Taros Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Hello. Today I've tried the new primitives tool in the voxel part of 3DC. First I was wondered, why the standard symmetry tool was not working. I've pressed the 's" key but nothing happens, the primitives ignored the standard symmetry. After some time I've realised that a "seperate" symmetry tool rules the voxel primitves?! Guys, tell me, why are you doing this?! In my opinion you are making one of the very first developer mistakes: you implement same functionalities at different places in your application. The only thing you will receive in this way, is confusion and problems. Beginning at bug posts, someone could write: he have problems with symmetry in voxels. But you don't know: Which symmetry he is talking about?! This is only one example in conjunction to my mentioned point. So, my request for pilgway: Don't invent new solutions for existing functionalities. If you already have the tools to do something, use them! Please, don't underrate this. Best wishes Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Ghostdog Posted January 7, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 7, 2010 Chris this is a good point. Development must consider two types of users with regards to any functionality introduced, it doesn't matter if it is related to the GUI or not, both are equal. Type 1: Existing user. How do they behave with the current system or functionality? If this enhancement, change or addition is similar in any way at all to another tool, that user will assume it works the same. They are relying on prior program learnings and knowledge. Type 2. New User. Perhaps needing two subsections? Sub1 = those who do not read the manual and guess they way through. They will expect the tool to work similar to software they already know. If all else fails they may expect it to "work just like Photoshop" Sub section 2 is those who read the manual, they may still apply prior learnings from other tools! It is natural and efficient to expect different tools to behave in a similar ways! Chris makes a good point that if ignored is dangerous! Imagine this: BMW invents the worlds fastest car that goes 0 - 100mph in 2 secs flat, they also decide to put the accelerator pedal in the middle because it looks cool having it illuminated by the other speed-sensitive pedals. What is going to happen? Consider the user always. Always expect them to know less than you. Never write the software documentation once. If the code changes so should the documentation. However, 3dCoat must be given credit for a fantastic change in Documentation layout & UI in the version changes between 2 & 3. It always needs more improvement though. It does not matter how many tools are in your toolbox if you forget how to open it. I care about this software. Robbie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member ghib Posted January 7, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 7, 2010 I think that the original symmetry function doesn't have the ability to have more than 1 axis activated at the same time; which is my guess as to why a new system was implemented. I agree that 3D-Coat does tend to suffer from this 'multiple functionality' quite a lot and really needs cleaned up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Mykyl Posted January 7, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 7, 2010 I am one of those that did not realise that the symmetry was a separate tool. I wondered why symmetry had not been added and just assumed it was unfinished. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers Mike R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 7, 2010 Author Share Posted January 7, 2010 I think that the original symmetry function doesn't have the ability to have more than 1 axis activated at the same time; which is my guess as to why a new system was implemented. I agree that 3D-Coat does tend to suffer from this 'multiple functionality' quite a lot and really needs cleaned up. You are right, but then: Why don't stay at the place where the symmetry will be expected and place additional checkboxes (functionalities) for the primitives mode there and only if necessary? In this case it means: "Show the user only the functionality, that he or she can use in the current situation. No more and no less." Best wishes Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Marc Wakefield Posted January 7, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 7, 2010 It may need explanation, but I actually think it works well when done in the right order. 1) Primitive Symmetry activated = useful for making a head or a body part symmetrical before duplication. 2) Main symmetry activated = duplicated primitive which useful for making two arms, two legs, two ears, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor Tony Nemo Posted January 7, 2010 Contributor Share Posted January 7, 2010 It may need explanation, but I actually think it works well when done in the right order. 1) Primitive Symmetry activated = useful for making a head or a body part symmetrical before duplication. 2) Main symmetry activated = duplicated primitive which useful for making two arms, two legs, two ears, etc I'm glad I had a chance to see this discussion before I got frustrated/mystified! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted January 7, 2010 Contributor Share Posted January 7, 2010 Why don't stay at the place where the symmetry will be expected and place additional checkboxes (functionalities) for the primitives mode there and only if necessary? Very good example of streamlining.No additionnal cost,just a little psychology.Send Andrew Ideas like that,its very good. 3DCoat needs good "no coding" streamlining ideas and this one is a good example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reputable Contributor AbnRanger Posted January 7, 2010 Reputable Contributor Share Posted January 7, 2010 Speaking of Symmetry...I still think it's necessary for Andrew to enable an option in the Symmetry menu to "Transform Symmetry Plane." Artman...I tried the steps you mentioned in another thread, and never came out with a satisfactory result. So if you make the mistake of diving in on a primitive and forget to turn symmetry on, you will likely have to start over...it's a damn mess trying to fix it. I tried for over an hour or so recently and just gave up. I've asked about this two or three times, and nothing's been done to date. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor artman Posted January 7, 2010 Contributor Share Posted January 7, 2010 Speaking of Symmetry...I still think it's necessary for Andrew to enable an option in the Symmetry menu to "Transform Symmetry Plane." Artman...I tried the steps you mentioned in another thread, and never came out with a satisfactory result. So if you make the mistake of diving in on a primitive and forget to turn symmetry on, you will likely have to start over...it's a damn mess trying to fix it. I tried for over an hour or so recently and just gave up. I've asked about this two or three times, and nothing's been done to date. I think Symmetry plane orientation is linked to space density more than we think and not really an independent thing. Having it as free and independent as a gizmo is maybe a very hard thing to code.It is not trivial matter. In Zb and Mudbox the possibilities with symmetry plane manipulation are even smaller than in present 3dCoat. Meanwhile try to not forget to turn symmetry plane on or just do undo after your first stroke . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Hey Taros, while I generally agree with your original post, there is a reason why there is LOCAL symmetry for the new primitives tool. With it's current implementation, you can create primitives across the (older, global) symmetry plane. With the primitives new (local) symmetry, this allows you to modify the lattice cage of your object, symmetrically. Personally, I think having a global AND local symmetry only gives us more control, and more control is definitely a good thing. Keeping things too simple can really hinder a program. Now, that said, I do agree that adding too much can be confusing to some users. Luckily I am not one of those users. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member kay_Eva Posted January 8, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 8, 2010 We need local symmetry on the primatives. If you are putting a pair of sunglasses that hang vertically you would want the symmetry plane to be different than that of a character for example. But overall the options checkboxes need to be probably completely overhauled and streamlined: trouble is that 3dcoat development is too fast to do that now. So that is the trade off and I think it's worthwhile. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Contributor bwtr Posted January 8, 2010 Contributor Share Posted January 8, 2010 Was I really number 3 owner of 3D Paint originally? I am old so that is my main excuse, but I relly don't use 3DC much. The fast development and extras added, almost daily, is just too much to absorb. 3DC seems to need a stop to "more" and rather a stabilisation and clarity in it's workings. Maybe a big printout "work flow chart"? And tutes/movies grouped only as applicable to that working state? Brian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 We need local symmetry on the primatives. If you are putting a pair of sunglasses that hang vertically you would want the symmetry plane to be different than that of a character for example. But overall the options checkboxes need to be probably completely overhauled and streamlined: trouble is that 3dcoat development is too fast to do that now. So that is the trade off and I think it's worthwhile. Quoted for agreement. Local symmetry can only be a good thing. I also agree that some streamlining is needed at some point, and I'm certain Andrew will get to that eventually. But right now new tools and features is the focus. There is much work to do on both fronts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Shpagin Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 It may need explanation, but I actually think it works well when done in the right order. 1) Primitive Symmetry activated = useful for making a head or a body part symmetrical before duplication. 2) Main symmetry activated = duplicated primitive which useful for making two arms, two legs, two ears, etc It is precise reason why it was done as it was done. Checkboxes reflect LOCAL symmetry inside primitive, symmetry plane reflects GLOBAL symmetry for creating pair of objects. If you have better idea how it should be done better keeping the functionality, please tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 Hey Taros, while I generally agree with your original post, there is a reason why there is LOCAL symmetry for the new primitives tool. With it's current implementation, you can create primitives across the (older, global) symmetry plane. With the primitives new (local) symmetry, this allows you to modify the lattice cage of your object, symmetrically. Personally, I think having a global AND local symmetry only gives us more control, and more control is definitely a good thing. Keeping things too simple can really hinder a program. Now, that said, I do agree that adding too much can be confusing to some users. Luckily I am not one of those users. Yes, you are right and I know the reason, why pilgway have solved it in this way. But I think, 3DC must stay consequent. I am not a friend of critique and "pure words", therefore I prepered an example, how every symmetry mode could be solved in a good, in my opition better and user friendly way. See my attachment for my example. Why don't do it in this way? @Andrew: Yes, I know that. But why don't switch the additional symmetry modes only in special situations? Example: If I am in primitives mode, then and only then I see the extended functionality, when I press "s" for symmetry. That's what is more flexible an user friedly, in my opinion. Best wishes Chris 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applink Developer haikalle Posted January 8, 2010 Applink Developer Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think that current way is okey, but I do understand your point Taros. In the picture there is a good ideas. Angle based symmetry would be great. Put if Andrew add only checkboxes to symmetry list. There would be many topics in forum saying "Why my symmetry dosen't work" because they would think that when they check the box,it for voxel global symmetry. BTW I really wish I could have as much memory as you have...That's coool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think that current way is okey, but I do understand your point Taros. In the picture there is a good ideas. Angle based symmetry would be great. Put if Andrew add only checkboxes to symmetry list. There would be many topics in forum saying "Why my symmetry dosen't work" because they would think that when they check the box,it for voxel global symmetry. BTW I really wish I could have as much memory as you have...That's coool Global/Lokal symmetry problem: Yes, I know. This is the reason, why I talk about "additional symmetry modes". This checkboxes should only appear, if they are useful for individual tools. If not, then the area should stay empty. Or do I misunderstand something? @memory: Just switch to a 64 bit system... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applink Developer haikalle Posted January 8, 2010 Applink Developer Share Posted January 8, 2010 Oh sorry... Now I see your point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javis Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Yeah I see your point. It's been on my feature request list for some time actually! This is the beginning of local symmetry, I'm pretty certain we'll see more tools adopt it in the future. I like your mock up, btw. It would be nice to have the panel just like that and function the same as well, with global, local and radial symmetry for all tools (At least the tools that would make sense for the latter two, anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taros Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 Yes. It would be nice to see some of the ideas in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advanced Member Marc Wakefield Posted January 12, 2010 Advanced Member Share Posted January 12, 2010 Yes. It would be nice to see some of the ideas in the future. I think you are right with regards to the mock up. I guess it would be a lot easier for new users to understand as it would be a bit more straight forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.