Timeline for Realigning the Axis to Geometry
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 2, 2019 at 5:15 | history | edited | hatinacat2000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 5:11 | comment | added | hatinacat2000 | LOL! That's great, we remember our successes better for the trouble we have getting there ;P Good luck! | |
| May 2, 2019 at 5:09 | comment | added | Hetoreyn | Thank you gentlemen .. between the two of you I believe I understand better now. This is still really frustrating .. but I do see what needs to be done now. My thanks. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 5:09 | comment | added | Hetoreyn | AHHH!!! .. OKAY .. After re-reading your thing a bunch of time I belive I get it. So it needed more info on the geometry to create the transform ... Z was okay because of the legnth but with no width i can't determine where they should point. I just tried this again and it's actually worked ... could be a fluke :P .. But It stayed even when coming back to object mode. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 5:07 | comment | added | hatinacat2000 | 2.8 does have serious handicaps (for example, extruding vertices and single-face objects are broken compared to 2.79; instancing creates copies in outliner but not the scene, etc). But this isn't Blender's fault, there just isn't enough information to orient X and Y if you just select a single face for a new orientation; that will only inform the Z-axis. Select 2 edges or perhaps 2 faces instead. I also updated my post to include a visual example of cross-product and a zoom-out of what I was doing on my bookcase. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 5:04 | history | edited | hatinacat2000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
cross-product clarity; what I did clarity
|
| May 2, 2019 at 5:01 | comment | added | Hetoreyn | Hmmm .. so that would mean there's no way to set the axis to just follow the face. This does seem a rather serious handicap .. I mean if there's no way to just have the axis point exactly in the direction of where the objects facing. I'm kinda screwed from now on it seems. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 4:57 | comment | added | hatinacat2000 | I think it didn't work because face normals will provide only enough information for the new Z-orientation, but not the X and Y, which as Sazerac said is based on the object's world orientation when no other info is available. I should also clarify that the the X and Y vectors orient to the segments I selected [presumably] because they are off by exactly 90 degrees. That's what made sense to me before I tried it and it worked =/ | |
| May 2, 2019 at 4:54 | comment | added | Hetoreyn | I'm gonna have to re-read your comments again (frankly a lot of it is making me crosseyed .. but I'm trying to keep up with it. So far nothing I've tried makes the tranform behave like yours does. I'd upload a new photo to illustrate but I can't seem to do that in this comment. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 4:50 | comment | added | Hetoreyn | I see ... I tried this by selecting a face and trying to make a new transform ... it didn't work .. I take it faces won't work for this .. has to be edges of vertices? | |
| May 2, 2019 at 4:47 | history | edited | hatinacat2000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarity
|
| May 2, 2019 at 4:42 | history | edited | hatinacat2000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 231 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 4:35 | history | answered | hatinacat2000 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |