probably I haven’t used the right terms when searching for this basic issue, so I didn’t find anything appropriate.
A plane, sub divided, some vertices removed:
From right ortho view, with proportional editting enabled: G key, Z key (axis constraint), move up, the result is:
But I want it to be…:
That means: I want to be able to ignore the X location (in this case; in others maybe Y or Z) of each vertex for proportional interpolation. I’ve looked at all options and keys during transform but this doesn’t seem to be possible. Is there a way?
Instead of grabbing the center edge loop and translating up, select the outside edge loops (left and right) and move them down. Fiddle with the diameter of your proportional editing a little and you’ll get the effect you want.
I am sure your desired effect is more complicated than this though, but if this example were the extent of your design then I would suggest proportional edit before the vert removal, then you can make sure it all follows exactly. But I understand this is probably a simplified example.
Yes, this is a simplified example. That’s why this…
Instead of grabbing the center edge loop and translating up, select the outside edge loops (left and right) and move them down.
…is not possible. I also can’t do the operation before deleting the vertices as they are just not there.
Unfortunatelly, I do not have the version before deformation. Here it is after:
The yellow vertices are the ones that have been pulled into -Y direction by grabbing the “row” (along X axis) in the middle. I’ve solved it by adding helper vertices (yellow in the following picture):
Without the helper vertices, it would look like this (not intended) (smooth proportional falloff for better illustration):
<only 3 attachments possible>
From top view you see the vertices in +X are affected less.
However, it’s not always possible to construct helper vertices. Anyway, I thought this is a basic deformation, but it seem not to be possible.
This is why you should always model from simple to complex. If you’re trying to make gross changes after you’ve already added this much polygon density, you’ve basically skipped an important step earlier.
What you could do is to use a helper object and use shrinkwrap to make top vertices follow that with a vertex group.
(Example object is not optimal for the target shape, I know, it’s just an example of a shape that would be hard to edit with the proportional editing tool)
You’re right, but that’s what I have now and I have to handle it. The question could also arise in a different situation when you also consider it the right time to do the operation, so it’s actually a general question and not necessarily related to the posted model. I’m sorry, I do not have the version of the model anymore before bevelling etc. That’s why I posted the simplified example first.
JA12, thank you for the hint, however, the question was about proportional editting specifically, but it’s always good to know other alternatives.
Lightwave has something like this, its called volume selection mode, Modo has cylindrical falloff. Its not possible with current prop mode of Blender AFAIK.
Perhaps, but I’ve never seen a case where this problem could not be prevented by good planning ahead of time. You always need to know where you’re going. Figure out what your model is going to be. Use or make reference images, then get the silhouette right before you add a lot of geometry. If your silhouette is complex and curvy enough to require a lot of geometry in the first place, sculpt and then retopologize. Proportional editing really isn’t meant for the function you’re trying to use it for. Extra features in a tool are no substitute for good planning and preparation.
I do think about how to model something, before. Assessed afterwards, I’d still consider my planned steps right. The reason I have to do it a different way is because it’s not possible in Blender (not exactly this way) and I wasn’t aware about that, but not because I didn’t think about the modelling steps before.
I’m not a pro. I’m still learning (with Blender, I always feel like a beginner somehow). I’d consider motion tracking an extra feature but for sure not this basic editting option. Wanting to do it is not an extraordinary wish. It’s just intuitive. The fact that it seems to be there in other software, as el diablo mentioned, shows that probably not only I requested it, and I assume it’s not only been made for blockheads not thinking about anything before. Asking if and how something is possible doesn’t hurt anyway, IMO. (I do not complain that it’s not there.)
But anyway, I’ve learned something again. And of course I will plan my steps even better, taking all possibilities and limitations into account.
Please don’t feel like I’m picking on you when I tell you to plan better. I could show you some of my models that weren’t planned well enough, some of them quite sad. You’re absolutely right that this would be a nice intuitive tool to have around, but unless JA12’s shrinkwrap method works for you, “plan bettter” is just unfortunately the answer for now.
If you run into problem, approach build in a different way. Try to go through entire build with minimum of geometry. Good planning comes with experience.
When I build parts with organic feature, I am already thinking of using Subsurface Modifier. Let the computer do the rounding. If you use Subsurface Modifier, rounded corners are controlled with edge loops. So I start there from edge loop creation. Here is what I ended up with. I made the main protruding shape early with minimum segments. Round holes were started from loop mesh. When form was done I removed polygons to form the rectangular slot. Added more loops to refined the rounded corner shape:
