3D rig!!!

[heyvern]

Vern, I had another idea about how to maybe impliment a better way to select constraint bones. I don't know if this can be done.

What if you could assign constraint bones much like you assign point binding? This may be impossible, but I imagine having check boxes in the tool options. With one or more of these checked (one for each constraint) the first, or current, bone selected would be the target bone. The next bone selected would be it's constraining bone according to the option check boxes.

Basically this would get around the hugh list of names all together by doing it all with the actual bones. This may have to be a separate tool. I don't know if it could be added to a current tool, or not.

I imagine that this kind of tool would maybe highlight the constraining bone and show the constraints checked of any bone selected. I could imagine that being useful elsewhere.

Let me know if any of that is doable. Hell, if you can point me in the right direction, I'll try some copy/paste with the scripts to see what I can do.

Hmm... Sounds like an interesting idea.

I am going to "think out loud" for a little bit here...

The 3D application I use, Animation:Master (AM) has bones and constraints EXACTLY like Anime Studio... just more of them and a tiny bit better implemented. Actually it makes more sense to say Anime Studio has bones and constraints like Animation Master... but that's neither here nor there.

Animation:Master has an "eyedropper" tool to pick the target bone of a constraint... You add the constraint to the bone by right clicking on it and then you get this eyedropper and click it on another bone, but Animation Master ALSO has a LONG pull down list to pick the target or change the target later. I just don't see any way around it.

You run into a HUGE GIGANTIC HUMONGOUS PROBLEM... lots of bones real close to each other and covering each other. How do you click on a bone that is small and underneath another bone? You can't. So you pick it from a list.

I really like the idea of a custom constraint tool. I already thought of doing that anyway... hmm....

So this custom tool... you click a bone with it to ADD a constraint and let's say you "option" click to select the target. Imagine at the top of the screen you have all the check boxes for the type of constraint and a text box to add the constraint value.

So far so good.

I can't quite get my head around how the target can be changed without picking from a list though. You still need the list I think... no wait... you can select the constrained bone with the custom tool and OPTION click a different bone... okay that's solved... but how do you know which bone is the target?

There is no way to highlight a bone in the interface with out selecting it. Bone highlighting is "built in" and only works with selection. This means there is NO WAY to indicate visually which bone is the target of a constraint... you must pick from a list....

Hold the phone... the script interface allows for "drawing" custom shapes anywhere on the screen. The custom constraint tool could use this to draw a "target" or "line" with an arrow to indicate the constraint target just like the reparenting tool does. Let's face it constraints are sort of like "parent/child" relationships.

So we got that... but... what about overlapping bones... I don't recall ever having a problem with overlapping bones and the reparent tool. It doesn't use a list of bones... and there is no problem... so maybe we can get away with it with the constraint tool. I suppose you could zoom way in to pick the bone.

My brain is working again... I seem to recall if you zoom in close enough you could pick an "underneath" bone... you could always move it temporarily.

I want to experiment with one simple thing... how hard is it to pick a bone that is under a bigger bone and completely covered... it happens for me... but not all the time... but when it does I would be screwed without a bone list to choose a constraint.

No promises but this "eyedropper" constraint tool might work... and it would make it much easier to apply even if the listing of bones is still an issue. You could "remove" the constraint by "option clicking" away from any bones. No bone selected as the target so... no constraint.... <sigh> this tool would be a TON of work.

-vern

[synthsin75]

Actually Vern, I'd be very happy with a simple solution. I've been looking at the scripts and the scripting reference for AS, but haven't gotten far yet.

The simple solution is just a constraint assignment tool, though it could be a bone selection tool as well. Bare bones. Just three tool option drop down (pop-up) menus for the constraints, each labeled as simply as possible. These using your scolling list would at least solve the biggest issue of not being able to find/deselect a bone. Image you'd need to add the <None> option to the list?

This sounds easy, but I'm no scripter...yet.

(I'm completely new to programming/ programming languages. Is the LUA a good place to start, or are there much better routes? Granted AS is the only current target of such learning.)

[synthsin75]

Genete, I've been using your front/side 3d scripts so much I decided to make them buttons. I even made PNG's for them.

But for some reason, using the front script as a button calls it twice. As soon as I click 'Okay', the script's dialog comes up again. Granted it says 'No valid points selected'.

I just wanted to be sure this wouldn't cause any trouble later.

[synthsin75]

Just figured out a neat trick by accident. When creating shapes on frame one, for the auto-sort script, I can still use the space bar to finalize it!

Since setting the animation end frame to zero only goes to the last keyframe, I can freely use the space bar without it creating the keyframes all over the timeline.

[synthsin75]

Update!!

http://www.mediafire.com/?bsh3mj0bmbt

The shading is a little choppy, but overall I like it. The mouth/jaw is animated!

(I have the eyelids rigged, but they're not working right at the moment)

[heyvern]

I had a crazy idea... I haven't thought it through yet... but maybe you can run with it since you are more familiar with your own file set up.

What if the shading was on a different layer above the main layer and you blurred it. This could hide the "choppy" effect. What I'm thinking is a duplicate layer of the whole face and only that layer has the shading. The "primary" layer would have no shading and could be used to mask the blurred shading layer. You could even set the transparency and possibly the color blending mode... like "multiply" so only the dark colors show....

Just a thought.

-vern

[Genete]

Not possible Vern,
the shading shapes are really placed between the shapes of the face. You cannot place them in another layer unless you obtain the shading over all the face. The intersting thing of this technique is that the shapes are changing its position inside of the shapes stack. I guess that you can make some sort of soft edge for the current shapes of the face (not the shading ones) and then mask the overall layer over a duplicated one without soft edge. In this way you obtain soft edges for the shapes of the face (an then smooth transitions between shading) and a sharp edge in the contour of the face based on the masking.

Please tell me if I'm wrong

Regarding to bones cosntraint I think that the best solution is that constaint to <none> would be an external option, a checkbox when the bone is selected like the "lock bone" option. In this way you can avoid to use the selection deop down list (that doesn't work for a huge amount of bones) and simply do it by a script instructions. It can be a new kind of tool to simply allow the user check or uncheck if the current selected bone has a constraint allowed in angle, scale and/or position.

-G

[synthsin75]

Actually, I think if I can optimize my contour lines the shading would look better. Good idea about the soft edge, Genete.

[heyvern]

Please tell me if I'm wrong


-G

Well what I am thinking is that the LAYER is blurred... not the shapes. A duplicate of the whole layer with ALL the shapes including the face shapes.

You would blur the whole layer. Use that for shading over the other "unblurred" layer.

Set the shading layer to "multiply".

-vern

[synthsin75]

I was thinking about it today and thought that might be what you meant, Vern. I'm not up to speed on the layer blending modes. I read up on them in Photoshop, but AS not having many of those, it was a little hard to remember.

I was thinking of duplicating the layer face, shading, and all. I was thinking of only filling the shading shapes in the duplicate and make those and the face transparent. The problem with making the face shapes transparent is that the back of the head would show through.

Would using the multiply, or some other, blend mode get around that?

I also haven't played with layer blur yet. I'm guessing it would need to be masked, but that's no problem.



My other solution may be simpler if it works.

Genete, am I correct in assuming that the auto-shape-sort script works based on the average of the simulated z-depth of a shape's points?

If so, I should be able to create extra transparent shapes over my face model. If I make them different sizes and shapes (using points that enclose more than one closed shape) then they'll have differing z-depths. With their transparency, maybe this would help ease the appearance of the shadow's transition.



I'll update you when I have some more results.

[Genete]

Genete, am I correct in assuming that the auto-shape-sort script works based on the average of the simulated z-depth of a shape's points?

You're right.

[heyvern]

Transparent layer / overlapping shapes

This is weird but good.

If you have transparency turned on in your preview settings and your layer with multiple shapes has an opacity less than 100% the PREVIEW ONLY shows the shapes overlapping and showing through each other... as if the shapes themselves were transparent. This is INCORRECT.

HOWEVER... if you RENDER, the LAYER is transparent but the shapes are still at a 100%.

I am going to post this as a "bug" since it is very incorrect and misleading.

This means you can set the layer opacity and it won't show the shapes in the back. It will only show the shapes that are visible.

The same thing with using the Color blending mode. If you set that on the layer only what is visible is applied. It doesn't "mix" all the separate shapes individually... it applies the effect to the layer as a "whole".

So blurring a copy of a layer WILL WORK! I'm sure of it.

-vern

[synthsin75]

Wow! Thanks for the tip about using multiply, Vern! It maintains the sharpness of the underlying face better.

Here's the results!!

I'm very happy with this. I used a 20 layer blur and went ahead and masked it since the edges had a bit of a halo.


Some performance issues though. I tried like five times before I could get this clip to export successfully. I finally had to remove and re-embed the shape sort script.

This randomly recurring error kept popping up during the export.

Code: Select all

...AS\scripts\sort_shapes9.1.lua:136: attempt to perform arithmetic on field 'z' (a nil value)

This error seems to compound with the script embedded in more layers. With three layers embedded, AS is almost unusable. Double clicking layers quits bringing up the layer settings, etc. I didn't need it for the masking layer, but both the face layer and the blurred shading layer need it.

Is there anything that can be done about this error, Genete?

But hey, it works!

[heyvern]

I was afraid of that happening. Bummer.

Maybe there could be a way to use one script for multiple identical layers? It of course would require changes to the script which is never fun.

There is a ton of stuff going on in those scripts with all the bones and shapes... I can understand that it would bog down.

-vern

[Genete]

Is there anything that can be done about this error, Genete?

AFAIK nothing. :/

-G

PS: If you continue improving the model so far you can call SM and tell him you've created a Poser fork