I understand we try to bring over features from mesh modelers, but these software work on vertices and they know to clean up concurrent vertices after a flattening operation.
In Rhino the gumball can cause issues if it’s scale-to-zero capability is applied on entire objects instead of only vertices.
For example this grid of cubes can be scaled to a point. The point is no longer visible on the interface. If you loose its location you can’t even window-select it (if you keep missing it). If the gumball is off you’d never know there are 125 polysurfaces in there.
Hi Thomas- it seems like Rhino should simply not allow some results - as ProjectToCplane of a box for example - just does not happen - is that what you are suggesting, restrict what the results can be?
ok, if you guys are comfortable with the way things are, I am cool.
At least with the scale command if you scale to 0.0001 you can do zoom → selected and the objects are still there. Once collapsed to zero with the gumball … nothing.
I’m constantly using the gumball scale to 0 to make mesh and SubD faces or edges planar.
Yes maybe scaling a box by factor 0 is not the best idea, but there might be times where you want to do this even though some people would consider it is bad practise. I don’t think every command has to be absolutely idiot proof.
Performing undo on a UI break is still a UI break.
A bad guy could rape your wife and then stop, you could simply undo your memory of the event.
People have a hard time understanding conceptual violations these days.
Since it’s intended purpose is for sub-D it should be limited to subD only as recommended earlier.
Even when you apply it on subD faces essentially you are acting on vertices and vertices can be cleaned up internally by the engine. When you collapse vertices the engine knows to delete all duplicates and leave only one at that location.
You are not contributing to the discussion with any argument and you are not showing sign of understanding the conceptual nuance. So, I’ll just ignore your comment as meaningless.
Full on projection from your part, mate.
My comments contributed the information that your assumptions are wrong.
Just because you don’t know of any uses of scale to zero via gumball outside of subD doesn’t know these uses don’t exist.
I use the gumball all the time on surfaces (especially contollpoint editing) and curves.
If anything the possibilities to scale to zero are too limited already as is.
(There should be the possibility of 2D-scale by numerical input and this should include scale to zero)
Of course the problem you describe is a very valid concern and can lead to serious problems, but to remove scale to zero for evrything but Sub-D would make some users, including me, very unhappy.
Sir, I’m all against undoing UI breaks by simply ctrl+z and pretending it didn’t happen.
However, I just learned that the Gumball Scale to 0 Is a good way to flatten curves in one direction. I normally use SetXYZ coordinates.
You are projecting yourself to a different argument. The argument here is that a UI break occurs at all, not that scale-to-zero is valid itself or has value. (There was a discussion on that in another thread).
If Rhino had an internal clean-up mechanism and detected the condition of polysurfaces collapsed to a point and actually replaced the entire bunch with a single point, then I woudn’t be making this thread.
Rhino still calling 125 collapsed polysurfaces still polysurfaces is UI break and a conceptual break.
Sure, but recovering from a conceptual break does not address that a conceptual break happened.
If Rhino had an internal clean-up mechanism and detected the condition of polysurfaces collapsed to a point and actually replaced the entire bunch with a single point, then I woudn’t be making this thread.
On step two of the example if Rhino internally detected that all objects are now one-dimensional and relaced them with single lines, then I woudn’t be making this thread either.