[Bf-funboard] Empties in the bone hierarchy

[joe]

I'm still confused why you'd want to do this at all.  We don't support
the concept of character sets, so it doesn't make as much sense to
have non-armature controls.  You can mix bones and non-bones just fine
(situations the parenting system doesn't support, constraints do), but
generally non-armature helper objects are used behind the scenes,
controlled by bones.  Also, empties as controls wouldn't have a rest
state, the way armature bones do.

I don't see how this adds any power at all. . .abstractly, a bone is
simply an empty with length.  Getting rid of the length isn't going to
help you any.

> The reason I coded the new empty shapes that blender already has is so that
> the rigger didn't spend his time modeling icons for his rig controls.This
> would just take Blender's rigs to another level.
>

You realize modeling icons for a rig only takes up a very, *very*
small percentage of the time?  Why would this "take Blender's rigs to
another level"? What power does this add?  Modeling icons simply isn't
a time-sucking activity for riggers.  Besides, different people have
different tastes in rig controls.  I myself prefer very visually
minimalistic controls, while others prefer more prominent ones.

A better solution is probably to have an option to put an empty shape
on an armature bone directly.  Using empties simply for their shapes
is a bad solution, I think.

Joe

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 3:10 AM, David Bryant <aceone at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> You could be right but, the action editor should be able to use anything you
> throw at it ( as far as rigging is concerned). You should be able to use
> bones and non bones together. If the empties could be directly used in pose
> mode you would have the full range of all the shapes available and use them
> to their fullest potential.Object to bone level is not new.Proprietary
> animation systems in VFX and animation studios already use this technology
> for complex rigs.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason van Gumster" <flaw at misaligned.net>
> To: <bf-funboard at blender.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bf-funboard] Empties in the bone hierarchy
>
>
>>
>> "David Bryant" <aceone at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If the empties can be used without using them as a object shapes "in
>>> pose mode" you can directly use them. As a matter of fact, Lightwave
>>> has just put this empty into bone heirarchy functionality into their
>>> package in their new version 9.6. Maya and Max can do the same as
>>> well.It's not a new idea. Most high end packages have had this
>>> functionality for years.
>>>
>>> You shouldn't have to have a bone "drawn" as an empty to use it in
>>> pose mode.Just be able to use an empty itself in pose mode if you
>>> want to use it in heirarcy.
>>
>> Ah... but that's the rub, isn't it? An Empty has no notion of what
>> "pose mode" means. As far as what the other packages have done and can
>> do, who knows how that's implemented? From userland it may look like
>> you're adding a regular empty to the Armature hierarchy... but under
>> the hood it may just be a bone drawn to look like an empty. The user
>> just isn't told the difference.
>>
>> Now, if this is the route you want to go, have a go and try. It'll
>> probably work fine since the changes are largely cosmetic. If you're
>> pushing Objects to bone-level, though... you may want to wait until the
>> animation system in 2.5 is fleshed out.
>>
>> But... I'm no authority.
>>
>>  -Fweeb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-funboard mailing list
>> Bf-funboard at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard
>