Implicit bones still don't allow you to symmetry weights either, using the built in tools.
Adam On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Alok <[email protected]> wrote: > Just to add to what Eric clarified (and rightly so): > > To the scene graph, the bones are nothing but a bunch of point (nulls) > with parent--child relationship. In theory, you could completely rig a > character with out any bones using just a bunch of nulls if you do not want > IK. But no character setup is complete without IK and hence the need of > bones. In case of just nulls, the distance b/w them would represent the > bone length. The bone implicits are just there to give you a feel of the > actual bone plus many features of IK that you cannot have without an IK > solver working for you. > > Also in character rigging (from whatever little experience I have in that > field), it is of utmost importance to have the envelope deformers on a > completely different layer from the rest of the rig. In fact it is > advisable to have your rig layered out according to functionality of its > elements. So one layer just for deformers, another one just for bones, a > separate one for secondary controllers and so on and so forth. As an > essential rigging practice, you should be able plot the animation the of > the deformers (nulls) and be delete the complete rig without losing > animation. > > > ALOK > > GANDHI > > / chef directeur technique - lead technical director > > [email protected] > > T: > *450 430-0010 x225 > > F: > 450 430-0009 > www.modusfx.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > MODUS > > FX > > 120 Rue Turgeon, > > Sainte-Therese (Quebec) CANADA J7E 3J1 > > Follow us on > Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/ModusFX> > > & > Twitter <https://twitter.com/Modusfx> > * > On 08/03/2013 4:02 PM, Eric Thivierge wrote: > > 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... >> > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2238 / Virus Database: 2641/5646 - Release Date: 03/03/13 > > >
