Transform Constraint Doesn't Obey World/World Setting (Inherits from Parent instead!) #40269

New Issue

bassam kurdali · 2014-05-20T02:04:10+02:00

bassam kurdali commented

2014-05-20 02:04:10 +02:00

System Information
GNU Linux 64 bit (Fedora 20) Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU

Blender Version
Broken: (example: 2.70.5 Hash 0d9e6a7)
Worked: (2.70a release)

Short description of error
Transform Constraint - specifically here in Scale to Scale in World/World mode used to override inherited scale from parent; now it applies on top breaking multiple rigs
In the shown example, the parent bone has been scaled down. note the difference in 2.70a and Master.
Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Due to other compatiblity changes, that broke forward compatibility, I've uploaded two files:
A file for 2.70a{F89471}
And a file for Master transform_new.blend
Open transform.blend in 2.7a, note the constraint settings, and that the parent bone is scaled down
Open transform_new.blend in master, note it is exactly the same settings/setup (you can even open transform.blend but not vice versa) and that it looks totally different.

Finally:
This is the rig I had to debug this in!

**System Information** GNU Linux 64 bit (Fedora 20) Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU **Blender Version** Broken: (example: 2.70.5 Hash 0d9e6a7) Worked: (2.70a release) **Short description of error** Transform Constraint - specifically here in Scale to Scale in World/World mode used to override inherited scale from parent; now it applies on top breaking multiple rigs In the shown example, the parent bone has been scaled down. note the difference in 2.70a and Master.![transform_constraint.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F89469/transform_constraint.png) **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Due to other compatiblity changes, that broke forward compatibility, I've uploaded two files: A file for 2.70a{[F89471](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F89471/transform.blend)} And a file for Master [transform_new.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F89472/transform_new.blend) Open transform.blend in 2.7a, note the constraint settings, and that the parent bone is scaled down Open transform_new.blend in master, note it is exactly the same settings/setup (you can even open transform.blend but not vice versa) and that it looks totally different. Finally: This is the rig I had to debug this in! ![hands.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F89473/hands.png)

bassam kurdali commented

2014-05-20 02:04:11 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

bassam kurdali commented

2014-05-20 02:04:11 +02:00

Added subscriber: @BassamKurdali

bassam kurdali commented

2014-05-20 02:05:47 +02:00

reuploading transform.blend
transform.blend

reuploading transform.blend [transform.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F89475/transform.blend)

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 08:33:42 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Bastien Montagne self-assigned this 2014-05-20 08:35:03 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 08:35:03 +02:00

Grmll, I guess this one is for me again…

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 08:37:49 +02:00

(No need for two different files here, btw, issues only happen when using rotation in Transform constraint ;) ).

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 15:18:46 +02:00

Ok, so issue is (again) introduced by 8714ae09f8 (while working on this constraint, I discovered that scale, unlike rotation or location, was completely replaced by this Transform constraint, and since I saw no good reason for this, I “stupidly” made it relative to org scale, like the others).

In absolute, this is good, but since it again breaks existing rigs… Will just revert, not worth adding an option to decide whether constraint is absolute or relative for scale, imho, that Transform already has way too much options.

Ok, so issue is (again) introduced by 8714ae09f8 (while working on this constraint, I discovered that scale, unlike rotation or location, was completely replaced by this Transform constraint, and since I saw no good reason for this, I “stupidly” made it relative to org scale, like the others). In absolute, this is good, but since it again breaks existing rigs… Will just revert, not worth adding an option to decide whether constraint is absolute or relative for scale, imho, that Transform already has way too much options.

blender-admin commented

2014-05-20 15:21:33 +02:00

This issue was referenced by 3bba558944

This issue was referenced by 3bba558944a280daa4b1dbb027b65583dfe0f7fe

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 15:25:03 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2014-05-20 15:25:03 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 15:25:03 +02:00

Closed by commit 3bba558944.

Closed by commit 3bba558944.

bassam kurdali commented

2014-05-20 18:45:53 +02:00

Thanks Bastien!
In general it is better to keep bugs / inconsistencies in the current constraints unless there is a consensis by riggers that something has to be changed, otherwise, it just introduces incompatibilities

I think we could design a better constraint/transform system, especially after Lukas' new work on dependency graphs that could accomplish many cool things (optionally) such as:
1- Nodal Workflow/Design
2- Simplify indivudual constraint/ node options reducing complexity/bugs
3- Allow transform nodes which could replace complex and buggy 'offset' options in constraints
4- '3' also allows more flexible ordering of operations (currently we are very hardcoded in which order transform/constraint is evaluated)
5- ?? insert cool idea here :)

Current system is a bit too hackish/overloaded with options and tends to break rigs very easily on changes. It would be really cool to have a more robust system allowing rig assets to have more longevity.

Thanks Bastien! In general it is better to keep bugs / inconsistencies in the current constraints unless there is a consensis by riggers that something has to be changed, otherwise, it just introduces incompatibilities I think we could design a better constraint/transform system, especially after Lukas' new work on dependency graphs that could accomplish many cool things (optionally) such as: 1- Nodal Workflow/Design 2- Simplify indivudual constraint/ node options reducing complexity/bugs 3- Allow transform nodes which could replace complex and buggy 'offset' options in constraints 4- '3' also allows more flexible ordering of operations (currently we are very hardcoded in which order transform/constraint is evaluated) 5- ?? insert cool idea here :) Current system is a bit too hackish/overloaded with options and tends to break rigs very easily on changes. It would be really cool to have a more robust system allowing rig assets to have more longevity.

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-05-20 19:05:38 +02:00

Yes, agree, current system has way too much issues (also, e.g. the fact that each constraint is always evaluated against org matrix of the object, not previous constraint result - what the meaning of having a stack, in this case?), the fact that it only uses matrix, which has some serious limitations at least on rotations, etc. etc. So new design is for sure needed!

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Transform Constraint Doesn't Obey World/World Setting (Inherits from Parent instead!) #40269