Ok, I think I got it... Sounds neat and organized :) When you said against bone chains, I thought he was just throwing them away and stacking nulls by hand... silly me
2013/3/8 Eric Thivierge <[email protected]> > Not sure what you mean Gustavo. We still use Bone chains for solving the > IK and we take our deformer nulls and constrain them to the bones. Then > when switching to FK, blend the constraints over to the FK controls (curve > objects). > > The squash and stretch is done through your control setup. Your deformers > just react to what that setup does. You don't envelope to Bones in a bone > chain. The squash and stretch you get from doing this is fake btw. Under > the hood it is actually adding your roots and effectors to the envelope and > uses the bone + next bone or effector to do the weighting. Instead you have > to compensate by having a null deformer at both ends of the bone when using > a setup without them. > > The bone implicits do not offer a solution as they do not have roots or > effectors and thus when used in skinning, reacts just as a null does. > > -------------------------------------------- > Eric Thivierge > http://www.ethivierge.com > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Gustavo Eggert Boehs > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> How do you get objects to point the right place when building hierarchies >> from, say, nulls. Plus how do you store the original distance between them >> in case you want to squash, stretch? I mean it is doable, but seems like a >> good amount of work for something basic. >> Doesnt the recently introduced IKless bones present a simpler solution. >> Or do even them present such an overhead? >> Last time Ive checked though they would brake weightmap symettry. Quite a >> deal braker... >> > > -- Gustavo E Boehs http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/blog
