[Bf-funboard] Empties in the bone hierarchy
aceone at bellsouth.net
Tue Mar 31 05:17:00 CEST 2009
I definetly agree and think that's an acceptable middleground.I'm going to
write the code in the 2.4x series
and when 2.5 is fully developed, I can look at the codebase and port it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Vegdahl" <cessen at cessen.com>
To: <bf-funboard at blender.org>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Bf-funboard] Empties in the bone hierarchy
>> Bone shapes are not a time problem, which any serious rigger will tell
> Eh... that's not entirely true. It can take time to plan and
> execute good bone shapes for rig controls. Compared to the rest of
> the rigging process it's certainly not a bottleneck. But I also
> wouldn't say it's insignificant.
> (David Bryant)
>> So, most pro rig rig controls use simple controls (boxes,
> Most professionally produced rigs use simple shapes because the
> riggers making them are either lazy, or are on too strict of deadlines
> to make good control shapes.
> Sure, maybe 40-70% of the controls will make sense as simple
> shapes, depending on the rig. But to really make the rig both
> visually clear and not visually overwhelming/cluttered, you have to
> carefully design the appearance of many of the controls. Most rigs I
> see (including "pro" rigs from other packages and studios) fail hard
> on this. Frankly, my BBB rigs fail pretty hard on this too. I'm
> still learning.
> That said, having presets for common bone shapes (with tweakable
> size+offsets) would be really handy, and would definitely speed up the
> It would also be nice to be able to easily edit bone shapes in the
> position/size they end up on the bone. This can probably be done with
> scripting, but it would be handy to have built-in.
> --Nathan V
> Bf-funboard mailing list
> Bf-funboard at blender.org
More information about the Bf-funboard