Maybe you are right. Maybe Ton Roosendaal is aware of this serious limitation.
That’s why he doesn’t want anyone to pay for Blender: he is sooo embarrassed of this that he doesn’t want to charge for such an incomplete, limited software (the “open source” thing is just an excuse for him to not adress this issue).
Now seriously, I never heard someone say “Whenever I need a radial array of objects I export my model to [insert another 3d software]. So I make the array there and then I export it back to Blender”. I wonder why…
It’s not hard but they’re against modifiers creating instances.
Here is what Campbell said on one of the patches.
I’d rather put this patch on hold.
In general modifiers are not good for creating instances, the result is heavy inefficient meshes.
There are a handful of cases where it’s OK (where the duplicates form a continuous surface for example), however in general, this modifier isn’t very efficient and is something I’d rather leave as-is.
And instead focus on a better duplicator system which doesn’t have these drawbacks.
So your justification for not having a basic functionality which exists in all other major DCCs and enables comfortable workflow on radially symmetric meshes is that it’s not bad enough to have users use other software?
By these standards, vast majority of minor improvements in Blender would not be worth it.
It’s one of the first negative things people coming from other major DCCs notice when they try to use modifier stack in Blender.
Array Modifier actually supports it when you use external empty object. So the workflow is technically possible, but it’s made to be frustrating just because of some sort of ideological rejection of this feature.
One of the core Blender developers has rejected this feature for such reasons as:
“This makes the UI quite heavy too.”
or
“In general modifiers are not good for creating instances, the result is heavy inefficient meshes.”
Him thinking that the main use case for Radial Array modifier would be actual instancing of heavy geometry, instead of simple modeling of radially symmetric meshes, such as for example gun flash suppressors shows significant lack of understanding of the most basic modeling workflows.
It also shows a bit of hypocrisy, since if that was their true stance, they should have removed the Array modifier altogether, since it already creates instances in this “inefficient way”. Radial option would simply add one more transform UI element to control their transform. It would not add option to generate those instances, that is already there.
So the main reason we do not currently have Radial Array in the Array modifier is not that no one has made the patch yet. The patch exists: https://developer.blender.org/D8240
It’s because it was actively rejected by someone who doesn’t understand why we need it. I stand behind calling that “embarrassing”.
I’m a stoopid tech-unsavy bummed con-artist. I’m not going to use any “not so so” radial what-ness, I only want a working tool, and I don’t wanna switch to “nodes something” to do “array something” on something.
I just want simple, push-and-pull, perfectly smooth surface to paint my mickey mouse.
And it seems to me those smoothness if still far, both regarding algorithms (forgot what the word means, with time) and usability.
If those guys at BF don’t come over it, it’s going into the usual open-source vaporware puff-o-smoke…
Yup, the issues you lay out with Zbrush is one of the reasons I avoid using it, despite having a license. Cumbersome is a good way to describe it.
I don’t know what they are doing specifically, but the mesh displacement in zbrush behaves in such a way where you get great results even when not even trying, where as with Blender and even 3D Coat, you kind of have to fight with the displacement to get the same effect. Its not bad, but you definitely feel like there is a bit of a detail loss + happy accidents in transitioning from one to the other. I also miss brushes like the Dam Standard 2 which seem tough to recreate outside of Zbrush.
There’s something to be said for simple, easy to use tools that don’t require a series of tutorials to understand. I’m sure geonodes will be a powerful tool when I learn how to use them, but the modifier stack is fast and intuitive (being able to drag things to change the order is nice), and it seems like a radial option for arrays is something EVERYONE but the devs want.
“Everything nodes” will either be amazing or a pain in the ass, depending how difficult it is to get things done.
I also wish it was easier to get smooth results when sculpting, and to smooth parts of the mesh while sculpting without smoothing it into nothing, but that may be more my lack of experience with sculpting than Blender’s limitations, I don’t know.
Well there is wanting it, then knowing what it will entail and also the ramifications for the mesh, the UI and overall development time, considering there are more efficient ways to do it now.
As it is now, the main issue is that it is not immediately obvious that using an offset object is the way to do it.
Once you know that, it is frankly easier (especially for a new user) and much more powerful to manage this function with more capability (in a much more visual way to understand) then a modifier with even a cluttered UI could give. Especially when you consider offset object orientation as well as scale.
Using a null for example is extremely interactive and intuitive rather than using a UI. This is what is being talked about in this comment.
The honest answer is we already have radial array and it is more powerful (as well as easier to use) as it is, than what is being requested as a “simple to use” function and the real answer for now would be to be able to convey this to the user somehow in the UI.
Orientation has to do with the reference to the object center. Considering when you apply the array it becomes one object anyway, it is immaterial where the center is. So there is no reason to do it as I did it for that example. Just make sure the object is oriented on the direct plane to the center.
There are a lot more sophisticated ways to array things than this. But for quick and simple this works fairly well, I think.
It is just that I see what the developers are saying. Sometimes I don’t agree at all with the logic they have. But in this case, it makes perfect sense to put resources elsewhere.
But… how do you convey this simple set up so people can get it right away? That is a more difficult question.
That is not now I interpret the developers comments exactly. Especially since you can already do simple circular arrays with the modifier.
If you want to get more complex than that with modifiers there are other much better methods and modifier combinations.
They are only saying to take the object offset feature and put it in the UI the UI will be complex and the effect will be harder to control. I can agree with that. And also duplicating meshes with the array modifier is not efficient as it is not creating instances. None of the modifiers do. And for any massive scenes this is a huge issue.
For simple array I think we have that covered in existing modeling tools.
I was doing it quickly to show another thing, orientation… not even number, perfect rotations and so on. None of the numbers in that example match up to make a perfect array.
If you want to learn more about arrays, how to do it properly with this modifier, and all of the other ways to do it with more options using Modifiers how about we move this to support?
Hey folks… I know the modifier stack and starts in general are a passionate topic for a lot of people, but maybe it’s best to take that to another thread (there are actually a few about arrays already).
