constraint axes

is there a way to move an object in a plane (xy,yz,zx) because moving axes per axes isn’t very productive nor intuitive.
is there a python script or something?

Urm… why don’t you just use an ortographic view that is exactly aligned to an axis? (1/7/3 on the numpad)

well i don’t want to switch views again and again…
better to work in persp view for modelling, turn around the model and so, it must be doable with pyton, blender can constraint in one axis so it must be possible to use a sort of “inverse” function that don’t let u move in one axis.It really basic feature, that the sort of things that stop me to go further in blender…sad :frowning:

I can’t understand your problem. How would that “constrain to plane”-function be easier or faster than hitting a single key on the keyboard to switch the view?

Use gx, gy or gz for tanslating (moving) on the x, y and z axes. Same for Scale and Rotate. Use a double axis key for constraint along the global axis i.e. gxx, gyy or gzz. This allows you to model in the persp. window with the accuracy of ortho.

mugwah: Sorry, did you even read what he asked?

i tried your “trick” vithe the views that consist of modelling in orthographic view (to,side…) and it kinda “sux” :-?
moving a vertex in a plane is faster because u can “fine tune it” in PERSPECTIVE view where you see your object in “volume”, it’s easier, smarter, more intuitive, more powerful and so on…
if u can’t understand that, i think u never tried another modeler tool

so anyone else could help?

You should read a bit more documentation, Mister, and find out that you can easily work with several 3D views at once, moving a vertex in one, and seeing it in perspective in the other.

I see how such a type of constraint would fit some people style. As a matter of fact, it is a most common constraint for transformations I believe : I can’t remember if Max ever missed it for example.

Not everybody enjoys for working with orthogonal views (or has the monitor real estate) nevertheless, unless Theeth can be convinced and that in turn he can convince those who regulate the Official versions, I wouldn’t expect it soon. So I would follow Intrr advice while forgetting about the sanctimonious attitude.


Well, and constraints are a totally different story. Of course, I would appreciate a real constraint that restricts movement of a point to an arbitrary plane. But not as a modelling tool, but as an animation tool :slight_smile:

That was already in tuhopuu at some point. I didn’t port it from tuhopuu 1 though.


Such a feature is already planned in the transform makeover.


i kow that, mister , i have the standard “4 view” layout in blender, and i must admit that the interface is very “customizable”, that is a good point.
but with this layout, if your persp wiew isn’t in the same orientation as the ortho view, when u move a vertex left in ortho, it go right or whatever in persp view…so it is quite unusable

and i don’t think that “some” is the correct word…
i mean 75% of users use “plane constraint” when moving vertex while modelling the others are using modellers like nendo, wings…

so i really think that it is a basic feature that need to be added in blender, it deserves it :slight_smile:

This is excellent news.
I’ll risk a question but don’t bother to answer if you don’t feel like it : it stems from my personal and somewhat idiosyncratic frustration with the interface and its general lack of consideration for the common, non-nerd, artist :
Will this makeover include handles for transformations “à la Maya” like so many love (although I believe that the desire to copy the “big boys” is their main motivation) or did someone come to his senses and saw that the present system is much lighter and less cumbersome ?


Isn’t constraining to an arbitrary plane for animation a simple matter of parenting the objects to animate to an empty, then animate these objects in an orthogonal view, just for ease, and finally rotating the parent empty arbitrarily ?


A mix between the two. :wink:


Not if you have a complex mechanical system that derives its rotation/movement from other elements, and you want it do work ‘automatically’ and mechanically correct.

Sort of a canadian sponsored onusian compromise ?



Yes, I have trouble with these too.


I have modelled in max, a lot in Wings (still do and will) a bit in Maya, etc,etc,etc.
And I think you maybe are used to the gizmo thing in Max. Which I admit I like a lot. (and can deactivate on preferences)Is not present in Wings, but somehow in wings you can assign keys interactively to commands, so no problem at all. (move along normal, move x, move x along edge …)

I did not know that of gx… or gyy … it rocks :slight_smile:

also that of g, and if you click middle mous button, it moves in the horizontal direction from the point the object was. Or vertical if your grab was more in amount in vertical direction.

In wings anyway I model from reference for statics, and just use the orthographic views with keys x, or y, z, etc. Just like they are suggesting here.
For organic models, 90% of the time I’m working in perspective mode.

I’d still would like if the rotations (r key) in perspective view where made only paralell to screen (or more or less) , that is, no rotations done in depth. as those you don’t control them. But i did not know that of rz, for example, thanks :slight_smile: Still, fully paralell to screen is better, as u can go rotating world (thumb) , and go tweaking rotatinos of character bones. It’s really quick and good so.

Yet so, a widget like maya’s and what max copied of it :wink: specially in place (where bone starts,at joint) which is like an sphere with two orthogonal circles, and an third allways paralell to screen would rock.

yet so, I can animate (my main interest in Blender) with Blender with no problems (if I finally see a workaround to that certain pininning feature would be lovable)
The skin weights feature rocks. I want to thank Blender’s developers :slight_smile:
No other free tool out there supporting this well, neither in mid cost modellers. :s