We have SizeConstraint that works with XY, YY, XX. I now I want PositionConstraint. My main reason being that it would fit my GUI design much better and make scaling things and developing complex UI so much less tedious.
31 Likes
I still want this.
8 Likes
Same here. I can’t use SizeConstraint efficiently as it’s almost impossible to precisely place GUI objects without a script.
3 Likes
Bumping this. This feature would be really useful for me. It’s a frustrating inconsistency in the engine.
This is really useful for containers that resize arbitrarily (e.g. scrolling frames, information displays that can be expanded/minimized).
We could choose an axis that this container won’t be resizing on, then size and position everything in that axis so that they don’t change when the container is resized (e.g. we choose Y axis, we use RelativeYY for size and position of all children so that when the container changes on the X axis, none of the sizes or positions of those children change).
3 Likes
+bump, much needed feature which I’m surprised 5 years on still hasn’t been considered
A lot of UI on mobile for example requires RelativeXX sizing and positioning to ensure buttons remain in a comfortable position relative to the thumb.
Sizing is fine of course, but the current workaround for positioning requires the use of UILists then creating ‘padding’ instances which are sized RelativeXX to correctly position all other elements.
Example use case:
1 Like
Agreed, highly useful feature that should be added.