+1 agreement with joe's points.<br><br>There appears to be very little difference between what is proposed here, and the use of envelopes. Sure, it could be argued that the 'big-belly-jiggle' controller could be done better with a free-floating 'joint'. However, the proposed enveloping would probably work worse on limbs (though enveloping in general does a pretty mediocre job of creating appealing deformations).<br>
<br><br>Aligorith<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM, 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;">
Ah not sure what all your points are here. . .Bone layers and custom<br>
bone shapes allow cutting down visual clutter (and work well for<br>
that).<br>
<br>
Simply positioning joints and scaling (non-uniformly if desired) to<br>
set an envelope would be an interesting workflow, but you'd still have<br>
all the same deformation problems. Envelope deformation just isn't<br>
that great. Also having a joint-based system isn't all that different<br>
from a bone-based system, since you still have to deal with things<br>
like proper roll, singularities, etc. It's just a slightly different<br>
user interface. Really, there is no rigging method that isn't a huge<br>
pain and involves a lot of work, if you want production-quality rigs.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Joe<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Roger <<a href="mailto:hovergo@net-tech.com.au">hovergo@net-tech.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
> After reading about the problems with rigging fat bodies (Big Buck Bunny) and<br>
> observing the visual complexity of bones in a model after getting to grips with<br>
> the rigging in Tony's book I wonder if bone and armature bodies are necessary.<br>
> Surely its just the joints that matter.<br>
><br>
> A mesh of quads is verts connected by edges why can't these be the armature<br>
> body, with only the verts close to the joint parented to the joint which could<br>
> be represented by emptys with a sphere of influence surrounding each to<br>
> differentiate the empty/joint from an normal empty very similar to the head and<br>
> tail of a normal envelope armature.<br>
><br>
> Wouldn't it be easier and natural to simply install joints at appropriate positions<br>
> by snapping to the 3D cursor.<br>
> Modify/scale the x,y,z axis to shape of the joint to alter vertex weighting.<br>
> Parent verts outside a sphere of influence to the empty joint as necessary.<br>
><br>
> For articulated movement, arms, fingers, cranes, doors, only the joint matters<br>
> anyway.<br>
> All the current context controls remain.<br>
> For Ik solvers simply add an external joint and constrain it as an Ik.<br>
><br>
> Would this address the problem of bones twisting while attempting to properly<br>
> locate them within a mesh.<br>
><br>
> For fat bodies, it could be a matter of adding empties/joints where influence is<br>
> needed and setting the degree of influence from or by neighboring empties.<br>
> Make the colour of joints blue or green.<br>
> Roger<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-committers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-committers@blender.org">Bf-committers@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>