Is it so much more heavy to keep objects and transforms intact on import? Memory wise it would be better in regards to instancing, but I must admit that probably a lot of users will end up with very complex files as they often aren't aware of the issue of having too many local transforms where they probably should have collapsed a bunch of models into one mesh instead.
Hi AsplanViak, if they made it possible to move/rotate/scale individual surfaces of an imported model, the modified model in Lumion would become out of sync with the original scene in your modelling applications.
The fundamental question is whether we want to make it possible to have out-of-sync models in Lumion, or whether the model in Lumion should always be identical to the model in your modelling application.Picture this:
Let's say we had individual surface transforms in Lumion, so that every single object would have its own transform set. And now your client is checking out a building that you have prepared in Lumion. Unfortunately, your client isn't satisfied with the way you've designed the kitchen, so based on his feedback, you move/rotate/scale the kitchen cabinets and appliances, and after a few minutes, you've got a very different kitchen and a happy client.
Unfortunately, it's not possible to export the modified model from Lumion to SketchUp (where the construction drawings will be produced), so you end up having to reproduce the changes in the original scene in SketchUp. It's not easy, and it will never be exactly the same as in Lumion, but with a bit of patience you manage to make it look more or less the same as in Lumion.
In the mean time, your client requests some more changes in the living room which you also fix in SketchUp.
You export the whole scene again, and reload it in Lumion.
To your surprise, the kitchen cabinets and the appliances seem to have been offset from the position in SketchUp, and their rotation/scale values are longer correct. And then you realise that the transforms that you and the client made in Lumion are still being applied to the reloaded model.
The problem is that we end up with a bunch of transform sets for each surface which have the potential to get increasingly out of sync and will require that you make a number of decisions on a per-surface basis every time you update and reload your model in your modelling application. We would have:1)
The Lumion transform set (the "base" transforms in Lumion that you can always revert to).2)
The offset from the "base transforms" if you change them (eg, moved/rotated/scaled the kitchen cabinets).3)
The new transform set from the updated SU scene.
After reloading the model, we would then have to highlight each surface that no longer has the same transform set as in #1. And we would probably also need to make it possible to display the original transform set for comparison (as a toggle switch), so that you would get a visual cue as a basis for making the decisions for each surface that is different when reloading your model, for example, should #2 be discarded or kept intact and should #3 override #1?
The reason I believe this approach isn't ideal is that you can't export models from Lumion to your modelling application. Sure, if we allowed individual surface transforms in Lumion you could do more of the design work in Lumion but on the other hand, you would be unable to transfer those changes to your modelling application, and out of sync models would become the norm.
That being said, I do understand why you would like to have the option to move individual surfaces, so if Remko does implement it, this function should not be turned on by default in my opinion