[Bf-committers] Proposed Armature replacement

bf-committers@blender.org bf-committers@blender.org
Wed, 26 May 2004 09:04:06 -0500

On 26 May 2004 at 15:01, Matt Ebb wrote:

> Before getting into implementation details and data structures and 
> whatever, I'm curious to know what your goals are. I couldn't really 
> find this information on your wiki.
> i.e.
> How will this improve the lives of users (and perhaps coders too)?
> Will it bring any innovative ideas to the table, or is it just an 
> iteration of the existing design?
> What problems have you identified with the current system (not just 
> from a coder's perspective, but a user's as well) and will this 
> project, or how will this project solve them?
I did identify some of the problems in the current system. Basically 
I intend to start from scratch. I plan to make the system more 
intuitive to use. More info is available on this under the overview 
section in the wiki. On the coder side I intend to supply accessor 
functions to all areas of the bone system. I want it to be easy to 
use and code for without some of the pitfalls in current code.
> Have you looked at other systems to compare and contrast? (the bone 
> system in Sega's Animanium is supposed to be really good)
I have looked at Maya's, Animation Master, and Kaydara's 
MotionBuilder. Also I have been looking at various whitepapers and 
such on this subject.
> One of my biggest peeves with the current armature system is the many 
> limitations of actions and pose mode - i.e. you have to enter yet 
> another <censored> mode just to move your control objects, which is a 
> pain, especially when you're trying to work with two armatures at the 
> same time (like two characters interacting) - why shouldn't we be able 
> to just create separate control objects and manipulate them in object 
> space? Maybe this is an Actions issue, rather than an Armature issue, 
> but these ideas for two more modes is a bit scary :)
The modes will be transparent to the user. It will automatically use 
the correct mode depending on which you select first. (a joint or a 
My new proposed Structs are intended to address those very concerns 
that you bring up. A null joint for instance is a control object. The 
direct linking of constraints to bones is also intended to alleviate 
some of the difficulties when using constraints with an armature. If 
you read the constraint page I had a number of ideas to improve 
constraint evaluation overall.
> Cheers,
> Matt
> On 26 May 2004, at 2:24 PM, jeremy@marzhillstudios.com wrote:
> > Hello Folks,
> >
> > I have completed my preliminary thoughts on a replacement for
> > armatures in Blender. The details would make this message too long
> > for this list. You can view them here:
> > http://www.letwory.net/collab/bin/view.pl/Blenderdev/ArmatureCode
> > at Jesters Wiki.  I would appreciate any thoughts you have on the
> > subject. Do you think it would be useable? intuitive?, powerful? If
> > you have ideas to add go ahead and add them to the wiki or just
> > suggest them to the list.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-committers mailing list
> > Bf-committers@blender.org
> > http://www.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
> >