Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

It's easier to model because there's separation between the limbs and body, and the bits that need to stretch when animated are already stretched - so they get modelled and weighted correctly. Same reason you'd model a hand as open and fingers spread, rather than modelling it as a fist. Oh, and as far as programmers are concerned, we don't care. It'll ...


10

As for the reasoning behind the pose. There are three. Any left/right symmetrical pose simplifies modelling time as majority of the model can be built in half and mirrored. Saving asymmetrical details until the end. Same goes from the skeletal data, which can be left entirely symmetrical. Which allows for mirroring of animations if needed. Finally a pose ...


7

My view is that things are changing often. People get better, and people fall behind. The best place to look for reference are the people who are kicking ass at whatever you are interested in. Lately, the traditional static TPose has been less favoured due to IK/FK and other animation problems when rigging in such a rigid position. Here is a great ...


4

I'd expect that they are no costlier than a standard bone to most game engines. The way animations are normally exported is by storing the transform of each bone for every frame of animation (with some optimizations to save on storage space). The standard skinned animation limitations in game engines tend to be: A maximum of four bones influence each ...


2

Generally this is done by loading animation data (built in a modelling/animation program like Maya) along with your model and reading the transformation and rotational data for each bone in a rig from there. This is commonly called skeletal animation. Instead of loading the data from pre-baked animation files, you can adjust the bones procedurally (this ...


2

Rigging will save you time in the long run. You don't have to get fancy with constraints or IK chains. Just slap in a basic skeleton and let the automatic weighting do its job. Any later adjustments can be done a lot easier if you've used a rig, and animations on rigs can be transferred between characters if you reuse the same skeleton. The other option is ...


1

I believe it is pretty common to use a bone just to represent the weapon, and pull the rotation from that. Alternative you would keep an extra vertex so you can determine the direction. Depending on what they are holding you might be able to use a fixed rotation from the hand's bone rotation.


1

The space or no-space between joints/bones are just cosmetic, and should not pose a problem. The placement of the pivot is the most important factor, it determines the origin of the rotation and should be chosen carefully. I think you'll be fine. The mesh on the other hand seems very dense, it can affect performance greatly, especially deforming meshes.


1

Well, firstly, are you sure that your bones are correctly connected to your mesh(es)? If you move the bones around in Blender, do they deform the mesh as expected? 2nd: I'm no expert in XNA, but if it doesn't manage to import skinned meshes properly (i.e. take into account bones deformations), what you can do is make your animations in Blender (using bones, ...


1

You don't mention how your source animation data is constructed, so I'm going to have to be a bit vague about the details. From your input data you should be able to construct both the bind pose and animated pose matrices for each bone in two different coordinate spaces: world space (absolute position and orientation for the bone relative to the world ...


1

Sorry the bones joint things in Mudbox are not exportable, they aren't real bones like the bones are in Max or Maya, mudbox joints are more like the deformer modifier in 3ds Max. Sorry its not that u are missing anything its just how Mudbox works sorry, I also tryed a similar thing but it didn't work for me either. So don't worry.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible