[Bf-committers] Rigging a different way

[Nathan Vegdahl]

I'm not really sure what the benefits are with this idea either.
Bones can already be used simply as joints, whilst ignoring the length
and tip of the bones.  In fact, the belly control in Big Buck Bunny
uses the bone precisely like that.  I essentially used the bone like
an empty: nothing but the transforms.

Maybe I'm not getting what you mean, Roger?

--Nathan (Cessen)

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Joshua Leung <aligorith at gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 agreement with joe's points.
>
> 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).
>
>
> Aligorith
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM, joe <joeedh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ah not sure what all your points are here. . .Bone layers and custom
>> bone shapes allow cutting down visual clutter (and work well for
>> that).
>>
>> Simply positioning joints and scaling (non-uniformly if desired) to
>> set an envelope would be an interesting workflow, but you'd still have
>> all the same deformation problems.  Envelope deformation just isn't
>> that great.  Also having a joint-based system isn't all that different
>> from a bone-based system, since you still have to deal with things
>> like proper roll, singularities, etc.  It's just a slightly different
>> user interface.  Really, there is no rigging method that isn't a huge
>> pain and involves a lot of work, if you want production-quality rigs.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Roger <hovergo at net-tech.com.au> wrote:
>> > After reading about the problems with rigging fat bodies (Big Buck
>> > Bunny) and
>> > observing the visual complexity of bones in a model after getting to
>> > grips with
>> > the rigging in Tony's book I wonder if bone and armature bodies are
>> > necessary.
>> > Surely its just the joints that matter.
>> >
>> > A mesh of quads is verts connected by edges why can't these be the
>> > armature
>> > body, with only the verts close to the joint parented to the joint which
>> > could
>> > be represented by emptys with a sphere of influence surrounding each to
>> > differentiate the empty/joint from an normal empty very similar to the
>> > head and
>> > tail of a normal envelope armature.
>> >
>> > Wouldn't it be easier and natural to simply install joints at
>> > appropriate positions
>> > by snapping to the 3D cursor.
>> > Modify/scale the x,y,z axis to shape of the joint to alter vertex
>> > weighting.
>> > Parent verts outside a sphere of influence to the empty joint as
>> > necessary.
>> >
>> > For articulated movement, arms, fingers, cranes, doors, only the joint
>> > matters
>> > anyway.
>> > All the current context controls remain.
>> > For Ik solvers simply add an external joint and constrain it as an Ik.
>> >
>> > Would this address the problem of bones twisting while attempting to
>> > properly
>> > locate them within a mesh.
>> >
>> > For fat bodies, it could be a matter of adding empties/joints where
>> > influence is
>> > needed and setting the degree of influence from or by neighboring
>> > empties.
>> > Make the colour of joints blue or green.
>> > Roger
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>
>