Hi devs! I have spent quite some hours this week on those two bugs: http://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=27898 and http://projects.blender.org/tracker/?func=detail&aid=29461
While searching and reading code about pose transforms (I don’t like matrices, and they don’t like me :/ ), I think I found some problems/incoherences in the way the Hinge/NoScale options are handled *for the position of the bone*. See also this small demo file (http://www.pasteall.org/blend/10564), with one child, unconnected bone, pose-translated, and a parent bone pose-scaled by a factor two. When you disable only Inherit Rotation, the bone moves back half of its Pose translation. This is because its position is evaluated fully in its parent rest space (instead of using parent rest rotation and parent pose scale). When you disable only Inherit Scale, the bone does not move. This is because its position is evaluated into its parent pose space (instead of using parent pose rotation and parent rest scale). So, imho, we should fix those incoherences… But how ? Do we always want to use the parent pose space for the child position (thus never moving the child bone when disabling/enabling the Inherit Rotation/Scale options) ? Or do we want to fully respect the logic, and make the pose-location of the child bone depend on the hinge/no scale options (i.e. use parent rest scale and/or rotation) ? Cheers, Bastien _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
