Joeedh,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 12:44 AM, joe <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joeedh@gmail.com">joeedh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Personally, I prefer using simple lines for bones, I don't like there<br>
being anything on the ends at all. A draw type for this would be<br>
great :) </blockquote><div>So the stick drawtype is not enough?<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Also some simple shapes, like circles, cubes, spheres, etc,</blockquote>
<div>You could currently use the custom draw types for that - the code is in place for empties and could be really easy to port if there really was a need.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
and the ability to set a wireframe flag on individual bones.</blockquote><div>The mysterious 'W' button beside the custom draw type field (in 2.4x that is... 2.5 not sure what it's name is).<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Joe<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 6:02 AM, malefico<<a href="mailto:malefico@malefico3d.org">malefico@malefico3d.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi, I thought that I could share my thoughts about ghosting features<br>
><br>
> Ghosting and paths are complementary features for me. When fixing arcs,<br>
> I really beg for something inbetween of those features. For instance,<br>
> paths are slow to calculate and harder to see than ghosts, ghosts works<br>
> on all visible bones so you have to hide most of bones first, but then<br>
> it renders too many things (depending on bone shapes/drawing mode) etc.<br>
><br>
> I thought it could be useful to have a way of ghosting only joints. Not<br>
> the whole bone but its root or tail so you could have same thing as a<br>
> path but as fast as ghost.<br>
><br>
> Another thing I thought was drawing outlines of meshes instead of full<br>
> meshes. It could be either the outline only or a filled outline in<br>
> shades of any colour.<br>
><br>
> Speaking of visualization bit a bit offtopic here, I also thing it would<br>
> be great to have a few more bone drawing types for bones. An octahedron<br>
> ala Maya, where width of bone is constant, and an even thinner stick<br>
> bone (ideally just a line with two bold joints at root and tail)<br>
><br>
> Anyway, I'm glad you are considering these stuff !<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
><br>
> malefico<br>
><br>
> joe wrote:<br>
>> Ghosting would be great for working out spacing issues. I actually<br>
>> have a little compositor setup that makes ghosted videos for me, that<br>
>> I use to check if the spacing is working. Having a more advanced<br>
>> thing in the 3d view would be much more useful :) You would need some<br>
>> sort of decimation though, and it'd also be important that the<br>
>> ghosting show up when rendering opengl preview renders ("playblasts").<br>
>><br>
>> Joe<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Joshua Leung<<a href="mailto:aligorith@gmail.com">aligorith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 8:03 AM, William Reynish <<a href="mailto:william@reynish.com">william@reynish.com</a>><br>
>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Hi Joshua,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Interesting proposal. One of the annoyances of animation in 2.49 was<br>
>>>> that these useful visualization options were limited to just bones -<br>
>>>> how about enabling these on all objects in 2.5? Being able to directly<br>
>>>> adjust the path of the camera, for example, would be very useful. In<br>
>>>> fact I hope most of the bone-only features can become more global<br>
>>>> (quaternion rotations, for example).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 12 Aug, 2009, at 2:37 PM, Joshua Leung wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi all,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Once again, it's that time of the year when I start looking into<br>
>>>>> doing another incremental round of improvements on the visualisation<br>
>>>>> features - i.e. ghosting and paths in particular.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> At the time of writing, there are two big "holy grails" that would<br>
>>>>> be nice to have:<br>
>>>>> 1) ghosting of the actual meshes deformed by the armatures, and<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> IMHO this could be useful in some situations, but most of the time the<br>
>>>> output would probably be too messy to be useful. Already with armature<br>
>>>> ghosting it's often all but impossible to see what's going on, though<br>
>>>> it's not so bad when only ghosting one bone at a time. From where I<br>
>>>> stand this is honestly not that interesting a feature, but this is:<br>
>>>><br>
>>> Regarding the cluttering problems, I believe that this is mainly a result of<br>
>>> the use of wireframes. In the proposal I made, you'd be drawing the meshes<br>
>>> as solid all the time, and with varying opacity, so that would be less of a<br>
>>> problem IMO. Also, this is where the comment about needing adaptive + usable<br>
>>> decimation comes in. As you take steps away from the current time, the<br>
>>> ghosts become less visible, and the amount of detail required should<br>
>>> probably taper off too. This could reduce complexity (visually, and also for<br>
>>> performance considerations).<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>>> 2) editing of the path verts<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>> This would be simply incredible. This would be fantastically useful,<br>
>>>> esp if you could edit bezier path curves in 3D. I'm sure it's not easy<br>
>>>> though. I'd definitely advocate to not introduce yet another mode, and<br>
>>>> let the user just select curve points and translate them. You are<br>
>>>> right that you'd only want to tweak one or a few bones at a time, but<br>
>>>> you could instead have a toggle for each bone to display its animation<br>
>>>> curve on or off. I don't follow what the problem would be of letting<br>
>>>> this be editable within pose mode (or even object mode for objects?).<br>
>>>> What ' established expectations' are violated?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Cheers,<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -William<br>
>>>><br>
>>> The main (technical) problem is really deciding if bones or path verts<br>
>>> should get selected. My comment about 'established expectations' being<br>
>>> violated stems from this: No other mode in Blender supports selection (and<br>
>>> editing) of more than one 'class' of data (i.e. in Object mode, you're only<br>
>>> working with Objects, not Objects+Verts, while in Edit Mode, you're only<br>
>>> working on the vertices of the active Object). Secondly, if we allowed the<br>
>>> data to be edited only by click-drag on the path verts, we'd have the<br>
>>> limitation that you could only edit one vert at a time (i.e. multi-select +<br>
>>> all the normal selection tools we have wouldn't work), and similar problems<br>
>>> apply to transforms.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>>> 2) Editing Paths:<br>
>>>>> There are two big obstacles here: figuring out how to map path edits<br>
>>>>> to transforms (rotations vs scaling vs location), and how to allow<br>
>>>>> the user to start editing the path vertices.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The first issue is relatively trivial, and is really just a matter<br>
>>>>> of further investigation I guess.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> However, I need some suggestions for the second problem. As I<br>
>>>>> currently see it, most people would prefer to be able to just click<br>
>>>>> on some path vertex and then move it by simply dragging, all without<br>
>>>>> having to go into any special sub-modes or so. There are several<br>
>>>>> disdvantages of this, namely that it practically violates many of<br>
>>>>> the established expectations of how users usually expect to be able<br>
>>>>> to interact with elements with editable vertices in Blender<br>
>>>>> (selection + transform tools are limited). Also, this would<br>
>>>>> complicate pose-mode event handling in particular, since we'd have<br>
>>>>> to deal with priority of bones vs curve verts too...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> However, if we went with the "separate mode" approach, it becomes a<br>
>>>>> bit more frustrating to try and edit the paths of a few bones,<br>
>>>>> especially if you wanted to edit the paths of different bones but<br>
>>>>> didn't want to have to stop and think which ones you'd like to<br>
>>>>> isolate for editing. Just clarifying that a bit, I'm thinking that<br>
>>>>> with this separate mode, you'd select one or more bones with some<br>
>>>>> paths, enter the mode, and only be able to tweak the path vertices<br>
>>>>> of the bones selected when entering the mode. Then, when those paths<br>
>>>>> were tweaked ok, you could exit the mode, and continue editing other<br>
>>>>> parts. This might be an acceptable compromise, given that when<br>
>>>>> editing a path, I'm assuming that you're going to only concentrate<br>
>>>>> on the motion of a few limbs/controls at a time.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Bf-animsys mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Bf-animsys@blender.org">Bf-animsys@blender.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Bf-animsys mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Bf-animsys@blender.org">Bf-animsys@blender.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Bf-animsys mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Bf-animsys@blender.org">Bf-animsys@blender.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Bf-animsys mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Bf-animsys@blender.org">Bf-animsys@blender.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-animsys mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-animsys@blender.org">Bf-animsys@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-animsys</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>