Curve path to interpolation curves

[Jojon]

Hmm, as I said in the other thread, you may find that this is how it works already...

Unless I'm completely wrong, all animation IS relative to parent space, exactly the way you want it -- the difference between Loc and dLoc is not which parent coordinate space it is relative to, but in the other end; i.e. whether the values are absolute (Loc) or relative (deltaLoc) from the parent to the object's OWN coordinate system, i.e. with Loc, the IPO coordinates are inserted as is (from the parent), whereas with dLoc they are added to the object's own offset (still from the parent).

EDIT: Tried to make it less ambigous. :P

[Aloys]

I've just re-read the entire thread and I'm not sure I see any real advantage to one method over the other.. So I'll pass on the vote and I'll work happily with whatever method is chosen.

[Nadnerb]

Your example with the lift can be handled quite easily by parenting all the objects in the lift to a single animated object, such as a subworld. Which would then use a single Loc IPO curve without animating any other objects. This is cleaner, and it gets around the fact that Plasma does not support any "delta" controller type.

[Grogyan]

Your example with the lift can be handled quite easily by parenting all the objects in the lift to a single animated object, such as a subworld. Which would then use a single Loc IPO curve without animating any other objects. This is cleaner, and it gets around the fact that Plasma does not support any "delta" controller type.

Yeah I know, and a lift is a case of not needing delta curve support, because they are two simple or two dimensional.

I realize that Plasma doesn't support Delta IPOs, so i'm not suggesting about supporting those directly, but simply allow an offset from world origin to the objects' origin.

I have, with help from Lontahv, already working IPO curves that have that offset, but it does mean that its up to the user to remember to generate new IPO curves if they move the curve object, which so far the consensus on this poll is saying otherwise, but its no where definitive, it needs more people to vote.

[D'Lanor]

I have, with help from Lontahv, already working IPO curves that have that offset, but it does mean that its up to the user to remember to generate new IPO curves if they move the curve object, which so far seems to be the consensus on this poll, but its no where definitive, it needs more people to vote.

In that case I think the poll is unclear. I am sure everybody who voted for "ONCE" thought that it meant less work.

I have not voted because after reading through the whole topic I still don't understand exactly what I am voting for. I suggest you just make it do whatever is easier.

[Grogyan]

Sorry for the confusion, I made a grammer mistake, thats what happens when I am both tired and think too fast.

Please re read the first few posts,
I am going to upload two examples tonight after work seeing as confusion still exists

[Grogyan]

Here is a couple of examples that I promised when I was at work.

IPO_examples.zip

Also in these files are different versions of my code as I have been working on them, the standard IPO example has pretty much the most recent code in it.

(95.24 KiB) Downloaded 227 times

Move around the empty and/or curve in both example blend files, and also press Alt+A to cycle the animation sequence to see what I mean.