Now that everything nodes is “near” invest time in that doesn’t have a lot of reason
Object offset with an empty will probably do the trick?
I too am of the opinion that an array for the rotation, which is more immediate than the current one is necessary
maybe I’m a bit biased, but here’s how I’d like arrays to work
maybe some array modifier can become an active tool working in object and edit mode …
I agree with @Alberto , when the nodes are there … the tools will become very interesting
Rotation can already be done with an empty object.
And also how would the user set the rotation pivot? What is lacking is some sort of randomization.
This is a cumbersome way of work. Ultra complicated as most things in blender.
Proper array modifiers they do circular arrays instantly.
I know, that’s quick, but you cannot choose a different pivot point as easily as moving an empty
I tend to agree. I suppose it might be nice to have some quick access modes like circular array for speed, but having an empty (or perhaps a gizmo in the future) also has its distinct advantages.
Bingo! A “modifier gizmo” would be cool. And, again, in the specific case of arrays, a randomization percent slider for the three transformation (and for each axis) would be cool
I thought about it yesterday …
what we need is an active tool, not a modifier …
an active tooll, of the rotation array very similar to the spin tool
Extending the reasoning, as soon as everityng nodes arrives, the difference between the active tools and the modifiers will easily become very thin
correct … but look at the moi video that I posted a few comments above to make you understand how it could work much better … besides imagining in the short future tools that are much more connected with modifiers thanks to everithing nodes …
Ah, I see now after the video. And yes I know what you mean for everything nodes.
Hey, But this isn’t Blender
But it was done in edit mode. What if you want to make changes to one and Allow the rest to automatically be edited. It can’t be possible. Except you choose to Edit them individually which is time consuming.
In order to solve such problems, there are “emptys” in the blender. This is one mechanism that can solve many of these problems.
And, as already answered above, everyone is waiting for the coming of “everything nodes”. Therefore, spending time on such things now is not very correct.
I wonder when “everything nodes” will appear for such things, how will all local intellectuals live without pink gizmos? Or will they have to be introduced there too?
Breaking news: All the great blockbusters and animated movies are made in softwares with pink gizmos. Hmmm
If you hate gizmos and love to hammer the keyboard like a mad man, that’s your problem. lol
Also keep in mind that nodes are not good for everything. If blender try to rely on nodes for everything, like even for the most basic tasks, then it will become a piece of crap and slow software to use, and even more hard to learn. If that’s the case, then why not go straight to houdini? (That’s the sole reason not everyone is using Houdini, otherwise everyone would be using it by now. Houdini’s UX is crap, people only stick with it because there’s no other 3d app as powerful)
Blender needs to learn from the master C4D how proper UI/UX is done.
So what? What are these words for? What is the point of them? If someone uses gizmos in some other commercial programs, it follows that gizmos are a symbol of progress, that it is very good and useful, and that they need to be implemented everywhere?
Breaking news: Gizmos are used everywhere because it is easier and more understandable for a beginner. Poking on the keyboard is harder because you need to train finger motility for a long time, and remember combinations, but this is the way of the pros. And it is important for manufacturers only to attract as many consumers as possible, and znichit needs to do something very simple and understandable to everyone. The more dummies want to “make 3D”, the more money will make “3D max.” But the goals for the beginner and the pros are different, and the methods for achieving these goals are the different. And it’s very difficult to make one tool that would satisfy everyone at once. It makes no sense to the capitalist to make an instrument for the pros, because few pros, but many dummies. Therefore, in commercial programs there are a lot of gizmos, and not because it is really convenient. During the gold rush, the shovel trader makes the biggest profits. Hmmm.
Why also, to be able to specify the basic transformations (loc/rot/scl) of the array without adding empty ones to the scene - this is an obvious thing that was worth solving about 10 years ago.