PDA

View Full Version : Align to Plane and Restore Align



tcoursey
03-12-2012, 03:19 PM
So LW11 seems to have this "handy" little feature called Align to Plane. I'll admit I'm not sure exactly how it's working but it seems that it moves and modifies my geometry. Worked great the first time (seemingly) then tried again and I did something out of sequence or something, because now it won't put my geometry back to "normal".

I had to manually rotate in many different directions to get it "almost" back to how I had it originally.

Anyone else give me tips on how to properly use this "feature" It doesn't work AT ALL like I wanted (seen in other packages).

Maybe I just wont use it, if it has the ability to "jack" my stuff :).

Thanks for any thoughts. Again, I just may not know what I'm doing :question:

D-Lab
03-12-2012, 04:41 PM
Hi,

To use Align to plane, select 1 polygon and push Align to plane, all the geometry in the layer will move so that the polygon will be centered and coplanar with the XZ plane.

In fact, Align to plane and Restore align are the same command (CPlane Align), it's just a toggle, so first press and the poly is aligned and next press the initial position is restored.

To remember the initial position of your geometry, align to plane stores a couple of 2 points polys in an empty layer and if you modify or delete them, Align to plane can't restore the original position, it's as it had not been used before.

Be sure to not touch at these 2 points polys and the command will work as it should.

Hope this helps.

Tchao

tcoursey
03-12-2012, 05:08 PM
ah the two point polys I found left over! yes that makes sense. I deleted them and the command no longer put them back in place. I thought I had some modeling mistakes! lol.

I'll not delete them and try again using the command with a little more fluidity. Thanks!:D

Snosrap
03-12-2012, 07:15 PM
It's a total hack and not reliable. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be a properly implemented "feature". It was just a quick and easy addition. And just goes to show some of the limitations of the modeler code as we all know what is needed is a full fledged workplane. NT knows too, as they had one in Core.

prometheus
04-04-2012, 03:07 PM
yeah they need to work on this one a little more, think thereīs a pictrix plugin doing it better.

couldnīt work out how to array as in the lightwave addendum.

Sensei
04-04-2012, 03:53 PM
Other implementations (which you would call "not hacks") would have to break LWO compatibility, or not remembering between sessions..

colkai
04-05-2012, 05:05 AM
Don't know if it works with LW11 - but JettoLocal v0.8 works great with LW9.6 AND can be saved in it's rotated state then reloaded and unrotated.
It does this by utilising the layer name to store the action, so the obvious caveat is, if you've named your layers, it won't work.

It's an excellent plugin but dunno if can still be found "in the wild".

Chuck
04-05-2012, 05:11 PM
It's a total hack and not reliable. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be a properly implemented "feature". It was just a quick and easy addition. And just goes to show some of the limitations of the modeler code as we all know what is needed is a full fledged workplane. NT knows too, as they had one in Core.

It certainly was a quick and easy addition, it's reliable if used just for what it is rather than thinking of it as the full-fledged feature that will be along in a future edition of LightWave, and it shows one simple example of the usefulness available via scripting, albeit one that we'll certainly make unnecessary in favor of the real thing as soon as can be reasonably managed.

Snosrap
04-05-2012, 09:20 PM
It certainly was a quick and easy addition, it's reliable if used just for what it is rather than thinking of it as the full-fledged feature that will be along in a future edition of LightWave, and it shows one simple example of the usefulness available via scripting, albeit one that we'll certainly make unnecessary in favor of the real thing as soon as can be reasonably managed. Thanks Chuck for the remarks. I saw enough in Core to know that you folks are very well aware of Modelers shortcomings. :thumbsup:

evenflcw
04-05-2012, 10:14 PM
I'm sorry Chuck, but your statement is not entirely correct/complete. The real usefulness of scripting is that new functionality can be added to the product after the fact by anyone to fit current needs to a level that serve current purpose! The usefulness lies in this flexibility. Not in that the main developer can scour the community to include just anything that looks mildly useful in a limited set of scenarios to be released with the sharp build. If "integrated" tools don't work as expected it reflects badly on LW and NT. Their limited intended use, and NTs eventual plan to later include a fully-fledged solution, is besides the point, unless that is readily apparent to everyone. Which they clearly are/were not. NT should not be in the habit of incorporating hacks.

UnCommonGrafx
04-06-2012, 07:15 AM
"NT should GET OUT OF the habit of incorporating hacks."

Yours is a longer standing statement, though.

And I would disagree in this one way:scripting solutions like this, that might be termed hacks, ought to be included in a special folder QuickScriptSolutions.
Or, "Hacks".
For those trying to learn the code, these hacks might not be bad fodder to be had for such a purpose. Labeling or organizing these pieces of code that are Hacks&PlaceHolders would be yet another way NT could communicate with the users.

Nicolas Jordan
04-06-2012, 11:04 AM
Does anyone know of any free scripts or plugins out there that do the same align to plane thing as the LW11 feature for us 10.1 users?

tcoursey
04-06-2012, 11:07 AM
LWCAD from wtools is a great set of tools. It has UCS tools that work way better than LW11 implementation but it's pricy. Like draw a box aligned to any other polygon without even changing UCS. Funny they can produce tools from the SDK that outperform the tools we get direct from NewTek. I guess so much for the idea that LW has old code, that's not the reason we don't get these things from NT. Developers see opportunity and jump on it.

tcoursey
04-06-2012, 11:10 AM
Does anyone know of any free scripts or plugins out there that do the same align to plane thing as the LW11 feature for us 10.1 users?
Nicolas,
Just saw you know about LWCAD. Are you using 4.1? We just upgraded from 2.5 and WOW, there is so much that wasn't in our original purchase. It's come a long way.

Chuck
04-06-2012, 11:18 AM
I'm sorry Chuck, but your statement is not entirely correct/complete. The real usefulness of scripting is that new functionality can be added to the product after the fact by anyone to fit current needs to a level that serve current purpose! The usefulness lies in this flexibility. Not in that the main developer can scour the community to include just anything that looks mildly useful in a limited set of scenarios to be released with the sharp build. If "integrated" tools don't work as expected it reflects badly on LW and NT. Their limited intended use, and NTs eventual plan to later include a fully-fledged solution, is besides the point, unless that is readily apparent to everyone. Which they clearly are/were not. NT should not be in the habit of incorporating hacks.

My statement was more than sufficient for the situation, since it was a casual comment and not writing a treatise or a dissertation. Portraying it as somehow careless and incomplete is casting a casual forum comment in a needlessly negative light.

Scripted or coded tools, even simple ones not intended to stand as a long term feature in a given area, are really not hacks, at least as I have been used to the term. To be a hack, they really need to do things that shouldn't be done and shouldn't work and yet somehow do. Calling something like Align to Plane a hack is truly rhetorical, the software equivalent of ad hominem against an innocent, modest and defenseless but in fact reasonably handy little tool, within it's limits (I picture it with a little mustache, a modest smile and a self-deprecating sense of humor). And every tool, whether scripted or coded, always has it limits, in varying scopes of course.

Since we didn't scour anywhere for this tool but developed it in-house, that comment as well has no actual basis in fact nor pertinence with regard to this tool (and there is another point I'll note below that makes script arguments moot with this tool). Is one of the points to suggest that we shouldn't ever use the scripting abilities we create? That does seem to be what you are driving at, and if so that's counterproductive in several ways.

If we don't use those ourselves:
We would not know we have properly implemented the capabilities. We know things work by testing them, and the tests might just as well be something productive for us and the users.
We would not find the areas where we need to expand capabilities or remove a limitation until the users found it and told us. The fact is that a lot gets sorted in our internal testing because we make broad efforts. Python evolved a lot once it gained the wider audience of users in beta testing and Pre-Release, but it had also done a lot of evolving due to internal efforts at scripting, and launched into beta with a wide range of example scripts because of that effort.
Which brings up the fact that we would not be providing very many examples to those interested in using the capabilities if we took an injunction not to use scripting ourselves to heart.
Scripting tools is every bit as legitimate a means of development as is coding them into the application or as plugins. For some applications the core is in fact just the scripting language, and all tools and features are scripts, compiled or uncompiled. That elements of LightWave include scripts by the development team is perfectly appropriate.


As for the other apparent point that we shouldn't acquire scripts made by others, again, it's just not logical not to do whatever we can to add value to the product, and adding tools from the third party or user community is really a win for all involved. That's the case even if what is added is something we plan already to supercede in the future with our own internal developments. Users get a productive tool now, rather than having to wait for something in that area, and a better and more productive tool later.

All features, all tools, all products have their limitations at the start and all grow into or are outgrown by newer and better implementations. We are dedicated to making sure that LightWave grows in all areas, and there is not a thing wrong with adding quick and easy helpers for an area until such time as more complete development can be done for that area. You don't have to castigate an "Align to Plane" (nor castigate NewTek for including it) in order to support a call for proper workplanes for modeling. That's really not a logical requirement to make the case for the real deal. All the gains available in a real fully developed workplanes system are more than enough evidence for why it needs to be done.

And in any case, Align to Plane is a plugin our coder David Ikeda did, not a script; my bad, as I was thinking of the Align/Distribute scripts Matt did for Layout.

So now that I've written a dissertation here I'd like to go concentrate on trying to get Service Pack 1 ready to release, if there are no objections. :)

Nicolas Jordan
04-06-2012, 11:56 AM
Nicolas,
Just saw you know about LWCAD. Are you using 4.1? We just upgraded from 2.5 and WOW, there is so much that wasn't in our original purchase. It's come a long way.

I have LWCAD 3.x but I haven't upgraded to 4.x yet. After seeing what is in the 4.1 release I'm seriously thinking abut upgrading in the next couple months or so.

Lewis
04-06-2012, 04:54 PM
........ if there are no objections. :)

Just one, small one.

while you are at it, can you get us real workplanes for that SP1 also :D :D ;).

Thanks

evenflcw
04-06-2012, 05:28 PM
Very nice dissertation, Chuck. I can't/won't argue with you. Just say that:
I agree that NT should be using the scripting language and the sdks themselves. That was one of the most attractive devices of Core to me.
I have nothing against NT adding features as plugins. In many cases I'd prefer it, unless it meant considerable limits in what they could do.
I'm also not against acquisition of 3rd party tools (or developers) if they are of high standards and adjusted to fit and match LWs current workflow and visual style. (Some 3rd parties implement their own workflows and styles which I find distracting).

No objections.