What snapping technique to scale edges out to be exactly upright in this case?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I'm wondering if there's a snapping technique I could use to get a
scaled edge ring to be exactly straight up and down?
I can just scale and guess, by eye, that the edges that get scaled out
are exactly upright, but I want to be exact, without having to set the
location of each vertex manually.
Thanks for any ideas.



before scaling



scaled by eye, but not exactly upright




modeling snapping




share|improve this question






















  • You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
    – Mr Zak
    Aug 25 at 13:13










  • Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:31










  • One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:37
















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I'm wondering if there's a snapping technique I could use to get a
scaled edge ring to be exactly straight up and down?
I can just scale and guess, by eye, that the edges that get scaled out
are exactly upright, but I want to be exact, without having to set the
location of each vertex manually.
Thanks for any ideas.



before scaling



scaled by eye, but not exactly upright




modeling snapping




share|improve this question






















  • You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
    – Mr Zak
    Aug 25 at 13:13










  • Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:31










  • One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:37












up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





I'm wondering if there's a snapping technique I could use to get a
scaled edge ring to be exactly straight up and down?
I can just scale and guess, by eye, that the edges that get scaled out
are exactly upright, but I want to be exact, without having to set the
location of each vertex manually.
Thanks for any ideas.



before scaling



scaled by eye, but not exactly upright




modeling snapping




share|improve this question














I'm wondering if there's a snapping technique I could use to get a
scaled edge ring to be exactly straight up and down?
I can just scale and guess, by eye, that the edges that get scaled out
are exactly upright, but I want to be exact, without having to set the
location of each vertex manually.
Thanks for any ideas.



before scaling



scaled by eye, but not exactly upright





modeling snapping





share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 25 at 5:27

























asked Aug 25 at 5:22









frew

628




628











  • You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
    – Mr Zak
    Aug 25 at 13:13










  • Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:31










  • One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:37
















  • You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
    – Mr Zak
    Aug 25 at 13:13










  • Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:31










  • One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:37















You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
– Mr Zak
Aug 25 at 13:13




You can try scaling that edge loop in Vertex select mode and snapping set to Vertex > Closest, while scaling lock axes to anything but surface of that loop (in your example above, this would be S > Shift+Z), though this way might not work for every situation.
– Mr Zak
Aug 25 at 13:13












Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:31




Thanks, yes this works quickly and easily, and is using snapping, which is what I was mostly wonder about how to use in this case.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:31












One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:37




One note, for anyone else exploring this, I need to have button "snap onto itself" enabled here at snapping options. Maybe that's on by default.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:37










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













While this is no general answer to how to solve the snapping problem and might not work for more complex shapes, in this particular instance I think it's easier to not rely on scaling but instead use Loop Cut and Slide, cut exactly at the bottom and then manually move the added edge loop upwards. For the upwards translation you could use exact numbers or vertex snapping (while restricting the movement to the Z axis) to end up at the height of your existing loop.



loop cut and slide






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:32

















up vote
2
down vote













The slide method is given by binweg is better than scaling, because it's more general, but in this particular case, just out of interest:



  • With the transform pivot set to the center in XY

  • Set Snapping to 'Vertex' and 'Active',

  • In Vertex Mode, select the edge loop to be scaled, making a convenient vertex active

  • Scale in XY (SShiftZ) until the active vertex snaps to the one below it.





share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:33










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "502"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fblender.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116857%2fwhat-snapping-technique-to-scale-edges-out-to-be-exactly-upright-in-this-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













While this is no general answer to how to solve the snapping problem and might not work for more complex shapes, in this particular instance I think it's easier to not rely on scaling but instead use Loop Cut and Slide, cut exactly at the bottom and then manually move the added edge loop upwards. For the upwards translation you could use exact numbers or vertex snapping (while restricting the movement to the Z axis) to end up at the height of your existing loop.



loop cut and slide






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:32














up vote
5
down vote













While this is no general answer to how to solve the snapping problem and might not work for more complex shapes, in this particular instance I think it's easier to not rely on scaling but instead use Loop Cut and Slide, cut exactly at the bottom and then manually move the added edge loop upwards. For the upwards translation you could use exact numbers or vertex snapping (while restricting the movement to the Z axis) to end up at the height of your existing loop.



loop cut and slide






share|improve this answer




















  • Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:32












up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









While this is no general answer to how to solve the snapping problem and might not work for more complex shapes, in this particular instance I think it's easier to not rely on scaling but instead use Loop Cut and Slide, cut exactly at the bottom and then manually move the added edge loop upwards. For the upwards translation you could use exact numbers or vertex snapping (while restricting the movement to the Z axis) to end up at the height of your existing loop.



loop cut and slide






share|improve this answer












While this is no general answer to how to solve the snapping problem and might not work for more complex shapes, in this particular instance I think it's easier to not rely on scaling but instead use Loop Cut and Slide, cut exactly at the bottom and then manually move the added edge loop upwards. For the upwards translation you could use exact numbers or vertex snapping (while restricting the movement to the Z axis) to end up at the height of your existing loop.



loop cut and slide







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Aug 25 at 6:47









binweg

1,7911312




1,7911312











  • Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:32
















  • Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:32















Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:32




Thanks, yes this also works very nicely, and is an option to snapping in this case.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:32












up vote
2
down vote













The slide method is given by binweg is better than scaling, because it's more general, but in this particular case, just out of interest:



  • With the transform pivot set to the center in XY

  • Set Snapping to 'Vertex' and 'Active',

  • In Vertex Mode, select the edge loop to be scaled, making a convenient vertex active

  • Scale in XY (SShiftZ) until the active vertex snaps to the one below it.





share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:33














up vote
2
down vote













The slide method is given by binweg is better than scaling, because it's more general, but in this particular case, just out of interest:



  • With the transform pivot set to the center in XY

  • Set Snapping to 'Vertex' and 'Active',

  • In Vertex Mode, select the edge loop to be scaled, making a convenient vertex active

  • Scale in XY (SShiftZ) until the active vertex snaps to the one below it.





share|improve this answer






















  • Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:33












up vote
2
down vote










up vote
2
down vote









The slide method is given by binweg is better than scaling, because it's more general, but in this particular case, just out of interest:



  • With the transform pivot set to the center in XY

  • Set Snapping to 'Vertex' and 'Active',

  • In Vertex Mode, select the edge loop to be scaled, making a convenient vertex active

  • Scale in XY (SShiftZ) until the active vertex snaps to the one below it.





share|improve this answer














The slide method is given by binweg is better than scaling, because it's more general, but in this particular case, just out of interest:



  • With the transform pivot set to the center in XY

  • Set Snapping to 'Vertex' and 'Active',

  • In Vertex Mode, select the edge loop to be scaled, making a convenient vertex active

  • Scale in XY (SShiftZ) until the active vertex snaps to the one below it.






share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Aug 25 at 11:53

























answered Aug 25 at 7:22









Robin Betts

3,2731623




3,2731623











  • Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:33
















  • Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
    – frew
    Aug 25 at 17:33















Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:33




Thanks, this also works. Good to know about this snapping option too.
– frew
Aug 25 at 17:33

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fblender.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116857%2fwhat-snapping-technique-to-scale-edges-out-to-be-exactly-upright-in-this-case%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































-

這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

圖片
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite My aim is to smooth the terrain in a video game. Therefore I contrived an algorithm that makes use of Bézier curves of different orders. But this algorithm is defined in a two dimensional space for now. To shift it into the third dimension I need to somehow combine the Bézier curves. Given two curves in each two dimensions, how can I combine them to build a surface? I thought about something like a curve of a curve. Or maybe I could multiply them somehow. How can I combine them to cause the wanted behavior? Is there a common approach? In the image you can see the input, on the left, and the output, on the right, of the algorithm that works in a two dimensional space. For the real application there is a three dimensional input. The algorithm relays only on the adjacent tiles. Given these it will define the control points of the mentioned Bézier curve. Additionally it marks one side of the curve as inside t
閱讀完整內容

Carbon dioxide

圖片
"CO2" redirects here. For other uses, see CO2 (disambiguation). Carbon dioxide Names Other names Carbonic acid gas Carbonic anhydride Carbonic oxide Carbon oxide Carbon(IV) oxide Dry ice (solid phase) Identifiers CAS Number 124-38-9   Y 3D model (JSmol) Interactive image Interactive image 3DMet B01131 Beilstein Reference 1900390 ChEBI CHEBI:16526   Y ChEMBL ChEMBL1231871   N ChemSpider 274   Y ECHA InfoCard 100.004.271 EC Number 204-696-9 E number E290 (preservatives) Gmelin Reference 989 KEGG D00004   Y MeSH Carbon+dioxide PubChem CID 280 RTECS number FF6400000 UNII 142M471B3J   Y UN number 1013 (gas), 1845 (solid) InChI InChI=1S/CO2/c2-1-3   Y Key: CURLTUGMZLYLDI-UHFFFAOYSA-N   Y InChI=1/CO2/c2-1-3 Key: CURLTUGMZLYLDI-UHFFFAOYAO SMILES O=C=O C(=O)=O Properties Chemical formula C O 2 Molar mass 44.01 g·mol −1 Appearance Colorless gas Odor Low concentrations: none High concentrations: sharp; acidic [1] Density 1562 kg/m 3 (solid at 1 atm and −78.5 °C) 1101 kg/m 3 (liquid at
閱讀完整內容

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

圖片
up vote 0 down vote favorite My code workes perfectly for other queries, but for one query I am infinitely getting the same tweet. I can't understand what the problem is. API call: query='Allergic asthma OR Nonallergic asthma OR Occupational asthma OR EIB OR Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction OR Nocturnal asthma OR Cough-variant asthma' new_tweets = api.search(q=searchQuery, count=100, since_id=since_id, lang='en',tweet_mode='extended') if not new_tweets: print("No more tweets found") break for tweet in new_tweets: if True: print(jsonpickle.encode(tweet._json, unpicklable=False)) my_file = open('searchTweets.txt','a') my_file.write(jsonpickle.encode(tweet._json, unpicklable=False)+'n') my_file.close() else: continue Output in file: https://pastebin.com/JmRCsTeE These are the JSONs of the same Tweet. Other queries that work: Breast cancer OR Prostate cancer OR Colon cancer OR Lung cancer Type 2 dia
閱讀完整內容