Rotate Layer tool confusion

[Hoptoad]

I was lamenting that that I could rotate a layer or shear a layer, but not tilt a layer -- which I really needed to do. Then I thought. . .what if, in this instance, "rotate" was a mathematical term and not an art term? After all, the tool's icon seems to indicate that the tool accomplishes tilting.

So I tried it and, yes, "rotate" actually means tilt.

In conclusion, beloved developers, I present my tiny feature request that might take more time to implement than it took me to write this post: the "Rotate Layer" tool should be renamed "Tilt Layer."

Thank you!

[Greenlaw]

I think the confusion comes from how Moho separates X and Y rotation and Z rotation into two separate tools (Rotation Tool for XY rotation and Transform Tool for Z rotation, respectively). As an artist who works in both 2D and 3D, this separation used to really bug me because, in any other animation program, all three rotations would be handled by a single widget.

I believe this was done to 'simplify' Moho, but I think it makes layer rotation in Moho unnecessarily complicated. I got used to it, but it still bugs me sometime.

So, IMHO, the term 'rotate' is fine...it's what every program calls it...but the two tools really should be merged as a single Transform tool.

[NanotechBeasts]

I don't usually use the z-rotation but I definitely was playing around with it today for a head rotation and gear rotation. But the results weren't that good so maybe it was how I tried to use it.

[Greenlaw]

I wondered a little about why the Rotation tool even exists, and I guess it was a way to allow animators to rotate in X and Y axis while staying in the camera view (i.e., single view only and no orbit.) Because Moho is primarily a 2D program, this probably makes some kind of sense.

I do feel this makes animating rotation keyframes more complicated, though. When I want to separate rotation keyframes in other programs (2D, 3D, and compositing,) I use parented null objects. Moho doesn't support null objects, so I use group layers this way, but that's not always as easy as using simple null objects.

So, I think I would prefer to see a universal widget that handles all layer transforms (rotation for all three axis), and for Moho to get null objects. Oh, and also, the camera needs to be a layer so it can be directly parented or constrained to anything else in Moho. If the camera was just another layer, it could make sharing camera data between projects and other programs easier, too.

Sorry, I'm just kinda rambling at this point...haven't had any coffee yet this morning.

(Edited for clarity.)

[Hoptoad]

I don't usually use the z-rotation but I definitely was playing around with it today for a head rotation and gear rotation. But the results weren't that good so maybe it was how I tried to use it.

I used it this morning after I imported a PNG with transparency into an environment. The image was a large patterned object, and it clearly had a different perspective than the floor. So I tilted its layer until it matched the floor's perspective. For that purpose, it worked great.

One thing I like about Moho, is if I have a need for a new feature, Moho probably already does it -- I just need to learn how.

[NanotechBeasts]

I don't usually use the z-rotation but I definitely was playing around with it today for a head rotation and gear rotation. But the results weren't that good so maybe it was how I tried to use it.

I used it this morning after I imported a PNG with transparency into an environment. The image was a large patterned object, and it clearly had a different perspective than the floor. So I tilted its layer until it matched the floor's perspective. For that purpose, it worked great.

One thing I like about Moho, is if I have a need for a new feature, Moho probably already does it -- I just need to learn how.

Oh I didn't think of floor patterns so much but it would be pretty useful there. I do wish there was was a way to thinking the layer. Basically like turning the thickness of a piece of paper to match the thickness of cardboard but then again I guess that's 3-D.

[synthsin75]

I do wish there was was a way to thinking the layer. Basically like turning the thickness of a piece of paper to match the thickness of cardboard but then again I guess that's 3-D.

You can make a vector layer 3D in the layer settings. You can then have an image texture on a vector shape and give it thickness as a 3D shape.

[NanotechBeasts]

Thanks I'll have to try that.

I do wish there was was a way to thinking the layer. Basically like turning the thickness of a piece of paper to match the thickness of cardboard but then again I guess that's 3-D.

You can make a vector layer 3D in the layer settings. You can then have an image texture on a vector shape and give it thickness as a 3D shape.