← All ideas
  • Published 23 Nov 2018

Array modifier caps as vertex groups instead of separate objects

The array modifier is a very powerful tool, especially when stacked multiple times and/or paired with other modifiers such as Curve. The start and end cap feature of the array modifier is crucial to it's ability to maintain non-destructive modeling, but the current implementation makes it a hassle.

Issue:

The array modifier currently references object-type data blocks in order to create start and end caps. However, the process of separating the cap mesh into a new object and placing it so that the modifier connects it properly with the original mesh is challenging and unintuitive.

Suppose I am trying to achieve this model using a simple repeated base-mesh. Image

In order to do this currently, the body object and its start/end caps must be positioned like this. Image

Setting this up correctly is troublesome and unintuitive, and makes it difficult to edit the junction between body and cap later on.

Proposal:

I propose that the array modifier be changed to reference vertex groups for its start and end caps. This would mean that no objects need to be separated/moved, and the junction between body and cap can be edited freely and as expected. Vertex groups would look like this: Image Image

And the end result would look like this: Image (Excuse the crappy photoshop)

Ideally the modifier would remove the parts of the mesh included in each vertex group while duplicating, then reattach them as caps afterward. I am not familiar enough with Blender's code to know if this is feasible, but I think it would really help. Please let me know if this is something that I could try to tackle as someone with just a little experience with Python and no experience coding Blender.

Goal.png

100%

Development Status: Open

Upvote 33 Downvote 0
mcurt009
23 Nov 2018

3 Comments

emil.assarsson

I like it but it should be implemented as a new modifier for backward compatibility. It could also be added as an extra functionality of the existing (too messy?).

2
mcurt009 Author

@Emil Assarsson: Yes, I think a simple toggle between 'object' or 'vertex group' cap method would be a simple way to maintain backwards compatibility.

2
frederico4d

This would be cool!

2