I suspect it's to do with the constraint auto calced center being incorrect vs that used by the solver down the stream (doesn't necessarily know some of the aspects the solver does). So it's likely a bug somewhere - I'll need to have a more in depth look when I get a chance, but fortunately there's a usable workaround. In terms of a display, it's a good idea (thanks Ivan), particularly if I can't figure the issue out. In the meantime, it's mainly of issue with constraints, and switching on the troubleshooting overlay will show you their origin position. You can then alter the CoM and see the constraint origin moving, so it can be positioned as required.
Cheers Jack On 20 August 2012 08:05, Frank Rueter <[email protected]> wrote: > indeed. Though I'm not sure if this is correct behaviour to begin with. If > there is a constraint the CoM shouldn't necessarily change the pivot, > right?! Just the way energy the object moves and receives/distributes > energy, right?! > > > > > On 20/08/12 6:51 PM, Marten Blumen wrote: > > That's a good idea. right now its a total guess until you run the > simulation. > > On 20 August 2012 18:31, Ivan Busquets <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A little late to the party, but just wanted to add my thanks to Jack for >> sharing this. >> This is a really awesome addition to J_Ops, and it has a great performance >> too! >> >> As an idea, and seeing how some of the above problems came from the >> auto-calculated center of mass, maybe you could add a visual representation >> (like a non-interactive viewer handle) of where the CoM is when it's not >> overridden by the user? >> That way it would at least be easier to detect the cases where it's off. >> >> Cheers, >> Ivan >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Frank Rueter <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Jack, >>> >>> thanks, but that was still giving odd results. I have adjusted the CoM a >>> bit more (linked to an axis for better control and that seems to give the >>> expected result): >>> >>> set cut_paste_input [stack 0] >>> version 6.3 v8 >>> >>> push $cut_paste_input >>> Cube { >>> cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2} >>> translate {0 -0.5 0} >>> rotate {35.26261719 0 0} >>> pivot {0 0.5 0} >>> name torso1 >>> selected true >>> xpos 21 >>> ypos -130 >>> } >>> J_MulletBody { >>> bodydamping {0.09 0.09} >>> bodycenterofmass {{parent.Axis1.translate x1 0} {parent.Axis1.translate >>> x1 -0.1679999977} {parent.Axis1.translate x1 -0.1099999994}} >>> >>> bodycenterofmassoverride true >>> labelset true >>> name J_MulletBody6 >>> label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]" >>> selected true >>> xpos 21 >>> ypos -72 >>> >>> } >>> J_MulletConstraint { >>> conbodycount One >>> conbodypreview true >>> labelset true >>> name J_MulletConstraint1 >>> label "\[value this.contype]" >>> selected true >>> xpos 21 >>> ypos -22 >>> >>> } >>> J_MulletSolver { >>> name J_MulletSolver1 >>> selected true >>> xpos 21 >>> ypos 45 >>> } >>> Axis2 { >>> inputs 0 >>> translate {0 -0.4 -0.29} >>> name Axis1 >>> selected true >>> xpos 197 >>> ypos -99 >>> >>> } >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17/08/12 7:34 PM, Jack Binks wrote: >>>> >>>> Hey Gents, >>>> >>>> Will have to investigate further, but I think what you're seeing is >>>> related to the auto calculated center of mass. Does the below >>>> amendment make it more what you expect (body has CoM overriden)? >>>> >>>> set cut_paste_input [stack 0] >>>> version 6.3 v1 >>>> push $cut_paste_input >>>> Cube { >>>> cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2} >>>> translate {0 -0.5 0} >>>> rotate {35.26261719 0 0} >>>> pivot {0 0.5 0} >>>> name torso1 >>>> selected true >>>> xpos -224 >>>> ypos -283 >>>> } >>>> J_MulletBody { >>>> bodydamping {0.09 0.09} >>>> bodycenterofmass {0.15 -0.5 -0.4} >>>> bodycenterofmassoverride true >>>> labelset true >>>> name J_MulletBody6 >>>> label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]" >>>> selected true >>>> xpos -224 >>>> ypos -225 >>>> } >>>> J_MulletConstraint { >>>> conbodycount One >>>> conbodypreview true >>>> labelset true >>>> name J_MulletConstraint1 >>>> label "\[value this.contype]" >>>> selected true >>>> xpos -224 >>>> ypos -175 >>>> } >>>> J_MulletSolver { >>>> name J_MulletSolver1 >>>> selected true >>>> xpos -224 >>>> ypos -108 >>>> } >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Jack >>>> >>>> On 16 August 2012 23:41, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> that's what I got- I couldn't solve it properly before the deadline. It >>>>> appeared to be some combination of the initial object position and the >>>>> constraint axis. >>>>> >>>>> luckily this fit my shot. karabiners can shift within the bolt hanger >>>>> when >>>>> attached to the rock wall- it added to the realism! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17 August 2012 10:18, Frank Rueter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I just had a play with this sort of simple constraint as well and am >>>>>> not >>>>>> getting the exected result (the box is not swinging around the >>>>>> constraint >>>>>> point. >>>>>> Am I doing something wrong? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cube { >>>>>> cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2} >>>>>> translate {0 -0.5 0} >>>>>> rotate {35.26261719 0 0} >>>>>> pivot {0 0.5 0} >>>>>> name torso1 >>>>>> selected true >>>>>> xpos -464 >>>>>> ypos -197 >>>>>> } >>>>>> J_MulletBody { >>>>>> bodydamping {0.09 0.09} >>>>>> labelset true >>>>>> name J_MulletBody6 >>>>>> label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]" >>>>>> selected true >>>>>> xpos -464 >>>>>> ypos -139 >>>>>> } >>>>>> J_MulletConstraint { >>>>>> conbodycount One >>>>>> conbodypreview true >>>>>> labelset true >>>>>> name J_MulletConstraint1 >>>>>> label "\[value this.contype]" >>>>>> selected true >>>>>> xpos -464 >>>>>> ypos -89 >>>>>> } >>>>>> J_MulletSolver { >>>>>> name J_MulletSolver1 >>>>>> selected true >>>>>> xpos -464 >>>>>> ypos -22 >>>>>> >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/08/12 9:03 AM, Marten Blumen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Cool - I had about 12-16 of them swinging on a wall. modeled and >>>>>> painted, >>>>>> 6 hero ones and the rest in the distance. >>>>>> >>>>>> I had to bodgy the whole thing, didn't have time to learn it and the >>>>>> looming shot deadline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Would really like to have a RBD rope, split into segments, pullling at >>>>>> them to make them move. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17 August 2012 08:52, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cracking, thanks Marten, will have a play! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 Aug 2012, at 19:48, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah - its an awesome bit of kit to have in the Nuke toolbox. Concept >>>>>>> attached. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The shot was a bit dead so I wanted to add sun glints off karabiners >>>>>>> swinging on the wall. I could have animated it by hand but no need >>>>>>> now! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Super simple / amazing to be able to do it in Nuke. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 17 August 2012 06:35, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sounds great + completely understand. >>>>>>>> Still, first production use I know of :) >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> Jack >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16 August 2012 18:35, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would love to but can't yet. I'll make a test shot when I get the >>>>>>>>> chance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17 August 2012 05:10, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cool stuff Marten, would love to check it out if you can share? >>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>> Jack >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 15 August 2012 21:55, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Awesome Jack. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Already used it to finish a shot - simulating rock climbing >>>>>>>>>>> karabiners >>>>>>>>>>> hanging on a rock face - just the extra zing the shot needed! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10 August 2012 19:55, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey All, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just to let you know I've popped a 2.0 build of J_Ops for Nuke >>>>>>>>>>>> 6.3 >>>>>>>>>>>> up >>>>>>>>>>>> on Nukepedia, adding a rigid body physics toolkit for Nuke's 3D >>>>>>>>>>>> system, as well as a range of tweaks, improvements and fixes to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> existing tools. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Check out the dev blog for more info: >>>>>>>>>>>> http://major-kong.blogspot.com/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! >>>>>>>>>>>> Jack >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected], >>>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> [email protected], >>>>>>>>>>> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected], >>>>>>>>>> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected], >>>>>>>>> http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <KarabinerTest.nk> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nuke-users mailing list >>>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nuke-users mailing list >>> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >>> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nuke-users mailing list >> [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ >> http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users _______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list [email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
