Question: I always assumed Delta Transforms were just one more transformation matrix, multiplied by the base transform matrix of the object. Am I incorrect?
Longer term, might be nicer than tweaking hard coded delta transforms, to have a transform node graph (or stack) that encompasses multiple transforms and constraints; That way would be nice for e.g. Offsets (inverse parent/ child off/ constraint offsets - simplifying and making more 'transparent' constraints) and for Delta transforms. For the short term, it's interesting that objects have delta transforms but bones don't (unless I miss anything) On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 09:07 +1100, Campbell Barton wrote: > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Michael Fox <[email protected]> wrote: > > ummm yeah, delta loc adds, delta rotation adds, so logically and > > intuitively, delta scale should add, > > The idea of delta (from what I can tell) is to apply a difference in > transform channels, > rotation does not add - if you look at object_rot_to_mat3() it > converts the rotations into a matrix and multiplies them together. > > If you want to double the existing 1.0 scaled object `intuitively` > you'd set the delta to 2.0 right? :), > like if the object was made the child of another object which was then > scaled by 2.0x. > But with adding delta scale this makes the object 3.0x, worse, you > cant consistently double the existing scale, you always need to do > some mental arithmetic to work out what double would be. > > Applying scale to a point multiplies so IMHO its logical that delta > scale would multiply too. > > Another downside of adding scale is you can get negative scales > without meaning to (flipping the object), where as with multiplying as > long as both are > 0.0 it wont happen. > > > multiplying is just going cause issues, when you scale something in the > > UI, then it changes when you playback, > > > > adding scale is more intuitive when animating, so you don't constantly > > fret over what you are actually keying and that key is going to behave > > properly when I playback > > don't understand why there would be any trouble here. > > > ass for the bug, delta scale when its being calculated just needs to > > subtract by 1 that was scale of 1+0=1, changing it to multiply is just > > too severe and heavy handed > > are you suggesting delta scale be modified to subtract 1 before being applied? > > > On 28/11/11 05:20, Campbell Barton wrote: > >> This bug report highlights that delta scaling is adding rather then > >> scaling the objects scale. > >> > >> https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=29111&group_id=9&atid=498 > >> > >> I've attached a patch which changes delta-scale to multiply to scale > >> which IMHO is much more logical, > >> incidentally do_displacement() in convertblender.c is already treating > >> dsize as a multiplier which is odd. > >> > >> The patch attached to the bug report updates existing files with 2 caveats. > >> - animated dsize wont be converted. > >> - objects scaled to 0.0, with a non-zero delta scale can't be > >> converted, think this is really an obscure case though. > >> > >> Would this be acceptable to apply before 2.61? > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bf-committers mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > > > > > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
