Check out the Gumball Enhanced

Check out the Gumball enhancements in the latest build.

@mikko can tell you more about what to look for.

2 Likes

The first thing I see is strange behavior::
CP_GummballNew.mp4 (105.6 KB)

What else is new?

-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-

Hi Charles,
I’m sure what you see is intended behavior and I find it works well. As soon as one has decided for one transform type and has even clicked the arrow to enter a number all no more needed controls of the widget disappear. If you realize that you actually wanted to do something else, moving the mouse slightly away from the input box is sufficient to let the remaining controls re-appear, while your selection is retained. Also new are highlighting of arrows, a new placement of the Scale Handles (no longer uses Bounding Box) and Extrude Handles which appear on sub-object selection.

I was confused when the gumball vanished, or most parts of it.
For me it looks as if something went wrong.

And why hide the other gumball parts?
What is the advantage?

For the other features, I will look more closely and patient before I say something.

-C-H-A-R-L-E-S-

Typing non-numbers in the gumball edit boxes can corrupt geometry.
(Bug report filed - http://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-29324)

What’s the general vibe about this change? Better, worse, just different?

thanks,

-Pascal

1 Like

I think it’s better. BoundingBox location sometimes it’s out of view.

I still think that scaling needs work in some areas:

  • I still cannot do anything more that 1D scale. I want at least be able to do 2D scaling, even 3D if you guys find a good way for it.

  • if I double-click the scale handle I can enter a numeric input. That input seems to be scale factor, for example ‘3’ will scale up my object along that axis 3X longer. But I want to input 3mm or 3" so it will scale whatever X factor until it reaches my target desired dimension. That’s the most common use of the scale tool for me, and I would want that also in the gumball.

I will also want to input ‘+3’ so the new scale will be whatever size is now plus 3 mome units. Because I want to make my part 3mm wider, just like I do in BoxEdit.

Hi Gustavo -
That one is in there is you hold Shift while dragging a handle or clicking to type. The missing bit is 2d scaling.

But I want to input 3mm or 3" so it will scale whatever X factor until it reaches my target desired dimension. That’s the most common use of the scale tool for me, and I would want that also in the gumball.

Yeah, I wonder if that can be handled by typing - I mean it would not be very discoverable but it might be handy to be able to type

++3 to increase by 3 model units
++3cm increase by 3 cm regardless of model units

–3 to decrease by 3 etc

and maybe

3mm (i.e. include the units, no plus or minus) to set an absolute desired end size.

-Pascal

it’s so hidden! If nobody knows it’s there, is it really there? :smile:

Yes!!! I love that approach.

I would add one more thing here: if I type ‘3 liters’ on a close solid it will scale to that target volume.

I also find important to know the current size of something, to better decide what numeric target size I want after a scale operation. So what if the numeric field shows something like this, In this case this is a cube of 100x100x100 mm:

I can start type on the left and the gray text goes away or I can place cursor on the right and add ‘+ 3’ (those are quotes, not feet). And then the field will briefly show 103 after the scaling operating, they fade away. Sleek ugh?!

edit: like this…


G

1 Like

Hello,

I find the change in color of the arrows to black unnecessary and the new placement of the
scale handles “unnatural”, breaking the feeling of the Gumball for “eyeball” scaling purposes.

Also the snappy gumball option partially looses it appeal given the new placement of the Scale
Handles, making it unpractical to scale the end of the handle to a particular place.

So, globally, a step backward IMO.

Regards to all

Joao

Interesting idea for the scale handles @gustojunk. Before writing up a request for this I’m wondering how you’d want the calculation figured out. For instance, is it a distance from the Gumball Origin to a bounding box face? Or is it a total bounding box width in that axis? I think the former would be more useful. I’d also add the requirement that the orientation of the Gumball would determine the orientation of the bounding box used for the measurement. Thoughts?

As for the scale 3D and potential 2D Gumball control, I’ve been making some concept images of possible solutions for this here… http://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-10441

I’m thinking my latest concept is probably best but any feedback is welcome.

Hi Brian, you might check my proposal here. Whatever a newly introduced 2D widget looked like… To me it it was really like bad UX to call two Scale operations per visible Handle and the third with a Handle+Modifier.

I don’t follow, there are three boxes in the scale axis in the concept image I posted… 1D, 2D and 3D. Which one were you thinking requires a keyboard modifier? I agree they should all be graphically represented if any are. I’ll read through the link you provided, thanks!

Hi Brian,
sorry, I didn’t figure that you also had replaced Shift action for Scale 3D. My personal wish would be to not completely re-invent the wheel in terms of handle placement. Every mesh modelling application has been here already before McNeel… in Maya or 3DSMax or Modo the transform widget is basically the only tool to move stuff around. Good solutions were found and visually established – one should also think of muscle memory of promiscuous software users :smile:

1 Like

I would like to share my very first impression on new gumball:

  1. I was very comfortable with the scale on the BB, it was a feature I used a lot.
    With this new change I can’t get the same result.
  2. I like the hiding of the unnecessary arrows when you click or drag one of them.
  3. @Pascal would be super wonderful to be able to write dimension, number and ratio in the textbox for the scale.

Thanks

1 Like

Hi @BrianJ, I understand the logic you are using: similar to the scale1D in command line. However I see myself rarely interested on that default 1/2 desired length dimension, but rather I see myself wanting to reach my total bounding box dimension. Just like the way BoxEdit works, not Scale1D. I also see the most common scenario being scaling outward form center, so dragging the Gumball to one side to achieve that total-length dimension would not work.

I really do no understand what the squares with 2 and 3 colors are supposed to do. Also I think even if you explained it (not a good starting point from an intuitive POV) I would have to think too hard to remap in my mind colors to axes. What if you use orientation in the icons themselves? Like the Move2D ones, instead of facing the camera?

I think that’s what I suggested first in the feature request but I might be misunderstanding. If you have a moment to mock it up, please do and we can compare.

I filed your numeric input based on units and bounding box dimensions here…
http://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-29328

Ok I’ll try something… did you see what @hifred posted on the other topic? BoxEdit & Gumball improvement

Some nice ideas there!

How about this…

here’s shown as only one view-based 2D controller being visible at a time (like your current Move2D):

or all visible (not a fan, looks too busy):

here’s a close up:

As you can see all controls are basic filled primitives. So scale controls are filled squares, not outlines, for more consistency.

and here’s a version where all scale/move commands show on same quadrant and with related icons:

…because that Move2D looks like a funky C-plane tool right now, not a move arrow.

closeup:

1 Like

here’s the Rhino file of the 3D gumball geometry, in case you guys want to play with it.