In the scene I was just working in, the grid spacing appears to be 2.5 units, which is very strange to me.
Is this normal? Does this have to do with the automatic grid respacing? Is there an option to turn off auto resizing/respacing of the grid?
I suppose I am just looking for more information on the grid in general.
Also, I noticed when rotating an object, it ends up not centered on the grid. it would be great if I could snap it back to sit on the grid again.
A possible idea would be to be able rotate and move the creation grid? Dunno, just a thought.
I suppose it might be a workflow thing, but when I lose a handle on the grid, I donât feel comfortable creating. For example, after extruding a surface upwards, I find it awkward to work on the top as it is raised off the grid and the camera perspective makes it hard to tell where I am putting things.
Are there orthographic views?
I only used the app shorty (until first crash) but I was impressed! Great job, kudos to all involved,
-Poly
The grid resolution depends on your zoom level. It changes on a logarithmic scale, depending on your zoom level it can be 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 25.0, 50.0, etc. We might should simply skip the 2.5 and 7.5 and just leave every second.
I am not sure I understand what happened when you were rotating. Currently rotating should rotate the objects around their center of mass.
I am not sure we will support moving and rotating the grid directly, but we will definitely support orthographic view for an arbitrary plane. So you will be able to select any plane or planar face, and the camera will switch to orthographic view to that plane, and a grid will appear there. But I donât really like Rhinoâs approach where you can directly manipulate construction planes. But it really depends on user requests.
I also think that the girl should be user selectable, and have ability to or not to scale with zoom.
I.e.: at first Iâm modeling at 1mm grid that doesnât change, but then I hit something that allows the bid to change later. I. Can always toggle it on or off.
Hmm, we will consider this. Anyway, in the next release on Friday the grid spacing will be 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 etc. It might going to help. We will also implement a camera orientation feedback and a grid spacing feedback UI element in the next few weeks, I think you will find it helpful as well.
Re: Rotation, when rotation and object 90 degrees, part of it maybe below the grid. Which makes it hard to edit, but ortho views would make this a non issue.
Re: a movable grid/construction plane â I agree, this would be more of a hassle than anything else. Especially if there are ortho views to use.
I like the idea of the grid size changing with the view scale. However, it does give you the feeling of being momentarily lost when the grid suddenly changes divisions.
I would suggest that there are bold grid lines with unbolded subdivisions. For example, when you are working with 1.0 divisions, the 5.0 divisions are seen in bold. This way when you zoom out to 10 and the grid changes, it appears that you only lose your subdivision, and your bold lines become the ânewâ subdivision at 5.0 and now the 10.0 lines are bold.
Does that makes sense?
I agree with Shawn that this should be a preference and if we want to keep the grid constant we should be able to. I would also like to be able to choose myself what the divisions are and what lines are bold.
Personally I could see it being useful to have three visual levels of divisions, so
X lines (0.5?) are light
Y lines (1.0?) are medium
Z lines (1.5 / 2 / 5.0? preference) are bold.
I think that would help make the grid more useful as well as make the auto re-spacing easier to track, if you had that option enabled.
It totally makes sense. Actually this is how it should work. I will do it right now.
Unfortunately it is really easy to get lost, and we donât have a âreset cameraâ button currently, so it can be really confusing. This is one of the things that we will improve in the next few weeks.
If you need more levels, there will be more levels Our development methodology is user driven, that means that we will do what you need Very scientific. But I would suggest to try this one tomorrow, and if you will still feel the need for more level(s) we will add it.
I think I would rather not have the grid change, I find it confusing.
Maybe its just that it changes levels too often? It feels like every time I zoom, the grid is changing around.
Here we go through three different grid levels, for what seems like a very slight camera zoom. its too much imho. Also, if you look at the middle image, something feels off about the grid divisions, compared to the more zoomed out version in the first image and the zoomed in last image. Anyone else see that? It almost like its a bigger grid than the first image.
We experimented with constant grid spacing, the problem with this is that on smaller zoom levels it can be very very annoying to have a very dense grid. Sketches will just always snap to grid points and nothing else.
Thatâs a feature but we can change that. ehat should happen then when you are sketching on a grid where a face and a grid overlaps? Should the sketch go on the face or on the grid?
Just wanted to share my grid user case for the Shapr3D execs: My favorite use for Shapr is freeform, creative modeling. And for that, I Looove the grid. And I loooove that it sounds like you guys have programmed Shapr to have a reliably accurate grid! (whereas relying on the grid is discouraged in Fusion 360 and can cause strange inaccuracies). But, bringing models in/out of Shapr3D for me means I canât rely on the grid without scaling assets before/after using them in my Shapr workflow. (Unless thereâs another solution now maybe with the new âconstruction sketchesâ??)
but we can change that. ehat should happen then when you are sketching on a grid where a face and a grid overlaps? Should the sketch go on the face or on the grid?