3D (?) terminology: parenting an object within another without visually changing

1

Whats it called when you parent one object within another but that object’s own apperance visually has not changed - ie, the parent’s transformations have not been applied… is there a term for that? Or would that just be something … something … without transformations or whatnot?

No big deal, I’m just trying to describe something and it has that behavior but I couldnt think of a term to use for it. I vaguely remember having to manage such relationships when I worked with maya (years ago) but I can’t recall whether it was tagged with a term.

2

Like grouping?

3

instancing

4

Im thinking more about the property in which it does or does not become transformed by its parent’s transformations.

ex:

2 cubes on the screen, equal in every way except one is at 100% size and the other was scaled to 200% or twice its original size. Now, should you want to parent the two and make cube 1 a child of cube 2, two things can happen. 1) the cube will be added and will not change in size or 2) the cube will be added and will assume 200% size as its parents transformations (history) are applied. Lets say theres a button to distinguish between the two … what would it say?

5

well button one I would just call “parenting/grouping” or the equivalent to a soft boolean add, like the illustrator path finder tool (add) where they become grouped but not one mesh until you expand it. Now button 2 is tricky. I have never heard of this type of button. But I would call it “make equivalent”. Since it becomes its parent. But how they act after the operation has alot to do with the tool name also.

Can I be nosey and ask, whats this for? one of your lovely extensions for FW?

6

heh, no, just an example in Flash about taking a movieclip and placing it in a new timeline… whether that movieclip will retain its current apperance or be transformed by the alterations of its new parent.

As for the 3D thing, I could have been thinking post-parenting transformations; Im not sure if what I described above applies to actual practice or not - I can’t remember. :-/

Im just using “apply transformations”

7

You could call it static grouping and dynamic grouping shrug

8

There’s a couple of terms that max uses for objects created using an ‘parent’ object.

You might call it a ‘clone’. Clones are divided into 3 categories:

  • Copy. replicates the object, but thereafter remains it’s own object
  • Reference. replicates the object, but uses part of the same memory the parent object uses. It can be modified in a limited fashion.
  • Instance. replicates the object and uses exactly the same part of memory the parent object uses. Any changes are replicated to both objects.

There’s also the linking heirachy which you would call a parent->child relationship

9

Im not worried about the object itself, but the behavior of it being transformed or it not being transformed when its placed under the heirarchy of another transformed object. For example, heres the thing in Flash. Right now Im using “Apply Transformations”

[swf=http://www.senocular.com/downloads/changemoviecliptimeline.swf]width=300 height=300[/swf]

notice the behavior based on this option (drag the gears into movieclips). I just thought there might have been another term to describe it :-/

10

maybe the term ‘inherit’…? when your talking changing a behaviour in lower levels of a heirarchy then I’d use the term inherit.

11

yeah, thats pretty good :wink: but the movie will always inherit after the timeline has changed so its not really stopping anything except in applying the immediate change in parenting.

Eh, I think what I have will suffice

Thanks for everyone’s help! :pleased:

12

:h: im confused, lol opening maya

let me see if i got this right you are looking for a word that explains when you group a object but it retains its properties?

(ahh forget it, i have no idea… lol.)