PDA

View Full Version : Put a bone WITH weight map at every point of a (sparse) object?



jeric_synergy
05-30-2014, 11:53 AM
#awayFromLW

How would I put a bone at every point in a sparse object, AND create a weight map for that point/bone combo? (That last part may be gilding the lily.)

If I can Clone skelegons, I guess I can just use PARTICLE CLONE (Point Clone?) and I'm done, if I don't need w.maps. I'd like that option though, just for maximum control.

#disclaimer: I rarely use bones/skelegons, so I'm a bit fuzzy on them.


This is on the heels of watching Cody's "Web Network" tutorial (thank you!) and pondering how to stretch bits of the network around in a controlled fashion. --'Cuz you KNOW some art director will throw a hissy if you can't.

ernpchan
05-30-2014, 01:44 PM
You could try using bones that have a limited fall off. As long as the bone influence doesn't overlap your other parts you should be fine.

I can't think of an automated native way to do this. You might be able to do it via scripting with pseudo code like the below:

Iterate through polygon islands.
Make skelegon based on center of polygon island.
Make weight map for polygon island.
Assign weight map to skelegon.
Repeat

daforum
05-30-2014, 02:04 PM
Will this script work: http://stephenculley.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/lscript-modelerpointnormaltoskelegon.html

ernpchan
05-30-2014, 02:05 PM
Oh yeah I remember this script. It's helpful for creating a faux-lattice.

jeric_synergy
05-30-2014, 02:37 PM
#rendering

I'll look at that script in a minute, thanks daforum, but meanwhile:

Is there a way to get BONES to stick to an object's deformations? Here, the network is getting radically displaced, so the Bones are now far away from their appropriate points. I'd prefer that the diplacement affect both the points and the associated Bones.

Thanks!

jeric_synergy
05-30-2014, 03:07 PM
Daforum, as it turns out, that script would be overkill, but still useful. I used PARTICLE CLONE to clone skelegons to all the points --of course, they weren't normal-oriented like this would do, but in this case it doesn't matter.

Now I'm wrestling with 1) post #5 above and 2) a good looking DOF (which I'm terrible at...).

Thanks!

JoePoe
05-30-2014, 03:26 PM
How about Ultimate Clone (https://www.lightwave3d.com/assets/plugins/entry/ultimate-clone/)

1) made bone with weight map
2) ran UC ..... used normals.
3) Merged points.

base of bones had 100% tips 0% 122098 Works fine (if I understand) 122099

Don't know about the deformation. yet.
Are you also subdivided?
...and where is this tutorial?

jeric_synergy
05-30-2014, 06:25 PM
Joe, I wanted a DIFFERENT w.map with every bone. Each point gets its own w.map. --Most likely overkill, but would give ultimate control.

ED: https://www.lightwave3d.com/learn/article/creating-a-web-network-animation/

JoePoe
05-31-2014, 08:21 AM
Joe, I wanted a DIFFERENT w.map with every bone. Each point gets its own w.map. --Most likely overkill, but would give ultimate control.

ED: https://www.lightwave3d.com/learn/article/creating-a-web-network-animation/

A different map entirely with each bone or a different map VALUE with each bone (one map total, then use a gradient to do whatever)?

The first sounds painful. The second .... not so bad....I've got a couple ideas if that's what you mean.

edit: hmm, maybe in bone props you need separate maps..... just thinkin'.

jeric_synergy
05-31-2014, 08:44 AM
Well, my possibly dumb thought was, each point gets it's OWN w.map with only that point being 100%. Of course, that's very VERY likely to be overkill. Very. Even w/no maps, there doesn't seem to be much overlap (but it would still be "nice" to know it's possible).

The REAL problem currently is that the Displacement map moves the mesh significantly far enough from the bones that there's no visual connection between the bones and the points. Which is pretty much the point of this.

MG artist
05-31-2014, 09:34 AM
Why don't you use morphs, morphs with displacement or simply bones without displacement ?

jeric_synergy
05-31-2014, 09:44 AM
Because that's not the effect I'm trying for. It's a riff on this:

https://www.lightwave3d.com/learn/article/creating-a-web-network-animation/

But with added control.

PLUS, I would think that there must be some way that Bones would get Displaced with their related geometry. Otherwise they could get quite far away from what they control.

jeric_synergy
05-31-2014, 10:38 AM
I occurs to me that, for efficiency, the w.maps only need to contain the ONE point in question, not all the points with a value of zero.

For the sparse structures I'm talking about it's probably not important, but efficiency is always nice.

MG artist
05-31-2014, 01:34 PM
Try giving all the bones textured motion or nodal motion with a turbulence texture. Also you don't have to assign weight maps, this setup works fine without them. But, as I said before, morphs and displacement would do the job if you want your jittered web to turn into another shape in time and still be displaced.

jeric_synergy
05-31-2014, 02:24 PM
MG artist, that "texture motion" idea sounds like the ticket!!! Thanks for kick-starting my memory!

I know the w.maps would be overkill, but it seemed like a good idea at the time, and might be necessary in a much denser mesh.

I don't think morphs would give me the EASE of a Turbulance procedural displacement.

For this particular application, moving the Bones with a texture is a viable route (and probably completely sufficient), but I'm still baffled by the mesh moving away from the Bones when displaced. No answer on that one yet. :(

jeric_synergy
06-02-2014, 01:55 PM
Here's my version of this tute's product-- I'd like to explore having to pull out multiple individual nodes to a specific screen location, via bones, because I suspect that if I got paid to do this, I'd wind up HAVING to do such a thing:



https://vimeo.com/97086056

Having Bones do BOTH the global deformation AND the fine location control is one way, but I wish I knew how to just get the Bones to ride along with the object's deformation, and then ADD in their own offset. ...."add in", hmmmmm......