[Bf-funboard] Re: Some skinning feature ideas

[Michael Crawford]

On Apr 3, 2007, at 7:08 AM, Tony Mullen wrote:

>> Wrong... now you got that
>> influence spread between the head, neck, and by default one other
>> bone (3 influences per vertex default in maya)...  So now we have .
>> 333 added to each of those three bones.
>
> Nobody has suggested smoothing, or anything like what you're
> describing.

Benjamin Wrote:  "The way I see it working is to have "adding" weight  
to the vertex influence do so, then normalize the rest of the vertex  
influences (i.e. weights them down) to match the "1.0"  
requirement.... When subtracting from the vertex influence, it  
normalizes the other influences (i.e. weights them up) to match the  
"1.0" requirement."

>   Normalized weights on vertices (which Blender has) and
> smoothing over the mesh (which I imagine would indeed lead to the
> undesirable effects you are talking about) are completely different
> things.  My proposed options would not have the effect you describe.
> The "Display Normalized Weights" would be nothing more than a display
> option and would not have any effect on the actual weights at all, and
> the "Assign Absolute Weights" option would affect only the actual
> verts to which the weight was being assigned and adjust only existing
> weights on those verts in a way that was proportionate to their
> original value.

Oh i get that ... However I was under the impression, based on the  
suggestions of Benjamin, not you, that one of the possible additions  
would be a "Normalized paint" mode, which, based on our (Benjamin and  
I) discussion, would act like maya. (IE: adding value to one vertex  
group would subtract value from another...)

Benjamin Wrote:  "The way I see it working is to have "adding" weight  
to the vertex influence do so, then normalize the rest of the vertex  
influences (i.e. weights them down) to match the "1.0"  
requirement.... When subtracting from the vertex influence, it  
normalizes the other influences (i.e. weights them up) to match the  
"1.0" requirement."

Don't get my wrong, I have issue whatsoever with any added feature,  
as long as the old workflow is left intact.  Different people like to  
work in different ways, and those who are used to Blender's weight  
painting workflow might be very upset about a sudden change.  That  
being said, you may find,  after implementing this system, that it is  
a mammoth waste of time and effort compared to blender's  
"traditional" (per vertex normalization) method of weighting.

>> I'm begging the devs listening:  Don't change the way it works.  It's
>> perfect... perfect, as it is.  Don't try and make it like maya.
>
> I don't want anybody to make Blender like Maya, but I also don't think
> ideas should be disregarded simply because they vaguely remind
> somebody of some problem that Maya has.

That is not why i have a problem with it...  As much as I talk smack  
about maya, it does have some things done right (paintFX for  
example)  I miss it's "connect anything to anything" functionality,  
as well as a few other things, so it's not all negative.  I just see  
the described system of painting weights as flawed (when examined  
closely in comparison to blender).

> As for whether it's perfect, well, nothing's perfect, and improvements
> can always be made.

While this may is true in most cases, if you can get a "normalized  
paint" mode to work properly, my hat's off to you, since all the  
developers at alias apparently couldn't figure out a way.  If what  
you're proposing (not Benjamin's suggestion) is merely a display mode  
that one can toggle on and off...  that sounds cool, even useful.  If  
the normalization is already done (and stored in advance) it should  
be relatively simple to display it right?

> _______________________________________________
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-funboard