PDA

View Full Version : Genoma rig to Unity?



Dennik
11-26-2013, 05:25 PM
I animated a character with a genoma rig and tried to export it to FBX and certain parts just don't show up animated properly in Unity.
Is there any procedure to reassure that the FBX export is proper? Much appreciate any help. I'm losing lots of time figuring this out. Especially with the current genoma bone naming system. 8-/

RebelHill
11-27-2013, 03:42 AM
Stuff that's driven by IK, etc wont transfer over as you've not got the IK solver present in unity to "handle" the motion, so if its that, you have to bake out your motions. However, once you do bake, you'll most likely notice that forearms/lower legs go a bit wonky... this is simply due to the fact that genoma has poorly setup constraints which wreck baking of motions... Add to that all those additional little bones in there which do nothing to the mesh, are just "mechanical" items to serve the control systems, and you've got a big mess... Genoma rigs just arent much good for export to unity/games Im afraid.

What you can do...

Go through the entire rig and for any bone using a same as item constraint with blending not equal to 100%, set the blending up to 100, and alter the channel multipliers to the same factor... Bake EVERYTHING, then go back and filter out euler flips, etc... Get the motionBaker/euler filter/key reducer from the anim tools pack on my site for best results. Nothing you can do about that huge, messy number of bones though.

Ryan Roye
11-27-2013, 06:27 AM
I recommend Mentalfish MotionBaker (http://mentalfish.com/2009/09/motion-baker/) for baking for its ease of use and quick UI functions.

Also, if you want to stick with Genoma for Unity export, you may need to create your own presets in order to get the smoothest operation possible. RH is referring to the presets that come standard with Genoma, not the system itself.

Also, consider rigging with IKBooster (http://delura.tanadrine.com/IKBooster/IKB_UserManual.html)... and you can leave a large number of these issues behind.

lino.grandi
11-27-2013, 06:28 AM
I animated a character with a genoma rig and tried to export it to FBX and certain parts just don't show up animated properly in Unity.
Is there any procedure to reassure that the FBX export is proper? Much appreciate any help. I'm losing lots of time figuring this out. Especially with the current genoma bone naming system. 8-/

Which preset did you use?
Before exporting the rig in Unity you need to bake the animation of the bones and get rid of all the controls.
At the moment there's not a "Unity" friendly preset rig available in Genoma.
The Genoma rig system is under an heavy update and will provide presets for a very easy animation and export in Unity). ;)

Some links with samples that may help:

http://www.characterink.com/2011/10/24/free-unity-character/
http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Manual/Preparingacharacterfromscratch.html

Of course you can find many other examples and information on the web.

And yes....IKBooster can really be a very nice and friendly tool.

RebelHill
11-27-2013, 06:43 AM
you may need to create your own presets in order to get the smoothest operation possible. RH is referring to the presets that come standard with Genoma, not the system itself.

No... Im referring to the system, because the presets ARE the system... You cant make a preset for yourself that doesnt have the extra junk bones, or that has the constraints setup correctly... all you can do is to laboriously modify the assembled parts in layout by hand.

Dennik
11-27-2013, 07:00 AM
I recommend Mentalfish MotionBaker (http://mentalfish.com/2009/09/motion-baker/) for baking for its ease of use and quick UI functions.

Also, if you want to stick with Genoma for Unity export, you may need to create your own presets in order to get the smoothest operation possible. RH is referring to the presets that come standard with Genoma, not the system itself.

Also, consider rigging with IKBooster (http://delura.tanadrine.com/IKBooster/IKB_UserManual.html)... and you can leave a large number of these issues behind.

I used the biped rig. My bad, its indeed not meant for exporting to FBX. Funny thing is a lot of the IK motion transfered just fine without me baking anything, which fooled me into believing that something else was the issue
Well, thank you for all your responses everyone. I will take your advice and go the IK Booster way, (plus redo 350 frames of animation. :-\)

Ryan Roye
11-27-2013, 07:02 AM
You cant make a preset for yourself that doesnt have the extra junk bones, or that has the constraints setup correctly... all you can do is to laboriously modify the assembled parts in layout by hand.

A) Why would you want to modify the rig in layout when it's all set up in Genoma? Layout, while ok for *creating* rigs, is terrible for *editing* them.

B) These "junk bones" you keep talking about are irrelevant. They are *exactly* the same thing as using nulls with the sole exception of bone export (in which case, baking allows you to delete the extra bones as needed after baking anyways).

Just because Genoma is something you don't like which competes with your products doesn't make it a bad system that people shouldn't explore. Just my 2.

Ryan Roye
11-27-2013, 07:22 AM
Well, thank you for all your responses everyone. I will take your advice and go the IK Booster way, (plus redo 350 frames of animation. :-\)

Although with the Genoma rig adapting motions between characters with differing rigs is somewhat complex (doable, but an extensive topic), your work shouldn't be totally wasted:

Follow these steps:

- Set the keyframe range to encompass the animation that you'd like to save.

- Selecting your object/character, press "P" for properties and click the "FX" tab.

- Click the "Add FX" dropdown menu, select "Cloth". Click the "Clothfx" entry that appears after doing this.

- You should see a "File" tab, hit that, and then press the button labeled "Scan Motion". It'll ask you to save out a file afterward, save it in a temporary location.

- You may now delete *all* of the bones, controllers, etc from your character model because the model's deformations are "Baked" in now.

- In the scene editor, you can set this "baked" version of your character to wireframe view, and you are left with a quite usable reference so that you can re-do the animation and at least have a visual guide this time around.

Granted, I don't typically do the above steps and have my own methods for adapting animations between different rigs, but it should at least help you get the work done faster :)

RebelHill
11-27-2013, 07:57 AM
Layout, while ok for *creating* rigs, is terrible for *editing* them.

What on earth are you talking about... Layout is the only place you can modify rigs... try setting up a constraint in modeler, let me know how you get on.


These "junk bones" you keep talking about are irrelevant. They are *exactly* the same thing as using nulls with the sole exception of bone export (in which case, baking allows you to delete the extra bones as needed after baking anyways)

Well no... because they're EMBEDDED inside of hierarchies... you cant just remove them all without wrecking the orientation/motion of the items which are their children... Again, try it... see what happens.


Just because Genoma is something you don't like which competes with your products doesn't make it a bad system that people shouldn't explore.

Again... you're just making personal characterisations... Don't actually attempt to discuss the merits or failing s of... no... just have a go at the motives of the criticiser.

I didnt say people shouldnt explore it... I said it was no good for the task at hand... which its not... qed.

As for how good or bad a system it is... its got nothing to do with competing tools... its simply a view of what it is and what it does... Many parts pop or flip, constraints are mishandled all over various parts, the deformations are terrible, etc, etc... If that's what you think a good system is, Id love to see what you think a bad one looks like.

Ryan Roye
11-27-2013, 09:24 AM
Again... you're just making personal characterisations...

I am merely pointing out that as a character animator I prefer to have an open mind because I know not every single animator works the same way and would prefer to respect that rather than belittle systems and methods that aren't necessarily a staple in my workflow. I don't feel your statements are always accurate (in fact many of them are half-truths) which is why I have to challenge that. Also, I find it quite relevant that you have historically criticized and belittled the workflows of others using facts and explanations that are almost entirely irrelevant and ignore the solutions or counterarguments that are given to you such as the "junk bones" and "you can't set up constraints in modeler" thing... not entirely true anymore with Genoma in the picture.

As i've said before, I respect you as an artist and understand the experience you bring to the table; I only say these things because I feel people need to see the whole picture and understand that there are methods and tools that lie outside of what you prefer to work with. Cheers!

RebelHill
11-27-2013, 09:52 AM
I prefer to have an open mind... ...rather than belittle systems and methods that aren't necessarily a staple in my workflow.
Its not a question of whats in who's workflow... its a question of what WORKS. I criticise where things DEMONSTRABLY do not work... When a rig part (for instance), pops or flips, or twists up your mesh, or breaks in some other fashion... is that useable? An open mind is of little use when its so open as to blatantly ignore things which are clearly broken.


I don't feel your statements are always accurate (in fact many of them are half-truths) which is why I have to challenge that. Also, I find it quite relevant that you have historically criticized and belittled the workflows of others using facts and explanations that are almost entirely irrelevant
Please... show me ONE example of my doing this... just one. All of my criticisms are accurate, clearly explained, demonstrated where necessary, and draw upon common knowledge and industry standard practices and workflows... If you dont know what those are, nor understand WHY a given criticism or its explanation is relevant, thats not my fault.

Ryan... you have said yourself, that any animation work you've done, you finish up in your own way and deliver out done... You've done little rigging for others, nor had to have such work fit into part of different pipelines in different studios, etc. You have far less experience experience outside of your own bubble in this fashion whereas I have provided rigging and animation solutions to HUNDREDS of users and studios and have been at it for years. I have vastly more experience of the different requirements, workflows and pipelines that folk are using and the best solutions for each variety of situational requirement. I REALLY do know what Im taking about.



ignore the solutions or counterarguments that are given to you such as the "junk bones" and "you can't set up constraints in modeler" thing... not entirely true anymore with Genoma in the picture.
Umm... did you read my post... your "counterargument" was that you can delete the extra bones... I responded "you cant cos they have children"... TRY IT! Please... if it really works, lets see it. As for the constraints in modeler... you CANT (there is no solution presented which Im ignoring)... again, please... show us all how if Im wrong about that. Genoma DOES NOT let you setup constraints in modeler... that is ENTIRELY true.


I only say these things because I feel people need to see the whole picture and understand that there are methods and tools that lie outside of what you prefer to work with.
Yes... and sometimes the whole picture means seeing how certain tools just plain are not cut out for certain tasks and that there are better, tried and tested approaches that have borne themselves out through a great level of experience of such things. Whats most useful to people is to just cut through the crap, get to what works, and get the job done... rather than fluffing around with dead end solutions that create more problems than they solve.

lino.grandi
11-28-2013, 04:25 PM
I find this whole discussion pointless.

Especially reading it while I'm here in Japan, just after visiting Production IG Animation Studios (just one of the major LightWave based animation studios here in Tokyo....they've been working on Ghost in The Shell and other amazing animation works).

The first thing they told me was "Thank you Lino for Genoma". Nothing can be more exciting than that.

Then we talked about how it was used, what they found to be great about it and what they would like to be implemented and improved. Most part of their requests will be there (I'm working on an improved version of Genoma right now, based on users feedback).

With the new version I'll provide video tutorials on how to use it to get the best out of it.

The current version is not perfect (I could analyze any other auto rig system out there and find out some problems....but that would be pointless, since nothing can be really perfect and I prefer to dedicate my time to something productive), the new one will be longer better and more powerful.

hrgiger
11-28-2013, 04:59 PM
i wouldnt say its pointless Lino. I for one like to hear about user experiences (even if they cant agree). Not all feedback has to be positive to be of value.

jasonwestmas
11-28-2013, 05:11 PM
I like to hear about what people think works and what doesn't and why. These are not pointless discussions. It does help to have demonstrations of those ideas. Thanks

lino.grandi
11-28-2013, 05:46 PM
It often happens that when RebelHill gets in when there's a Genoma or IKBooster related thread, we often see people pointing out he does that because he develops a "competitive" rigging system.

That's what I found pointless....not discussing what's negative and positive. That's a good thing.

If I should point out anything said about Genoma that is not true or unprecise, I would not have any time to work.

I could say Genoma is not a deformation system for example. Deformations mostly depends on user defined weight maps when using it.

A lot of wrong assumptions on Genoma come from the fact it really needs more explanation to be used properly. Some of the information can be found in the online videos or in this forum....but that's not probably enough.

Again, discussion is important. Fighting is pointless.

I've collected tons of feedback about Genoma. From posts and emails.

Knowing what's not working or missing is important. Reading the same things tons of time can sound like a broken record. Especially if they can sometimes sound a little "instrumental".

RebelHill
11-28-2013, 06:56 PM
It often happens that when RebelHill gets in when there's a Genoma or IKBooster related thread, we often see people pointing out he does that because he develops a "competitive" rigging system.

No... one particular user likes to imply that I do so for such reasons because he doesnt understand the explanations I give (nor their solutions) well enough to respond to them, so he resorts to "ad hominem" attempts at personal discreditation. I couldnt agree more that fighting is pointless, but it seems that some people dont wish to engage in discussion that actually debates the merits nor dismerits of a particular something or other based on real world, practical assessments. More to the point even... the VAST majority of the time, Im not even out to debate merits or lack thereof... people come to this forum to ask questions (often how to do something with a given tool, why a certain something isnt working, or whats the best/fastest/easiest approach to another), and I respond to answer their questions to try and help them out and achieve their goals as best as possible. I dont go round trolling this or that, starting arguments, or just spewing out empty rhetoric... you only have to look at my work to realise that I know how to get things done. And (not particularly astonishingly) the vast majority of folk seem to be grateful for my attempts to do such... I would hazard that its only the narrow minded who for (god only knows what reason) feel threatened somehow by the things I point out or the advice I give that need to twist things into arguments as some kind of retarded defensive.

As for pointing out things about genoma (or anything else for that matter) that are untrue or imprecise, I really, REALLY would like to hear what those things are if they factually, and demonstrably wrong. I dont just pull these assertions out my arse, I discover them through experimentation with the tools themselves and if I have somehow missed some magic little button or made poor interpretation then I would like to know the actual truth for my own self if nothing else.

You can take by way of simple example the points I made in this thread... (which, if you'll read them) constituted nothing more than a simple answer (and explanation) to the OPs question and issues.

1. That there are mishandled constraints in genoma... Ive demonstrated this, compounded rotations in forelimbs (comes from keying, impacts upon baking), flipping of parts in certain poses due to not using the proper alignments/orientations. Its not like Ive cheated in these demonstrations, gone in and fudged something to make it happen... Ive just taken things, as they come, and boom... these things happen. There's no ambiguity there... so... am I wrong? Is it untrue?? Yes or no?

2. That genoma's bone count is no good for use in games... Sure, the bones can be exported to fbx and loaded into a game engine... but do you really want ALL of them? There's over 300 bones in the biped preset... can you find me a single game designer who's going to be happy to have that number of bones in a single character in a game engine??

3. That most of these extra bones are "sunk" into the hierarchy... they're parents of things (like all the "zeros"), and as such they terminate co-ordinates for their children. If you "parent them out" (which would be time consuming anyway) then the recorded animation co-ordinates on the children will no longer align with their new parent spaces... this will wreck the animation. Hence... you cant just remove them... right or wrong??


I could say Genoma is not a deformation system for example.

And you'd be right... it deforms things horribly, and a big part of the reason for that is the fundamental DESIGN of the rigs themselves which totally hose a lot of your ability to use LWs (pretty decent tools) for performing deformation correction, Im talking here specifically about the joint comp/twist, etc which cant function over "inbetweens". Better weighting Im afraid is NOT the answer... if Im wrong, then please... all I ask... is SHOW ME. The hulk mesh on my site is a perfectly wonderful trial bod... that took me 30 minutes to weight, rig, and have deforming pretty damn well (for LW at least)... If Im wrong, and it is that easy... then whats the problem?? honestly?? What is SO wrong with asking to see the proof of claims made?

So... whats the deal?

Davewriter
11-28-2013, 09:26 PM
Gotta side with Jason on this...
I don't rig worth a crap, but because I have these delusions of doing CA it is something I know I need to learn. One of the things I most like about LW is there is more than one way to do many things. All I need is to find my "best fit". There are wonderful minds and styles living here in LW land and I like hearing from you... even if it does sound like knocking heads at times.
It does help even a lunk head like me to learn.

lino.grandi
11-29-2013, 05:48 AM
So... whats the deal?

The deal is that as I'll come back from Japan, I'll collect some material for you and anyone else interested to look at it. :D

And sure, I'll download the "hulk" character and I'll rig it using the "horrible" Genoma. ;)

And I'll go through your points as well. Be sure.

Ryan Roye
11-29-2013, 07:22 AM
So... whats the deal?

You don't just create a 26 minute video almost entirely on what's wrong with Genoma rigs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFlbU9I6Fs) and disguise it as "common rigging problems" and then try to convince people that you are not biased in any way shape or form, especially when many of the situations you describe do in fact use the controls in atypical or unintended ways, such as pushing the shoulder past what is normal for range of motion (which rotation limits would fix), or pointing out issues in which the "solutions" you describe also introduce a lot of other problems such loss of playback performance or added density to the rig... or purposely rotating the hand using the incorrect order of rotations which, oddly enough, you describe in another video as being important to understand in order to animate in Lightwave.

Speaking of atypical and unintended ways... why don't we put your hulk rig under this same scrutiny? It is implied that this rig is a good example of something that uses proper rigging practices. Dense for sure... robust... also incredibly problematic in an actual production. Why? Because the character cannot easily be animated in any situation where there is an actual scene involved. I've watched a lot of the RH videos in the past and yes I did pick up some valuable info from them, but for anything that involves characters the viewer will notice they are always standing by themselves in an empty scene... and now I see why. Try loading a second character in the scene... or even rigged props (you'd typically have cars and stuff for this guy to destroy, right?). Try getting a decent playback speed without disabling the entire rig to the point to where the user is back to the old days of FK rotations. Ok... what about these "proxy rigs"? Well, even after deleting the deformer rig, and having *everything*, including the model itself turned off/made invisible in the scene, the user still cannot have 2 instances of that rig in the scene without crippling playback to around 7-15 FPS... in an otherwise BLANK scene... which, by "industry standards", working at that FPS equates to poor animation quality (in my opinion, it does not due to how keyframe interpolation works). But of course, the controls themselves are a problem as well; try making the character jump or do a flip... achieving this involves, at the bare minimum, 5 different controllers each with their own keyframe space to keep track of. Try moving the L_Foot_RHulk null upward... the calf explodes. Well, this must be a trash rig then because I am able to perform this "error", and that the video linked above describes very similar breakage examples of this "mesh explosion" issue. Even the "lighter" of the example RH rigs suffer from these same exact problems.

Do you see what I'm getting at here and why I feel that your opinions are often extremely biased and unfair? What if you were put under the same level of one-sided, fact-twisting scrutiny that you place on the workflows that other people use? That's the "deal", and the whole problem with the arguments and discussions that happen when you post on this forum on topics like this. Maybe this will make people look down upon me and I know some folks will see this as "striking out" at someone who is widely considered to be an "expert" at rigging (which, I really do honest to god feel that you are good at what you do) but I want, most of all, open discussion (IE: the purpose of these forums) without people having to worry about you patrolling these forums and looking for ideas to shoot down, or criticizing workflows that have been used in other productions successfully and repeatedly despite your claims that the workflows are "HORRIBLE". Why can't people discuss things like Genoma or IKBooster or other rigging methods openly without you peppering in tons of commentary on why everyone needs to pay attention to you and ignore what everyone else says then following that up with plugs to your content? Why would Larry have to create a whole separate user group just to keep you from ruining discussions that would have otherwise been productive? Is it not enough to say that it is simply not your preference or suggest ideas as to how to overcome the "limitations" you often describe (preferably, on-topic)? Is it so horribly wrong that maybe someone other than you is actually capable of developing animation and rigging workflows in Lightwave that yours can't even remotely hold a candle to? Blindfolded people can have a hard time if they need to see everything to believe it.

hrgiger
11-29-2013, 08:19 AM
I don't get it. I have seen Rebel Hill point out numerous times where and when both IKB and Genoma are useful both on the forums and in his training materials. I've seen him state specifically where IKB is perfect for certain situations and Genoma is great for building parts for rigs. So what's the deal with accusing him of dismissing competing products? In that video you point to Ryan, he is addressing just some things that could be better about Genoma (and rigging in general) and is showing how certain ways the rigs are setup will cause breakage while animating (and a lot of them aren't unrealistic extreme poses-such as the tendon on the quadraped causes the stretchy bone to flip and twist the mesh). I'm not a professional animator but even I saw things that I wouldn't do when rigging like setting the pivot of the character outside of the mesh as well as the orientation of the wrist bones and the problems those caused. I don't know, maybe its just me but I've bought the last few rigging lessons from Rebel and have watched a lot of his free material and never once have I gotten the impression that he is trying to steer me as a user away from using IKB or Genoma. I've just seen him point out a lot of things to be aware of when using either of those systems OR LightWave traditional rigging.

jasonwestmas
11-29-2013, 09:10 AM
uhh, actually RH was showing what was cool with Genoma and what was horribly wrong with it. He's a balanced character for the most part imo. He's been the same way about IKB, pointing out limitations of part time IK and that it needs to be understood and used in a specific context and not discarded, more than anything else. I woudn't have even touched LW's animation tools if it weren't for RH and Splinegod (back in the day even). There are far too many oddities with the workflows concerning such tools to not have someone with great experience point them out and over come them.

Besides the genoma rigging issues. . .What has been repeated several times about lightwave rigging, deformations and animation is that it has fundamental inefficiencies that need to be addressed which both IKB and Genoma do not improve upon no matter how much one knows about them.

hrgiger
11-29-2013, 10:00 AM
Besides the genoma rigging issues. . .What has been repeated several times about lightwave rigging, deformations and animation is that it has fundamental inefficiencies that need to be addressed which both IKB and Genoma do not improve upon no matter how much one knows about them.

True. After all, Genoma is really just a fancier version of setting up skelegons, adding existing Lightwave type controls and doing the conversion in Layout to a rig. It adds the ease of modifying, adding to or removing things from the rig in Modeler and then updating in Layout. The same issues with LightWaves deformation and animation system are still the same. I'm just curious to see how improvements to Genoma tie into improvements they have planned for character animation improvements to LightWave in general or if they do at all.

jasonwestmas
11-29-2013, 11:26 AM
I'm just curious to see how improvements to Genoma tie into improvements they have planned for character animation improvements to LightWave in general or if they do at all.

Unless of course there is something about LW's future that is completely hidden from us, which I doubt at this moment, this is what I gather:


In a context of key framing and management of such things. . . Currently there is nothing within Genoma (that I can see) to imply a much improved keyframing or deformations system is coming since LW8's intro of IKB which did improve upon some things while animating with hand keying/editing. IKB has been around almost 10 years now with very little change. :) To add genoma first in this next gen version of lw was a bass-ackwards decision to improving lightwave animation in general imo. Especially since NT completely ignored IKB's development (not willingly perhaps). the whole time after it was released.

RebelHill
11-29-2013, 12:51 PM
You don't just create a 26 minute video almost entirely on what's wrong with Genoma rigs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFlbU9I6Fs) and disguise it as "common rigging problems" and then try to convince people that you are not biased in any way shape or form, especially when many of the situations you describe do in fact use the controls in atypical or unintended ways, such as pushing the shoulder past what is normal for range of motion

Its not "disguised" as anything... it is what it supposes to be... an examination of rigs which have been setup without due care and attention and the problems that causes when trying to get good posing... So I used genoma rigs... so what? Its hardly my fault that they just happen to embody a great many failings of design and structure. It should also be realised that if you wish to carry out a dissection of "rigs going wrong" for the investigation of others then ideally you want others to be able to access those rigs for themselves so that they too can try things out on the same and verify what they're seeing for themselves, and these are the demo rigs that shipped with the 11.5 content (the most up to date available at the time of recording)... Put another way... these are newtek's OWN rigs... If you're going to explore issues surrounding LW rigging practices, then I would argue that there can be no more proper an example set from which to draw. The only other options would be to purpose build broken/wonky rigs (which defeats the purpose, anyone can break any "tool" and then show it not working), or scrape up rigs that less experienced users have made "sub-optimally", and hold those up to some manner of ridicule, which is hardly very fair on the individual who did the making.


Speaking of atypical and unintended ways... why don't we put your hulk rig under this same scrutiny?
Please... lets..


for anything that involves characters the viewer will notice they are always standing by themselves in an empty scene... and now I see why. Try loading a second character in the scene... or even rigged props (you'd typically have cars and stuff for this guy to destroy, right?). Try getting a decent playback speed without disabling the entire rig to the point to where the user is back to the old days of FK rotations. Ok... what about these "proxy rigs"? Well, even after deleting the deformer rig, and having *everything*, including the model itself turned off/made invisible in the scene, the user still cannot have 2 instances of that rig in the scene without crippling playback to around 7-15 FPS
So... I guess you missed this, which is all about interactivity and rig performance issues... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqasigvT3qI&list=PLD4AC29B34EBD2D80&index=6
As well doubtlessly as these couple minutes of the PROMO... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAjA_VeKxT0&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL4BCBC68A35123A55&t=11m0s where I SPECIFICALLY make such issues known and describe some of the tools and additions I put in place to try and navigate around them and save the user from such headaches as much as possible.

Or maybe its just my fault that LW can be really slow in rig handling at times... or maybe you're saying that due to such, its pointless to try and build rigs of such complexity... Well, maybe you're right, but lets not forget... examples such as the hulk there are showing off high performance hero (meaning leading) creatures/characters... why dont you let me know when you make something that deforms just as well (or better) that runs as quick (or quicker) using some other method.

Ofc, thats not to say Im about to sit around and put up with LWs rig handling abilities, nor the how rig design and structure impacts upon interactivity... you never know... I might have a trick or two up my sleeve yet.


Try moving the L_Foot_RHulk null upward... the calf explodes. Well, this must be a trash rig then because I am able to perform this "error", and that the video linked above describes very similar breakage examples of this "mesh explosion" issue. Even the "lighter" of the example RH rigs suffer from these same exact problems.
Why yes... yes it does...
However... WHY you would try operating the leg in this way is beyond me... its an IK limb which you're back forcing, shortening the leg, and thus smooshing the geo... this doesnt just fall on the outside of some range of motion, it falls completely outside any way in which you ever want to pose the thing in the first instance. its like mashing the keyboard with your palm and to point out the awful spelling errors it produces.

I get that you're not very familiar with this stuff outside of IKB, but if you dont know how to correctly operate an IKFK rig, I suggest you review the documentation materials.


Is it so horribly wrong that maybe someone other than you is actually capable of developing animation and rigging workflows in Lightwave that yours can't even remotely hold a candle to?.
Buddy, if someone came out tomorrow with some new tool or system that totally blew my own away, Id be happy as a pig in do-do... I produce the things I do to make up for LWs shortcomings, to provide and develop the best solutions for others to use, to give them the most complete and in depth knowledge so that they can go out and do the same (or better) for themselves.

As for what my own stuff can or can't hold a candle to... I guess we'll just have to see what I can come up with next, wont we. (;


Do you see what I'm getting at here and why I feel that your opinions are often extremely biased and unfair? What if you were put under the same level of one-sided, fact-twisting scrutiny that you place on the workflows that other people use?... Is it not enough to say that it is simply not your preference or suggest ideas as to how to overcome the "limitations" you often describe... Why can't people discuss things like Genoma or IKBooster or other rigging methods openly without you peppering in tons of commentary on why everyone needs to pay attention to you and ignore what everyone else says then following that up with plugs to your content?... you patrolling these forums and looking for ideas to shoot down...
You SERIOUSLY think Im so stupid as to be critical of the operations of given rigs/tools and not apply the same level of standards to my own work... Do you really think that Ive not had art directors/animators/whomever turn round and send back stuff Ive submitted over the years with comments to the effect of "its not good enough, improve it"?? Professional production IS scrutiny... If you had more experience, you'd know that.

And suggest ideas, or offer solutions to these shortcomings... what on earth do you think my tools and tuts are there for?? Entertainment?? Posterity?? Some kind of ego-wank?? Hell, if that were my aim, Id show off awesome stuff, refuse to tell anyone how I did it and bask in the glory afforded to the magician who wont reveal his tricks. I DO NOT just go round peppering commentary against things for no reason... People post questions, they ask for advice and answers (as per the OP here) and I respond to answer their questions... that is until some troll who doesnt like the advice decides to wade in and turn the whole thing into an argument, with nothing to offer other than the kind of character assassinations and attempts at personal discreditation that have become your stock in trade, fella, and I truly MARVEL at the fact that you have the audacity to accuse me of telling lies or twisting facts when that is the kind of behaviour which you hide behind.

Im sure you think its very clever, or challenging, or revealing... but its not... The only thing it reveals is you have NOTHING to bring to refute any of my points, or explanations in a clear and demonstrable fashion, so you trash talk instead.

That's fine... knock yourself out.

There's an easy solution for me... its called the ignore button, and I'll be clicking it any moment now.

Happy trails.

bazsa73
11-29-2013, 01:04 PM
Great to here that Lino. I use Genoma successfully in a non photoreal animatik I designed for my own purposes and I know
for sure before Genoma the time I would spend on rigging would have drained all my energy, but now I did the rigging quickly in
a 3-5 hours and was able to animate the characters so I could see what I wanted to see in a short time span.

hrgiger
11-29-2013, 01:24 PM
To add genoma first in this next gen version of lw was a bass-ackwards decision to improving lightwave animation in general imo. Especially since NT completely ignored IKB's development (not willingly perhaps). the whole time after it was released.

Well as far as IKB, that was a couple generations/management shifts away ago. And we all know that, at least in the past, NT seemingly developed a pattern of implementing things in LW and then not developing them much further if at all. I think IKB is just another casualty of that pattern. Which is too bad. In all fairness to Ryan here, he paints a good picture of all the benefits that IKB has to offer. Unfotunately, I think with the limitation of it being only a part time IK system as well as the fact that it hasn't been developed in years with no evidence to suggest that it will ever be, how relevant will it continue to be moving forward?
But I don't know if I would call LW11 first in this next gen version of LW, at least I hope not. After all, as far as we can see, most of the additions to LW11 were just a host of new features. I'm sure things went on under the hood that are not immediately apparent but as far as how LW systems work as well as how they perform, things seem generally unchanged. Surely they must have something in the works for future revisions of LW that deal with large datasets, modeling in animation environment, unification issues in general, deformation,etc... things that I would guess are going to require some major internal restructuring/rebuilding. Until those things are tackled, I wouldn't call current LW next gen. So with that said, I think Genoma is a workflow enhancement for the way LW works now. No, nothing about it gives any indication of future development/improvements. But as has been stated repeatedly by LW3DG, they chose to go a path that gives benefits now instead of waiting for some future architecture to bring those benefits.

jasonwestmas
11-29-2013, 02:57 PM
Surely they must have something in the works for future revisions of LW that deal with large datasets, modeling in animation environment, unification issues in general, deformation,etc... things that I would guess are going to require some major internal restructuring/rebuilding. Until those things are tackled, I wouldn't call current LW next gen. So with that said, I think Genoma is a workflow enhancement for the way LW works now. No, nothing about it gives any indication of future development/improvements. But as has been stated repeatedly by LW3DG, they chose to go a path that gives benefits now instead of waiting for some future architecture to bring those benefits.

Right, I certainly wouldn't call 11.x next gen either but I was hoping it would be. . .that gets into some long conversations. . .anyway the only thing I read about earlier that is next gen (and competitively so) imo is a system that is currently only in chronosculpt, codename hydra and that has been a cool experience so far (deals rather well with large point cache files and dense geometry) aside from the project file format not working correctly (fix is coming). Not sure how hydra stems out to improve Lightwave's fundamental issues but that's a conversation for elsewhere. :)