Spark Editor suggestion: Angle Control w/ Move Tool
StixNStonz
Join Date: 2006-11-06 Member: 58439Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Join Date: 2006-11-06 Member: 58439Members, Reinforced - Shadow
<div class="IPBDescription">This is a little complex and uses algebra, this is your warning :P</div>I was thinking of what could hold a designer back from using almost solely the Perspective viewport, and angles came to mind.
You can already stick to the grid pretty easily, especially when using the [ and ] brackets to quickly down- and up-scale the grid.
I found that with Brush-based editing, particular angles can be important to use to get things to line up properly, while also useful for making good hand-made arches, curved walls and such.
While keeping to these angles is overall 'clean mapping' when using brush-based editors, I'm unsure of how necessary it really is in Spark. But it still feels like sticking to the grid is useful, and this can help avoid the need for the other 3 viewports that much more.
A 'simple' tool could be as follows (I'll try to explain it from a code/math perspective):
A user shouldn't need to have both a face and one of its edges (*just* those two) selected to use the Move tool in it's normal application. So, under this new feature, when a user selects a face and then one of its edges, let the Move Tool affect only the edge (see Note 1 below). I.e. the Move Tool's origin is on the edge's origin.
By grabbing the axis that is parallel to the face's normal (see Note 2 below), the selected edge would only move along that axis by 22.5 degree intervals. That makes the angle cross the grid on 2:1 and 1:1 angles in all directions.
The angles are taken from the opposing, anchored edge.
Bonus points if it can avoid the angles where it's off the grid, perhaps showing up as red and not being selectable.
As such, if the face was a proper candidate for this tool, mainly by being on the grid and the selected edge being parallel to an axis, the designer could quickly and easily make all sorts of angled geometric objects, easily able to connect them together into more complex geometry (see Note 3 below).
It's the kind of tool whose use would be shown to new mappers in a video tutorial, but I think a tool programmer (and veteran level designers who understand the math) would understand what I mean.
**Note:
1. This would only work if only one edge is selected, no more, and it has an opposing parallel edge, like the large majority of edges do.
1a. The face needs to be selected, as many edges have multiple parallel edges on different faces.
1b. On the rare occasion where an edge has two parallel edges on the same face, it should use the farthest one. Because of Note 2, one
2. This would only work is the face's normal is parallel to one of X, Y or Z axes.
3. Complex geometry gains many benefits from having some of its edges unwelded (i.e. it's build from many pieces), so this tool upgrade would be handy for creating those pieces cleanly and so they fit together easily.
Thoughts?
You can already stick to the grid pretty easily, especially when using the [ and ] brackets to quickly down- and up-scale the grid.
I found that with Brush-based editing, particular angles can be important to use to get things to line up properly, while also useful for making good hand-made arches, curved walls and such.
While keeping to these angles is overall 'clean mapping' when using brush-based editors, I'm unsure of how necessary it really is in Spark. But it still feels like sticking to the grid is useful, and this can help avoid the need for the other 3 viewports that much more.
A 'simple' tool could be as follows (I'll try to explain it from a code/math perspective):
A user shouldn't need to have both a face and one of its edges (*just* those two) selected to use the Move tool in it's normal application. So, under this new feature, when a user selects a face and then one of its edges, let the Move Tool affect only the edge (see Note 1 below). I.e. the Move Tool's origin is on the edge's origin.
By grabbing the axis that is parallel to the face's normal (see Note 2 below), the selected edge would only move along that axis by 22.5 degree intervals. That makes the angle cross the grid on 2:1 and 1:1 angles in all directions.
The angles are taken from the opposing, anchored edge.
Bonus points if it can avoid the angles where it's off the grid, perhaps showing up as red and not being selectable.
As such, if the face was a proper candidate for this tool, mainly by being on the grid and the selected edge being parallel to an axis, the designer could quickly and easily make all sorts of angled geometric objects, easily able to connect them together into more complex geometry (see Note 3 below).
It's the kind of tool whose use would be shown to new mappers in a video tutorial, but I think a tool programmer (and veteran level designers who understand the math) would understand what I mean.
**Note:
1. This would only work if only one edge is selected, no more, and it has an opposing parallel edge, like the large majority of edges do.
1a. The face needs to be selected, as many edges have multiple parallel edges on different faces.
1b. On the rare occasion where an edge has two parallel edges on the same face, it should use the farthest one. Because of Note 2, one
2. This would only work is the face's normal is parallel to one of X, Y or Z axes.
3. Complex geometry gains many benefits from having some of its edges unwelded (i.e. it's build from many pieces), so this tool upgrade would be handy for creating those pieces cleanly and so they fit together easily.
Thoughts?
Comments
Not positive though, as his explanation is really bad. :P
In picture form, you'd like to be able to select an edge, shown here: <a href="http://img21.imageshack.us/i/anglemovesnap1.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3636/anglemovesnap1.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
and move it along the X axis so that you get the result shown here: <a href="http://img20.imageshack.us/i/anglemovesnap2.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1668/anglemovesnap2.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
In picture form, you'd like to be able to select an edge, shown here: <a href="http://img21.imageshack.us/i/anglemovesnap1.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/3636/anglemovesnap1.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a>
and move it along the X axis so that you get the result shown here: <a href="http://img20.imageshack.us/i/anglemovesnap2.jpg/" target="_blank"><img src="http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1668/anglemovesnap2.th.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /></a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dalzig has it, except for the typo about the angle. The angle marked (by your red swipe) would actually be 90 - 22.5, so 67.5.
But yes, the idea is to have a way to move an edge in Perspective mode, where it jumps to the spots where one of its faces (the one you want) hits 'good angles'. These would be 45 degrees (a 1 unit by 1 unit slope), and its halves of 22.5 degrees (which are 2 units by 1 unit slopes). These angles cross the grid every unit (45 degrees) and every second unit (the 22.5's), allowing faces to line up very nicely.
But the 22.5 degree is just as important as the 'popularly known' 45... lol. When it comes to a grid, a 45 degree angle is the most efficient non-axis angle as it cuts the grid every 1 unit in each direction. It's a 1:1 rise over run. The next most efficient is the 2:1 rise over run, which cuts the grid every 2 units. That's the 22.5 degree.
Lol, now that I think if it, even though it seems like 'half the degrees', I don't think it actually is. It's probably more like 20 degrees. Either way, the grid units are what's important.