Active object as transformation orientation?

Archive
1

We have “active element” as a pivot point choice. But this is not enough to use that active element’s local axis for the transformation of multiple objects. And choosing Local Transformation Orientation causes each object to pivot around their own local axis, not that of the selected object. I’ve also tried various snapping and 3D cursor options, but none seem to be quite that.

I wonder why an option does not exist to allow that active object as transformation orientation. I know one can create custom orientation from a selected object, but that is really not fluid. Similarly, 3D cursor can snap to active object but does not seem to inherit its local axis, from all my tests.

I am quite new to Blender, so it is entirely possible I am missing something that can accomplish it fluidly.

1 Like
2

While I agree with the idea, I think that would belong in a different forum (unless you are suggesting to implement this yourself?)

3

I am not suggesting to implement that myself, no. Is there a specific different forum you think would be a better fit? (first post, etc…)

4

This forum is meant for communication between developers and volunteers, as well as feedback on development. For feature requests you can try https://rightclickselect.com/ but some might call this place the graveyard of good ideas… to get the best chance at having the proposal looked at, I suggest doing a mockup of how it would look in Blender. In your case this should be pretty simple, I think you’re also not the first person to suggest it so try a search first.

1 Like
5

Interesting. The description of this specific Topic suggested it was more general discussion oriented and so did some of the other topics I read. I thought it was a good fit into “feedback on development”. I will look into RCS in more details in the future.

Thank you for the feedback.

6

Sometimes the line is a bit blurry, but the team tries their best to keep this forum centered on development questions. I’m not trying to police anyone here, of course, just stating what’s been stated before since I happened to read your question shortly after you posted it. I second your idea about an “object” orientation by the way, let’s see what becomes of it.