Array modifier rotation offset
Pretty much what it sounds like, having a rotation offset can save adding a rotated empty and parenting, doing 45 degrees trickery with the mirror modifier to make 4 copies of something X/Y aligned, stuff like that.
I feel it's used frequently enough to warrant that feature.
This idea was marked as a duplicate of Circular Array Modifier (spin in mod form).
20 Comments
Anyone who's ever tried to model a wheel knows the pain. Every other fully features 3d/Cad package has a polar array feature. This should be standard.
It should be standard and a huge time saver
There is a circular array patch here: developer.blender.org/D3206 Ufortunately it has been rejected as constructive modifiers are deemed to be an AnitFeature here: wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/AntiFeatures
* @mistajolly * Seemingly because we should use Duplicators instead.....which are far more time-consuming and effort-heavy than the Array modifier already is. I don't understand the pushback on this feature.
* @Logan Preshaw * I don't think it's a push-back. It sounds more like hesitation.
When this is supposed to be covered by the node setup then it's being worked on but will take some time until it's done. In the meantime there will likely have to be a slow python addon approach from someone able and willing to code it, I assume.
* @motionblur.of.doom * Yeah an addon may be our only chance. I sincerely hope the nodetree implementation is a one-click affair akin to a modifier. Duplicators are time-consuming to setup as of right now.
* @Logan Preshaw * To be fair, an array of any kind (radial or not) is only ever going to be a one-click affair in the most simplistic of use cases. You're always going to have to adjust the array count, the distance between array instances, and (in the case of a radial array) how many degrees that the array spans.
That said, an add-on that makes arrays with real instances (including radially) wouldn't be difficult to write. The biggest challenge there is determining where in Blender's interface the controls for such an add-on would be. Where would you put it? I suppose the Object tab of the Properties editor makes the most sense; that's where we already have settings for Collections and Instancing.
* @Jason van Gumster * Well the issue with creating a radial array is the additional steps not contained in the modifier: creating an empty, setting the chosen object’s origin to the empty, linking the empty as an influence and then rotating it the exact degrees required for the array count.
I could imagine an onscreen implementation such as what’s used in HardOps for mirroring: An axis gizmo for choosing which axis to array it on, and that can possibly be moved to reposition the centre of rotation. Then, a plus/minus for adding/subtracting the count, and on execution we either have a dupliframe setup (as per what the dev team prefers) or the classic array-with-empty setup.
I agree. The current workflow with an empty works well but doing everything in the interface would be better. On related note I think randomization options in arrays would be really useful.
I agree, adding the empty just to get another vector seems like overkill when its so necessary for modelling.
Allright. I want this so badly that I made a mockup.
docs.google.com/document/d/1vP4v8AgVGi2mn4aO6EgG3CNCyWDudTg6KklDiabY-gs/edit
This is a great suggestion. A modifier that has the same functionality as the "spin" function + vertex merge would be very sufficient.
I saw another post regarding this feature here as well
blender.community/c/rightclickselect/Hfbbbc/circular-array-modifier-spin-in-mod-form
It will be also cool to have the ability to offset animation data.
How does that relate to the array modifier?
Well on the same way you can offset the position and rotation of the copies generated by the modifier. It will be also cool to offset the animation of those copies. Something similar to what the AREWO addon from BlenderDiplom does. blenderdiplom.com/en/tutorials/all-tutorials/544-arewo-gui-addon-video-tutorial.html
You may want to consider including a mock-up image that shows where this offset option would appear in the Blender interface.
I think the Empty method is fine for setting a different offset, but a standard circular array setting around the origin would work fine in many cases.
Blender Team says it's inefficient to do instanced geometry through modifiers. You know what's even more inefficient? Years and years of meticulous manual positioning of multiple object-empty pairs. I'm worried that instead of simply implementing this normal feature in a sane way, like they could've done ages ago, they'll jump from one quirky, convoluted workflow to another, and say the problem is solved.
It might be finally coming: developer.blender.org/T86065
* @wouterstomp * It only took 4 years of disallowing instancing geometry-based modifiers until we may actually get a radial array solution.
The anti-feature pushback here was counter-productive. Hopefully this case makes us reconsider feature locks in the future, at least for very often-requested options. Especially when the proposed solution (Everything Nodes) was 4+ years away.
Appreciate that they seem to be allowing this task.