I use Rhino a lot for manipulating surfaces.
Often, it involves moving control points in the Z axis. However, depending on the resolution of the surface or mesh, the jaggedness needs custom smoothing to make a natural surface.
Is it possible to manipulate control points so that there’s a natural falloff in effect? This would greatly reduce the need to smooth the edges of the transforms which appear jagged. This would save a lot of time for such operations.
I think SoftMove is the applicable command, but it’s not efficient for what I’m doing.
I have used lasso or brush to select defined set of control points, and I want a customisable falloff range for that selection.
Options for falloff could include:
Falloff profile: linear, convex, concave, spline, etc
Perhaps Q value.
‘Customplay Golf’ (2005) I used many years ago to design golf courses had the type of feature I’m really looking for in Rhino. It’s dealing with a mesh, but has custom falloff types and distance.
You can see it in this short video I just made.
I just played around with soft transform, but yes, I feel that it could be more visual/intuitive.
Setting the radius of the effect in model units is less intuitive than seeing the effect like in the example I provided.
After a preliminary test, there are some things I noticed.
it could be good to have it as an option under gumball; rather than as a command where you have to select the mesh first. This means that for any control point edit, the falloff would take place if the user turned on the option.
when the option is turned on, the user can adjust the falloff and shape on the fly while seeing how it affects the control points selected.
It could be good if control points for nurbs surfaces could also be affected?
so perhaps what I’m looking for here is something specifically for control points for any surface type; something separate from editing the edges/faces of a mesh.
Not sure if this is intended, but in the video below, once the softtransform has taken place, the centre of the gumball is well below the raised control points. I would hope that the gumball moves to the location of the selected points like a normal transform.
I apologise if my answer was a bit much.
Regardless of the other control point transform ideas, perhaps the current softtransform might be better if it had two changes. Some visualisation of the falloff so that when you change falloff distance, you can see what it affects. Also, the gumball following the moved points; instead of resetting to the origin of the gumball transformation (see image below).