Blockquote the list is still quite short … when little by little you will reach these snaps (hopefully)
then it will make sense that it is not creating a mess.
Center: For tris or quads, no problem. For n-gons>4 sides, center can be undefined. Undefined for any composed shape on a mesh modeler.
Quadrant: Undefined on a mesh modeler.
Intersection: Only defined on a edge/edge or edge/face or face/face cases. n-gons can be undefined unless the ngon is plane.
Point: What??
On: What??
On surface: There’s already defined as “Faces”
Perperndicular: On development.
Tangent: Infinite or undefined for a mesh modeler.
Perp/perp: Good luck with that.
Tan/tan: Infinite/infinite == 1?? Who knows??
No matter how i read the image… don’t know if amon_paike is joking or not…
man you are so rigid, have some flexibility …
in a polygonal model obviously the tangent point is superfluous, but with the increase of the polygons an approximation is sufficient … it is certainly better than nothing, not to mention the fact that there are curved nurbs, and we hope to advance that bit which is used to be able to draw shapes with booleans …
The problem arise when on a mesh modeler you cannot even aproximate to a circle (where is the radius, the face or the vertex??). Blender is not CAD (i know right… since i have around 30 years of CAD abusing under my belt), and never will be. It’s core is not a math-cad oriented one. The same way 3DS max will never be CAD, neither Maya can be, neither zbrush will be.
Nurbs are another beast, and at this time, is mostly obsolete in the cad world and there are better alternatives since years. Blender nurbs support is sad to say the least, but good enough for a mesh modeler.
An aproximation is useless in the CAD world where precision is Money and Everything at the same time. You will get far better results with any other CAD tool out there, including all open source ones.
For visualization and intermediate design, Blender if far more than enough. With a lot of python glue can be a nice design tool. But for real cad work, No. Just No.
you don’t know what you’re talking about, please stop it.
Everything is approximation. the question is the approximation level you want to reach.
And no one has the goal of turning blender into a cad program, I repeat, be more flexible
you’re talking about BREPs, which are always a collection of more nurbs surfaces all joined together in an object, but they are still nurbs … don’t confuse yourself with the manipulators of the nurbs of blender that I admit are remained archaic …
already today to get very similar results to BREPs in blender, it would be enough to use the structure of subsurf with rigid border edges … it is already all there ready, the devs only need to encapsulate them in the just containers and create coherent tools to manipulate them precisely (trim, boolean , precision measuring instruments)
that will be as discoverable as shift + click for multiselect.
I think a check box has a visually univesal meaning to it…
maybe it can be drawn as a glyph as part of the text?
Ah, good old MoI. I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for that charming 3D editor. It’s just that Blender has become so powerful that I can’t find a good reason to return to MoI.
This is something I’ve mentioned before, like the old F6 (F9) button, if you move your mouse pointer too much, it disappear, imagine rotating the view to check if the subdivision of your Cylinder are correct and having to push F9 every time.
That’s one of the “features” the UX team should investigate.
For sure something Blender lacks is a good visual difference between radio buttons and ‘regular’ toggle buttons. I wonder if anybody here can figure out a solution as easy as designing a new render button layout, keeping it in the realm of Blender UI style
nothing, the face center snap will definitely come, it’s so trivial that they simply forgot to list it …
but I wanted to highlight what is about to arrive very soon, which is much more interesting …
