Yeah, and if you delete the Envelope Op it gets confused when painting.
It's rather lame that you have to mute it.

I should've clarified I didn't mean to delete the op itself, but mute it
and use an ICE equivalent instead.




On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Peter Agg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Even with the DQ compound you still have to paint a regular envelope, mute
> the operator and replace it with an ICE one. You also have to be very
> careful about the group ordering you give the compound as, if the order
> changes, it can get a bit funky!
>
> Basically I wouldn't really recommend it unless you need DQ. :) Still fun
> to check out.
>
>
>
>
> On 11 March 2013 17:23, Jules Stevenson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ahh, interesting, thanks Alan. Will have a look...
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Alan Fregtman 
>> <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps ditch the classic EnvelopeOp for the ICE envelope equivalent?
>>> The "Dual Quaternion Deformation" compound can do Linear (classic) Blend
>>> Skinning.
>>>
>>> If you want to ditch DQ altogether you can dig into the compound and
>>> strip out the DQ logic, leaving only the linear bind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Jules Stevenson <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Gang, is there any documentation for correctly setting envelope
>>>> weights via ice?
>>>>
>>>> I can see from dialing down the available properties of the cluster you
>>>> have the per point envelope weights per deformer array, plus another
>>>> attribute of per point envelope weights (so not referenced against the
>>>> deformer index array, I'm presuming this is just for data visualization).
>>>> However when I set these I can see the weight colours pop into existence in
>>>> the view-port, but the actual envelope operator does nothing, it fails to
>>>> bind these new weights to the object - the mesh stays still as the
>>>> deformers move.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a best practice involved here?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for any help,
>>>>
>>>> Jules
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to