Transformation Constraint #33690

Closed
opened 2012-12-28 13:55:33 +01:00 by Voyager Voyager · 8 comments

%%%Grab the Empty named Source (shaped like a Cube) 2.5 meters along X axis. Empty named Destination is properly rotated (like in Transformation Constraint - ranging from 0 to 2.5 rotates Destination -45 Degrees. Here all the fun begins, grab the Empty named Source again 2.5 meters along X axis and look wthat's happening. Empty named Destination should move 1 meter along Local Z axis as set in Transformation Constraint (Space Local Space <-> Local Space). As you can see Empty named Destination move 1 meter in Global Space instead of Local.%%%

%%%Grab the Empty named Source (shaped like a Cube) 2.5 meters along X axis. Empty named Destination is properly rotated (like in Transformation Constraint - ranging from 0 to 2.5 rotates Destination -45 Degrees. Here all the fun begins, grab the Empty named Source again 2.5 meters along X axis and look wthat's happening. Empty named Destination should move 1 meter along Local Z axis as set in Transformation Constraint (Space Local Space <-> Local Space). As you can see Empty named Destination move 1 meter in Global Space instead of Local.%%%

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'

%%%Platform:


Windows 7 x64

Blender:


Version:2.65.3
Revision: r53352%%%

%%%Platform: **** Windows 7 x64 Blender: **** Version:2.65.3 Revision: r53352%%%

%%%Imho, this is not a bug, this is how constraints work (all constraints, not only Transformation one): they are always evaluated based on original (unconstrained) object's space – even though this might look un-intuitive…

Assigning to Joshua to see what he says about it. ;)%%%

%%%Imho, this is not a bug, this is how constraints work (all constraints, not only Transformation one): they are always evaluated based on original (unconstrained) object's space – even though this might look un-intuitive… Assigning to Joshua to see what he says about it. ;)%%%

%%%Truly speaking, there are many other ways to do it but it would be nice to have it properly working. It's IMHO most flexible and particuraly fast way in this situation.%%%

%%%Truly speaking, there are many other ways to do it but it would be nice to have it properly working. It's IMHO most flexible and particuraly fast way in this situation.%%%
Member

%%%I'm not sure why "map to local" wouldn't use the constrainted previous state into account. Multiple constraints on top of each other should work like presented here...%%%

%%%I'm not sure why "map to local" wouldn't use the constrainted previous state into account. Multiple constraints on top of each other should work like presented here...%%%
Member

%%%Ton is right. All constraints always use the result of the previous constraints, and map these transforms into the relevant spaces.

Hence, in this case, we're really looking at how "local space" is defined for objects.

  • If there is a parent, we just remove the parent influence. That should now be "local" as in relative to parent.
  • With no parent: Because object's don't have a "rest pose" that we can simply use as the baseline to remove from the transforms, we remove the rotation specified by the user via rotation properties (which get set using transform tools and/or buttons). This is used instead of all the rotations currently present (from previous constraints in stack) so that there's still some rotation component left to play with for some of the other constraints (e.g. for limit rotation or so, which would be completely useless).

What this case shows though is that users in some cases do want to be able to have it just take out all rotations.%%%

%%%Ton is right. All constraints always use the result of the previous constraints, and map these transforms into the relevant spaces. Hence, in this case, we're really looking at how "local space" is defined for objects. * If there is a parent, we just remove the parent influence. That should now be "local" as in relative to parent. * With no parent: Because object's don't have a "rest pose" that we can simply use as the baseline to remove from the transforms, we remove the rotation specified by the user via rotation properties (which get set using transform tools and/or buttons). This is used instead of all the rotations currently present (from previous constraints in stack) so that there's still some rotation component left to play with for some of the other constraints (e.g. for limit rotation or so, which would be completely useless). What this case shows though is that users in some cases do want to be able to have it just take out all rotations.%%%
Member

%%%Closing. This is not really a bug.%%%

%%%Closing. This is not really a bug.%%%
Member

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#33690
No description provided.