> some portions of the shape. > > >> > > >> So, the process to do that in 2.79 is not obvious but it exists. > > >> > > >> For future of modifiers, there is the idea to abandon modifiers's > stack > > to > > >> a nodetree. > > >> Each modifier should be converted as a simple node. And to offer a > > >> complete > > >> solution of procedural modeling, tools in edit mode should follow same > > >> process and becomes a modifier node. > > >> So, in a context where a Spin Duplicate is a tool in edit mode usable > > as a > > >> modifier node. Your circular array modifier would be redundant. > > >> > > >> Modifiers nodes proposal was announced as postponed. > > >> I don't know in what measure new modifiers would accepted. > > >> But there were other modifiers proposals made. > > >> And some like Remove Doubles or Bisect modifiers seems more useful for > > >> people that would neglect a nodes workflow. > > >> > > >> Maybe, there could be a clarification about work on new modifiers for > > 2.8 > > >> to avoïd a waste of time and efforts. > > >> > > >> 2018-05-06 15:45 GMT+02:00 Christian Hubert < > > [email protected] > > >> >: > > >> > > >> Hello again Thomas, > > >>> > > >>> The diff is here: https://developer.blender.org/D3206 > > >>> Your feedback is welcome. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> > > >>> Christian > > >>> > > >>> -----Message d'origine----- > > >>> De : Bf-committers <[email protected]> De la part de > > >>> Christian Hubert > > >>> Envoyé : dimanche 6 mai 2018 14:45 > > >>> À : 'bf-blender developers' <[email protected]> > > >>> Objet : Re: [Bf-committers] Circular array modifier > > >>> > > >>> Hi Thomas, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> About the diff, I'll do it asap and set you as a subscriber > (probably I > > >>> can do it during this afternoon or maybe, but there are family things > > >>> before that today ^^). > > >>> > > >>> But concerning your blend file, simply edit the cube and subdivide > it a > > >>> bit (W + subdivide or add a subsurf with simple option) and have a > look > > >>> at > > >>> the result. Also you needed to tune the empty to 15.1 degrees and to > > >>> adjust > > >>> the merge distance. > > >>> This has an impact on the resulting mesh (set it displayed into > > wire/draw > > >>> all edges for a better look) and the overall shape is not smooth (in > > >>> sense > > >>> of regular). > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Have a great Sunday too! > > >>> Christian > > >>> > > >>> -----Message d'origine----- > > >>> De : Bf-committers <[email protected]> De la part de > > >>> Thomas Beck Envoyé : dimanche 6 mai 2018 13:45 À : bf-blender > > developers > > >>> < > > >>> [email protected]> Objet : Re: [Bf-committers] Circular > array > > >>> modifier > > >>> > > >>> Hi Chris > > >>> > > >>> definitely send in a diff developer.blender.org, this way we could > > >>> continue our discussion there and won't clutter the mailing list. > > >>> > > >>> Look at this file: http://pasteall.org/blend/index.php?id=49459 - > it's > > >>> not constructed around a central point but does imho the same thing - > > >>> currently I would rather see your modifier as an option integrated > into > > >>> the > > >>> current one than having a new one added to Blender... but I can of > > course > > >>> miss smth here. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers and have a great Sunday, > > >>> Thomas > > >>> > > >>> Plasmasolutions > > >>> Design | Development | Training > > >>> > > >>> Website: Http://www.plasmasolutions.de <http://www.plasmasolutions. > de/ > > > > > >>> Blog: Http://blog.plasmasolutions.de <http://blog.plasmasolutions. > de/> > > >>> > > >>> Telefon: +49 176 2017 9565 > > >>> > > >>> Blender Foundation Certified Trainer > > >>> <http://www.blendernetwork.org/BFCT>Autor von "Blender 2.7 - das > > >>> umfassende Handbuch" <http://www.galileo-press.de/3404> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Am So., 6. Mai 2018 um 12:31 Uhr schrieb Christian Hubert < > > >>> [email protected]>: > > >>> > > >>> Hi Thomas, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks a lot for this feedback, and no worries, there is no offense > at > > >>>> > > >>> all. > > >>> > > >>>> About the screw modifier, afaik, no. Because the screw modifier > > >>>> extrudes the mesh and this one duplicates it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Concerning the array, yes you can do things, but partially (again, > > >>>> afaik), because the base mesh is not really placed around (and > adapted > > >>>> to) a central pivot. Maybe a combination of array + simpledeform > could > > >>>> make things similar, but it is not easy to tune the positions of the > > >>>> object and its axis and to master master the central position is. > And > > >>>> even with that, adding a screw make it more complex. > > >>>> > > >>>> But that could be because of my lack of knowledge about these > > modifiers. > > >>>> If you've time, feel free to provide some examples. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks again, > > >>>> > > >>>> Kind regards, > > >>>> Christian > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> -----Message d'origine----- > > >>>> De : Thomas Beck <[email protected]> Envoyé : dimanche 6 > > mai > > >>>> 2018 11:18 À : bf-blender developers <[email protected]> > > Objet > > >>>> : Re: [Bf-committers] Circular array modifier > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Christian, > > >>>> > > >>>> I just watched your video and I'm wondering if that is not already > > >>>> possible with an ordinary screw modifier? And even the current array > > >>>> modifier (in combination with a rotated and shifted empty along an > > >>>> axis) is capable of duplicating a mesh along this exact exis. No > > >>>> offense and thanks for your effort - it's more about understanding > why > > >>>> > > >>> we need this modifier... > > >>> > > >>>> Cheers, > > >>>> Thomas > > >>>> > > >>>> Plasmasolutions > > >>>> Design | Development | Training > > >>>> > > >>>> Website: Http://www.plasmasolutions.de > > >>>> <http://www.plasmasolutions.de/> > > >>>> Blog: Http://blog.plasmasolutions.de <http://blog.plasmasolutions. > de/ > > > > > >>>> > > >>>> Blender Foundation Certified Trainer > > >>>> <http://www.blendernetwork.org/BFCT>Autor von "Blender 2.7 - das > > >>>> umfassende Handbuch" <http://www.galileo-press.de/3404> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Am So., 6. Mai 2018 um 10:20 Uhr schrieb Christian Hubert < > > >>>> [email protected]>: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Previously named < fan modifier >, the < circular array modifier > > > >>>>> is now ported to 2.8. I can send a diff when you give me the < go > >. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Here is a demo video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKFHubAFzQ > > >>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKFHubAFzQ&feature=youtu.be> > > >>>>> &feature=youtu.be > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The parameters: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Modes : simple, homothetic, rounded > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Simple mode: the modifier creates simple duplis of the mesh > > >>>>> > > >>>> rotated > > >>>> > > >>>>> around the axis > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Angle of rotation: the mesh is duplicated < slices > time > > >>>>> > > >>>> inside > > >>> > > >>>> this angle > > >>>>> * Slices: amount of times the duplication occurs > > >>>>> * Iterations: amount of times the angle is repeted > > >>>>> * Height: wanted height, with 3 modes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Slice: the height is the height between two consecutive > > slices > > >>>>> * Iteration: the height is given for an iteration > > >>>>> * Total: the height is total height of the result > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Axis: 3 possibilities. Around X and facing Y. Around Y and > > >>>>> > > >>>> facing > > >>> > > >>>> Z. > > >>>>> Around Z and facing X. See comments about that below > > >>>>> * Pivot axis: another object can be used as pivot (instead of > > the > > >>>>> object origin and local axis) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Homothetic: the duplis are stretched transversally so that > > they > > >>>>> > > >>>> can > > >>>> > > >>>>> be joined. Below the parameters which are different from simple > mode > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Magin angle: an angle between slices > > >>>>> * Shear: connect mesh borders along the height > > >>>>> * Merge: merge border vertices (from a slice to the next one > > and > > >>>>> > > >>>> from > > >>>> > > >>>>> first/last slice) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * Rounded: same as homothetic, but the vertices are shifted > > >>>>> longitudinally to make the shape round. The parameters are the same > > >>>>> as for < homothetic > > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Comment about axis: the calculation considers a < facing axis >, so > > >>>>> that (for homothetic and rounded modes), the connection between > > >>>>> slices is done when the mesh is symmetrical along this facing axis. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Another calculation could avoid that, by projecting the mesh along > > >>>>> the rotation axis whatever its position is around it. But using a > > >>>>> facing axis allows to obtains asymmetrical effects (visible in the > > >>>>> video), at the cost of user effort to place the mesh (or axis > object) > > >>>>> > > >>>> correctly. > > >>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Thanks for your feed back. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Christian > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Bf-committers mailing list > > >>>>> [email protected] > > >>>>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>> Bf-committers mailing list > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >>>> > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Bf-committers mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Bf-committers mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Bf-committers mailing list > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >> Bf-committers mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bf-committers mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
