That might be if the expressions you would do otherwise are simple, but what about moving an object an arbitrary number of certain-width spaces?
Say you have an object that’s 16 blender units long, and you want to move it 8, 12, or 16 spaces of 16 blender units each. This is where being able to type an expression can become handy because the mental math may not be all that quick and easy to do. (and doing it in your head before typing the value may actually take a bit longer than just typing it in as the transform value).
I too took advantage of the - shortcut formerly, so it’s not like I did not know it was there. But I don’t see that typing ‘ctrl -’ is hard, while typing ‘-’ was easy. Fast negation is still fast negation. Perhaps this is the main point of difference here.
The idea that I was clumsily offering is that switching direction should be a command and logically have a modifier, whereas entering a negative number might be typed just as you might read it.
As for the ‘function’ functionality - it would be indeed a timewaster to type in 18 when you can type in 24-6. As I mentioned the field will now accept pasted entry, which I found to be a keystroke saver when used in conjunction with the copy function of the ruler and protractor. Of course I could open the F6 dialog and paste into the appropriate fields. The new method is much faster.
Square roots of numbers with more than three significant digits are also difficult for me to do on the fly, and this function is useful when sizing objects to match diagonals precisely.
There’s another thread here where there is a discussion about how to scale something uniformly to a different size by entering a simple ratio in the transform field. The F6 and N panels require you to change three fields.
I hope that the developers give you a checkbox to remove this enhancement in preferences. But I (and I’m not a developer) don’t see a case for doing so. No functionality has been removed, and a hardcoded shortcut has been slightly changed in order to accommodate added functionality.
Edit: Ace posted while I was meandering and I would reinforce his point with this: sometimes you have objects that are not a nice whole number in size, making moving an object (or its duplicate) by multiples of its length much easier with this feature than without.
As you can desume from SterlingRoth’s post, when you need a calculation, which is not the norm, you can just hit Return after G, then type your formula into the F6 slot.
Why would I want to type 24-6 when I can just type 18?
It’s rather for a case like “one third of 5.4mm multiplied by 3.5cm”, so things you wouldn’t necessarily solve in your mind, 'cause it’s faster/easier to use a calculator. Not to mention math constants, trigonometric functions etc. you can use.
The key is most likely hardcoded and not user changeable. Thomas Beck (Plasmasolutions) keeps users updated on changes in Blender by posting videos on Youtube. I am sure there are details elsewhere, but Thomas’ video shows it in use. Bookmark the page in the link above and stay current!
Thanks DruBan for that info. Didn’t know his Videos yet.
I would like to suggest two things: 1. The ability to input absolute Values 2. The ability to set all three axis at the same time, for example the G(rab) followed by something like v(0.5,2.0,0.0) (v for vector) would move it 0.5 on x 2 on y and 0 on z axis. I imagine this as quite useful.
I’m wondering if this would be the right place in developer.blender.org to put this on?
Another option would be: input entering of values behaves the old way, but pressing a key (Tab?) you enter (toggle) modal F6 window where type formulas.
What if… Rxpir-30d-- … and it’s rotated other way around. We are used to GG, RR already, are we? Why not – at the end when you realize you need opposite?
Therefore:G(rab), type the x value to go into value edit mode, then the Tab key cycles through to the Y,Z, back to X etc. You don’t have to type v or open parentheses or comma etc. Try it! It’s much faster than opening the F6 dialog or the N panel.
Not sure what you mean by absolute values? |somevalue| is entered as abs(somevalue) and it definitely accepts that when I tested it, if that’s what you want I would like to know what you are using it for because I haven’t used it in anything yet. (Python expressions assume positive numbers for unsigned.)
Although I understand what you re saying, that entering a final negative sign should reverse the direction, the problem is that it is just evaluating a python expression, in which that is an invalid/incomplete expression. Of course we could write another method of entry, translate that into python, evaluate it and return it, but it just seems silly and slow to do that to give meaning to an expression that has no meaning in any other context.
I had a long day… either i don’t understand what you mean or this isn’t working on osx too… i’ll have a look at it tomorrow again.
Edit: By absolute i mean set location instead of offset. like you would enter in N Panel Transform Location.
(I’m seeing bugs everywhere lately… : Is it me or are Key Configuration Presets not working? Add new one breaks alt+leftclick 3d Viewport Navigation.
Besides i get “Error: Not freed memory blocks: 3” in terminal every time i quit blender… (it’s not always 3))
Sorry about that! I actually never used that because of the problem with accidentally creating lots of doubles, I always ctrl clicked for extrude and that’s still there… Works much the same way, except it creates the new element only when you click.
There are additional use cases presented, showing benefit of new numinput, and also more situations where new numinput breaks existing workflows. All are needed for a proper big picture. Rather than continually discussing which is better, old Numinput or new Numinput, since there are many opposing and valid arguments for either, I’d say it’s the current implementation that’s problematic. It forces a situation where only one of these can be included. You can be like me and prefer the old numinput and be left out, or prefer the new system and have to explain why the change is the right one to keep. Can we really say there isn’t a better to way to handle the implementation?
Current Numinput is limited in what you can input but offers speed, efficiency and really doesn’t get in the way. It’s suitable for a fast workflow where the user doesn’t care about advanced, exact transforms. Also, it’s one of the really consistent systems in Blender.
New Numinput requires the user to spend more time in each session and is thus slower to use on a regular basis. But for this it offers advanced and exact control over transformation.
Seeing what they are, what they offer, why try to regard them as a single system and why merge them into a single blob? Time that wasn’t put into designing the implementation is time that’ll be spent by the users on a sub-optimal system. I was hoping to get the atention of developers and designers behind new numinput, then actual change could be made. Seeing it’s currently not happening it’ll probably be better to directly contact the developers.
I think it si a nonsense, make the workflow that slow, imagine, before we have G+Y+1 now we have to G+ Ctrl+Y+1 and the Ctrl key it is far from the Y, another thing. How many time you need to tralate or rotate using degrees(math.sin(math.e*math.pi)) compared to how many time you just have to rotate Z axis in 10 degrees?, The modal numpad should be optional, like pressing Tab or something to enter from normal inputo to advanced input, that way everyone wins
I would have the good old way as a default behaviour, but enable the new way of evaluating a string just like you enter a formula in your spreadsheet:
press the “=” key to signify that what follows is an expression meant to be parsed and calculated…
I agree with Ejnaren. This is a regression in often-used functions for the benefit of less-often used functions, and I’d like to see it the other way around.
