Had a really helpful discussion on gamedev.tv discord on why I would want to use empties and not just collections. I am very hierarchy oriented from use of graphics programs where I don’t just select and move because you might be selecting something you don’t realize. It is very satisfying to have them set up and looks very useful.
Organisation is very helpful.
But it seems 2 systems can conflict with one another in some display way too.
I’m trying to figure out what they were having issues with. I noticed that if you parent an empty it gets listed under the thing you parented to. If I select it the same empty is selected. I didn’t see that as a problem but it is listed twice in my scene outline.
Would you suggest setting up collections so that the empty is only listed once in the collections? It wasn’t bothering me (or blender?) but maybe it’s better practice?
I have no solution really. It is just an oddity as that thread went over.
It makes no real difference to the functionality but is ‘untidy’. These greyed ‘lost’ relationship entries in the outliner.
Basically, empties can be used for grouping.
But their real strength lies in the manipulation of coordinates (rotation, location, scale).
There is no real need to group all the white pieces …?
As in, you want to move them all at once? Why?
Michael uses it as an example to learn about this stuff, grouping using empties.
But it was part of the old 2.79 courses when there were no collections.
For the chess board solution, I would choose for collections.
And use empties for specific animation purposes.
Oh collections is newer than empties? Make sense. Collections is very similar to graphics programs I’ve used for organization.
Mostly you use empty (grouped object), to rotate, around that empty.
Which be part of an other empty, that is rotated too. Complex stuff like the earth around the sun.
And the moon around the earth …
