Randomize Transform Modifier on Arrays (Request)
It will be good to have a randomize modifier which can be used after an array modifier like the object randomize transformation we have now.
It will be good to have a randomize modifier which can be used after an array modifier like the object randomize transformation we have now.
15 Comments
The difficulty with randomizing from the modifier stack is that modifiers generate a single derived mesh... there's not a real concept of individual objects in the array... so (AFAICT) there's no data there to randomize in the way you're asking. It would have to be in the array modifier itself. This may change down the road whenever modifier nodes are enabled, but it's a fundamental structure thing.
That said... there is a workflow that I use frequently that can give you what you want:
If you want randomness in rotation and scale, you can play with using duplifaces. This tends to be a far more versatile way of working and gives you a lot more options with your array.
@Jason van Gumster: Thanks for the explanation and this wonderful trick :)
After applying modifier it is to late. It's pure mesh.
But there could… well there was option to randomize transform, but not in official release. In "Advanced Modifier Array" vimeo.com/33667212 8:12 But unfortunately this project died 5 years ago, before it managed to get into master.
@Pawel Piotrowski: Hence my recommendation to not apply the modifier, but instead use the modifier to generate an array of vertices (or faces) for dupliverts (or duplifaces). It's a very robust technique.
@Jason van Gumster: I tried to google the reasons why this is not in Blender and Campbell said here: developer.blender.org/T26662 that he does not think this as a good feature in the modifier. He said that it would work better with a duplicator script(?) but such script is not in Blender, so now I'm wondering why we still are in the 0 position with this if the feature was already done almost 100%.
Now artists are using things like particle system and this duplivert method you explained here. But those feel little slow and hard to control ways of doing it if we could have a specified tool for this operation.
@Artturi Mäntysaari: It wasn't a duplicator script that Campbell was referring to (if I read his comments correctly). It would be a duplicator feature, separate from the modifier stack. The reason for this is because the way the modifier stack works. It creates a single derived mesh. When generating large, complex arrays, this can get very painful, performance-wise. What requests like this are really in need of is a means of creating an array of instances of the same object. This provides all of the features requested here, but with much more acceptable performance. My duplivert/dupliface recommendation is actually how such a system would work behind the scenes. I suppose what might be nice is a faster way to do it... perhaps a way that hides the technique more.
@Jason van Gumster: Yeah, that I think is the pain of most artists who wanna do 3D. Sometimes the software is kind of done by developers to developers, but the artists are the people who actually use it. I believe Blender is already getting steps to be more artistic friendly software and things like this feature in future are the huge part of that transformation. Now I'm getting little off topic, so I stop talking. :)
@Artturi Mäntysaari: Thing is... without getting too much into it, the "for developers, by developers" thing isn't what's going on here. 3D digital art is inherently technical. We can do things in computers that are impossible in meatspace. That requires at least some technical understanding of how things work. If you're a 3D artist and you don't understand the difference between real geometry and instances, that's not the developer's fault.
I misspoke when I said "hides the technique". That was a mistake. The technique should not be hidden. I should have said, "achieves the same results in fewer steps."
@Jason van Gumster: Yes, I agree with you on that, but I've heard some people saying in past years that: "3D is a technical art and should not be easy". Let's read that again: "Should not be easy" What's wrong with something being easy? If their target is to make 3D hard, that is just very stupid.
Things should be made as easy as possible. There is no benefit on not trying to make things to the maximum level of accessibility and usage.
If Blender people don't wanna achieve that goal, then somebody else definitely will do it. The same thing is happening to 3D that happened to photography. It will become popular. Some random dudes buy 3d printers and wanna do their own games etc.
@Artturi Mäntysaari: In fairness to me, I never made that argument. :)
@Jason van Gumster: Yeah, true. If I can remember correctly, it might've been Ton who said something like that. I think it was before 2.5, but now I have to say it's quite an old thing. I just have a feeling that this is ghosting in the minds of Blender developers sometimes.
@Artturi Mäntysaari: I have a foggy memory of that phrase, but I alwaus thought I shouldn't be read literally: e.g. that "should not be easy " for me is translated as "don't expect it to be easy".
/OT/ administrators! Help! what happened to my avatar/karma?? (I log in with a BlenderID account and this prblem has started since the graphical rehaul of the site). Sorry to write here offtopic, but I don't know where to ask, can anyone point me?
@: I think it was an answer to people who where asking to update Blender UI at the time when everyone on Blender foundation was against of updating Blender UI.
@lsscpp: Regarding your OT question, I'm not sure what's going on there. That seems to be a good question for @Francesco or @Pablo .
Or just some randomness factor into the array modifier itself