[Bf-funboard] Re: Re: Re: Some skinning feature ideas (Benjamin Tolputt)

[Benjamin Tolputt]

Claudio "malefico" Andaur wrote:
> B.J.Tolputt wrote: Claudio "malefico" Andaur wrote:
>> > Well, currently if you have other modifiers than an armature (let's 
>> > say a lattice), there are times that you need to set a 0.001 value for 
>> > the global armature, for just the mesh not to be left behind, if you 
>> > set it to zero, then no matter how high the weight is for the lattice, 
>> > it will be left behind. So, there ARE cases when you want this kind of 
>> > light weight in a vertex group.
>>   
> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this an example of where 0.001 is 
> actually 1.0 in terms of applied weight?
>   
> ----------------------------
> No, it's not the case because there are also the vertexgroups for 
> lattices influences.
> ----------------------------
Apologies, I haven't used much lattice deformation stuff yet, as I am 
trying to convert my rigging workflow to Blender in the area of 
"skeletal game characters". I thought they would make a good test case 
for Blender rigging before moving onto the more in-depth rigs (such as 
those that use lattices, pose-space deformation, etc).

So the thing I take from this is that we also need to examine how 
weights are applied when using bones with other modifiers (such as 
lattices as mentioned above).
> -------------------------------
> I agree, this wasn't intended particularly for you, it was just a 
> general explanation of my previous posture to let you and others 
> understand my first "conservative" reaction :)
> -------------------------------
Cool bananas. It is a shame that open-source tends to be a "coders 
game". If only there were more "open-source" documenters there would be 
so much less confusion about exactly what Blender does and how in the 
"non-technical" user base. I am personally one of the more tech-savvy (I 
earn a crust as a coder), but don't like the idea that one has to 
examine the *code* to know how to use the *tool*. Pet peeve of mine :)
> ------------------------------------
> Now I believe you didn't read my previous answer. I totally agreed 
> with this already. I also suggested other changes.
This was not directed at you - my apologies if it was taken that way. 
There are some in the list though that are quite opposed to the idea of 
normalised viewing/painting. As this is more like a "discussion circle" 
than a "one on one", I try to make sure that all my points are covered 
(bad habit from excessive debating when in high school).
> For the record, your assumption the current behavior makes things 
> easier for ANY user, is totally incorrect. The fact we or SOME as you 
> said, use Blender for skinning with all current limitations and don't 
> apparently complain about it, do not convert us automatically in big 
> fans of the current system. This also doesn't mean I'm going to 
> embrace anything apparently better unless there is proof of such 
> changes to be really better.
See my point above. There are some that actually DO prefer the current 
method and think it (and I quote) "perfect". Like before,. I was trying 
to cover all members of the discussion. As for not embracing things 
without proof, I can accept that for most things (this included). At 
some point though, we will have to agree on what exactly should be 
developed before getting said proof.

On a more personal note, I appreciate your contributions to the 
discussion as they are insightful and help balance the whole "this NEEDS 
to be changed" (my) side of the debate with that of the "Blender is 
perfect as it is" side.

Regards,
B.J.Tolputt