PDA

View Full Version : How some tools should really work.



ToonShady
09-19-2003, 02:39 PM
Been rigging a prop for a character to hold on to for about a week now. All I can say is the experience is pretty painful. A few things I think worth some sorta of remedy.

SockMonkey: LW's version of cluster manipulation, and it's been half working since it's first appearance in what, LW 6.x? The "use weight value" feature never work. Editing the rest position function is pretty unreliable. After batch edit a series of sockmonkey objects' rest positions, some of them don't really work.

Constraint: How bout some real constraints that works. The SimpleConstraints/Affectors don't work with IK and it works poorly within a hierarchy. Sometimes the constraints affect constrainted object(s) when it's uncall for, or other times they stop working depending how they are placed within the hiearchy. They also seems not to work well with objects whose pivots are not at the origin. I would rather use Follower, but since non of it's parameters are animatable, I can't really use it to setup my props in the scene.

Here's a few things I think any motion modifier, where applicable, should be able to do:

1. nonmodal and interactive setup.
2. Full IK awareness during interaction and playback in the scene.
3. animatable parameters such as weights, offsets, states(on/off), delay, etc.
4. Fully functional within a rig that is made up of a hierarchy of objects.
5. World/Local coordinates.
7. Have the option to keep inital TRS values when setting constraints. Have option to lock/unlock down the constraint effect on the constrainted object so as to be able to interactively adjust offset related matters.

I feel like I can go on, and more and more these request sounds like ideas that are already in other programs. The truth is, I do use several different programs, so it's hard to not cross reference ideas. But the bottom line is, LW is a professional program, so however its toolset is implemented, it should work consistently and reliablely. Half-working, non-working, or unfinish tools should have no place in such a profession product, unless it's noted as experimental features. Because you would actually have to use the tools inorder to know it's usability and reliability, forcing the users to resort into less effective alternatives when the intented tool for the job doesn't work properly really cause alot of time and energy wasted in production of any work.

Anttij77
09-20-2003, 02:57 AM
I would like to see these changes/additions!

1. Effector doesn't like parenting! If you parent an effector null to another object, the effect doesn't follow the null!

2. I would like a better item selector for Follower. The current one is a bit messy! A Scene Editor type tree view would be great!

3. In Scene Editor, it would be nice if we could see the Morphmaps which belong to an object. Same way we see them when selecting Morphs within Sliders!

4. PSD Exporter can't export Global Illumination! This would be VERY helpful when comping in DFX!

I didn't see the need to create a new thread, because this one is named so aptly!

ToonShady
09-20-2003, 12:51 PM
1. Effector doesn't like parenting! If you parent an effector null to another object, the effect doesn't follow the null!


Good point, I forgot about the effector too. It illustrate one of the point which I was making, that is some of these tools just lacks practicality.


3. In Scene Editor, it would be nice if we could see the Morphmaps which belong to an object. Same way we see them when selecting Morphs within Sliders!

With the spreadsheet around, the scene editor is getting old and useless. Why not just integrate spreadsheet and merge the functions of the scene editor with it. I think also that spreadsheet should mange any added extras that is attached to the scene like motion, channel, displacement, master plugins, pixel/image filters, environment and other types of modifiers/plugins.

Nemoid
09-22-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by ToonShady

I feel like I can go on, and more and more these request sounds like ideas that are already in other programs. The truth is, I do use several different programs, so it's hard to not cross reference ideas. But the bottom line is, LW is a professional program, so however its toolset is implemented, it should work consistently and reliablely. Half-working, non-working, or unfinish tools should have no place in such a profession product, unless it's noted as experimental features. Because you would actually have to use the tools inorder to know it's usability and reliability, forcing the users to resort into less effective alternatives when the intented tool for the job doesn't work properly really cause alot of time and energy wasted in production of any work.

u really got the point !!
tools in Lw have to be complete and work efficiently, better if they are interactive and with some previews if required.
why introduce a tool in an incomplete way?
sock monkey was not developed so much in time, for example, and other tools really are half working in some cases!

hope that in Lw[8] we will see a lot of things really working very very well enhancing the power of what its currently in the toolset, and introducing better and new ways to work.

I love Lw because it has a fast workflow in modelling and rendering as well as setting up scenes, so hope for great tools expecially in Layout with the same philosophy of speedy workflow.
there is a lot to do in this field , thinking to how an animator really wants to work.

since for now I liked the philosophy of the CA tools they showed here and at Siggraph, I think this is the way to go for the whole program.

geoff3dnz
09-23-2003, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by ToonShady
Why not just integrate spreadsheet and merge the functions of the scene editor with it... I've heard that this is on the cards - perhaps not in the *.0 release though...