X/Y Axis?

[A.D.STUDIO]

I'm wondering why I can't rotate an object on both its X- and Y-axis.

[Puybaret]

Because it’s generally too complex to guess the result of two rotations.

[dorin]

Not ALL but furniture EXCEPT doors, windows and staircases.
Could be rotated on X, Y & Z axis.
Look at the piano .

[Keet]

Because it’s generally too complex to guess the result of two rotations.

Mmmm, "guess"? [:)]

Separately the X and Y calculations are possible. Perform the Y calculation on the result of the X-calculation. You already have the code for both calculations. The only difference is that the Y calculation is done on the in-memory result of the X calculation. Or am I thinking too simple here?
That's basically what I do when needed: set the X angle, export, import, set the Y angle.

[dorin]

I'm sorry!
You've right, I'm wrong!
When set X the Y become 0 and the opposite. Only Z (Angle) keep the value.
So, my answer is wrong. Sorry!

[A.D.STUDIO]

Thanks for the replies. Is there some technical reason why not? There's definitely use cases for it. I have a trapezoidal shaped box, need to lean it on its side and angle it up (it's an audio foldback wedge). Can't do it.

@Keet: are you saying I can set one axis, export and import and it's normalised at that position, then set the other axis? As a workaround...

[Keet]

@Keet: are you saying I can set one axis, export and import and it's normalised at that position, then set the other axis? As a workaround...

Yes, that is what I do when I need a tilt on both X and Y. I first do one, export, import, and then do the other. It's not perfect because you have to export and import but the result is what you want with both tilts.

[Puybaret]

Is there some technical reason why not?

It's not a technical reason, it's for ergonomics reasons. Sweet Home 3D audience targets also people who don't understand how orientation around 3 axes work, moreover since these operations are not commutative.

[A.D.STUDIO]

OK – I'd err on the side of offering complete functionality as opposed to crippling it to cater for the lowest common denominator, I don't think there's ever a good case for going that way. I think the picture you show of the three axes is pretty clear, too.