6 ms·
The author treats this kind of destructive rotation as a positive, but this is exactly why rotation modifier as part of the object tree is generally a good thin
by phrz 5y ago
The author treats this kind of destructive rotation as a positive, but this is exactly why rotation modifier as part of the object tree is generally a good thing! There's no need to recompute a center because it's the same center, only a rotate operation has been applied on top of the node. Also, that's how rotation works in the web browser, which these design apps are often targeting.
- keyle 5y agoThat would mean that these shapes get a common parent once rotated. And if you change the selection to include some but not all, and maybe some other shapes, and rotate, you'd create a many to many relationship? Maybe the appropriate choice here is grouping, like we see app use folders for these. That way you get what you're talking about and it's obvious to the user / it's based on their choice.
- shahar2k 5y agoI think you're mis-reading the situation the rotation of each individual shape isnt destructive (been following the author's work for a while, this is a vector based solution) what he's talking about is rotating multiple nodes at once around a common center, so each individual shape receives a new rotation but also a translation. as an artist who uses these kinds of tools, and someone who'se had to design easy to use interfaces, it's hard to convay "invariant center of mass" when the selection for multiple shapes usually involves drawing a screen aligned rectangle (which has a convenient and intuitive center point)