Feature request: 2D scaling in parallel projection

To the sketchup team:

This has always been somewhat of a bug in my mind:
When you are in ortho view, You see the top 4 handles of the ‘scaling box’ and in my mind, there is absolutely no use whatsoever if they continue behaving as they do in 3D view.

I would find it much more sensible, when in ortho view, to only have active the handles that are on the plane parallel to your view. that way you could perform 2D scaling.


In the example above, I have a deck and I want to scale the planks to coincide with the edge of the base frame.
but when I hover over the right handle, the diagonal scaling is activated (which makes sense when you know that you are seeing the top side of the ‘scale box’ but is not useful at all.

If instead, only the middle plane handles were active, I could perform that operation without having to change views.
(Honestly, has anyone ever performed scaling in ortho view with the current configuration?)

EDIT: when I say ‘ortho’ view, I think it’s obvious that I’m only talking about the 6 standard views (top-bottom,left-right, front-back) and that the active handles should be the ones on the plane parallel to that view.

1 Like

the majority of people model in 3d and only use 2d for selection and/or output…

this is considered to be the best practice advice as PP leads to many odd issues…

john

2 Likes

I really cannot see where would be the problem.
I mean, even scaling itself is generally a ‘sloppy’ method but when you do it, why not do it easily…
as for best practices, I would argue that since scaling handles do appear in ortho it means that they are intended to be used. What I’m saying is that there is a way to use them more easily.

Scaling can be as precise as you want to be by typing in the exact dimensions you are trying to achieve, there is nothing sloppy about it.

I think the point being made is Sketchup is not designed to be used in “Ortho” view, even with using the pan modifier on the orbit tool its tricky to stay perfectly square with the model. It’s really designed as a 3D environment and trying to model in 2D will be cumbersome at best.

Also you only get the 3D handles in the scale tool if your object is 3D. If you must work in 2D then keep your objects z dimension to 0 and they will behave as you request.

1 Like

If you prefer to scale in ortho you need to know the “invisible” dimension of the bounding box, in the direction perpendicular to the screen.

In ortho you can only grab the nearest grips. Eight options: four corners and four mid grips. So you are always dealing with some diagonal Meaning that scaling in ortho still needs two or three values (factor) and in case of exact dimensions plus units.
Two values in case of mid grips, three values in case of corner grips.

In case of mid grips use the existing dimension (or factor 1) in the second field to scale in one visible direction.
In case of corner grips use the existing dimension (or factor 1) in the third field to scale in either one or two visible directions

Notice the text in the ‘Measurement’s Box’ down below to see which input is needed.

p.s. For corner grips you need to hold down [Shift] to see the values (plus units) needed. Otherwise you deal with uniform scaling.

When I say sloppy, I don’t mean it’s being done sloppily by SU. I mean it’s -sometimes- a sloppy practice because it deforms UV’s and unless you’re scaling a perfect box it deforms the object in ways it shouldn’t. (e.g. you might scale a 60 * 60 table into 60 * 80 but its legs will not be round any more)

I am not saying to change anything, all the handles should behave exactly the way they do now.
The only thing I’m suggesting is that the ‘top’ handles are not selectable so you can use the middle ones
which are the only ones relevant in ortho view.

In the example above, I have two parametric windows and I want to inference the bottom while scaling the top one. How much easier would it be!

I am saying you should be able to use only the middle handles in ortho because:

  1. the top handles have no practical use in this view (honestly, I doubt anyone can find a case where the top handles could be useful in ortho)
  2. it is very convenient in cases were you are working with grids or elevations with parametric windows, or scaling things that are very thin (rugs, pictures on walls, slab stones, etc)
  3. there is nothing to lose, even if one considers this a pet peeve, (although I’m sure that if it gets implemented, people will wonder how they lived without it before) Changing the scale tools behavior in this way affects nothing else.
1 Like

Yes, but you cannot scale by inferencing other geometries :frowning:

From the examples you are showing, maybe a left to right selection window and the move tool would make more sense. Just a thought.

2 Likes

I don’t understand, what does the move tool have to do with scaling?

Moving parts of the window rather than scaling it will create an accurate model rather than a distorted one.

2 Likes

hellooo, ‘parametric window’ helloww…
hahahahhahaha

Hello

1 Like

hahhahaha
hello, parametric window, the frame retains proportions, (hello)
EDIT: oh now I see the confusion: I meant “Dynamic” window. the frame has fixed width.

The forum guidelines prevent me continuing in this thread.

come on… why you are getting angry? we are just being humorous…
I don’t get you.

Ok, I will make my ‘final stand’ supporting this idea because for me it has obvious benefits and zero drawbacks.
The only arguments against it I’ve seen are related to the lack of need for this feature, so I’m giving you a few (of many) examples where thin and wide objects would be much easier to scale in 2D than going 3d, zooming in to find that middle dot and then zooming out to find the inference in 3d space.

And I repeat: there is no drawback. Nobody now scales in ortho, so it wouldn’t hurt anyone.
Furthermore, I can see one more advantage: this feature should only work if the bounding box is absolutely aligned to the world axes, so if it doesn’t work, you know your object is slightly off axis.

Totally agree

1 Like

If you could just select more then one handle, then you could just window select in ortho scale…

I use the scaling constraints in Dynamic Components very often (sometimes being the only attribute) just to be able to select from greater distance.
That would not work with multiple items, though.

Dynamic windows generally have a standard frame depth so the designer ought to disable other scaling grips than the middle “2D” ones. The same goes for all the examples shown here - all could be made into DCs with unnecessary scaling grips disabled.

come ooon… Yes you can constraint scaling (actually the specific window in the picture has scaling constraints) but:
a) you might come along a component that doesn’t have it
b) this is one of the many examples, it seems like you’re missing the big picture…