1
\$\begingroup\$

The title sums up my question fairly well. I'm working with a biped, and I'm not sure whether to put the extra effort into connecting all the bones, or just to leave spaces between each of them. What do you think?

Screenshot:

https://i.sstatic.net/35ZsF.png

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm likely to export this to unity, btw - though I'm unsure how much of a difference that makes. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 19, 2013 at 12:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ ultimately, a bone is just a transform (a matrix). And as such it takes up no volume. It represents only a point in 3d space and a rotation. So actually, there is no such concept as 2 bones even touching each other than a way to help us visualize the way it affects our mesh transform hierarchy. They are visually connected on 3d modeling apps to show parent/child relationships. If you don't need that visual aid, there is no need to visually join your bones. \$\endgroup\$
    – Steve H
    Commented Jun 20, 2013 at 13:30
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks. That kinda-sorta makes me wish I could break up some of the more detailed systems (legs, arms). Perhaps I can, and I just haven't figured out how yet... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 21, 2013 at 10:50

1 Answer 1

1
\$\begingroup\$

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.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thanks :). Yeah, deformation is a bit of an issue - I sent the mesh off to a more-experienced friend so that they could go over and fix any issues. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jun 21, 2013 at 10:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .