PDA

View Full Version : LW 2017 Bones and Rigging



gamedesign1
02-02-2017, 08:26 PM
Hi All

Does anyone else here think that the bones and rigging tools need to be completely rethought in LightWave?
I hardly ever use rigging and every time I go back to it I find I have to relearn all the tools and all the quirky problems with them.
I would really like to hear your thoughts :)

OlaHaldor
02-03-2017, 01:32 AM
Do it like Maya or better, and I'm interested.
I don't rig much, but the times I do, I find myself using other tools and export the animations back to LightWave for setup, light and render.

I especially like the way you can have custom shapes on controllers in Maya, using curves. I might not have looked hard enough, but so far I've only found there's primitives in LW. Custom shapes for eyes, hands, fingers, feet, hips.. Would be quite helpful.

Ztreem
02-03-2017, 03:57 AM
Do it like Maya or better, and I'm interested.
I don't rig much, but the times I do, I find myself using other tools and export the animations back to LightWave for setup, light and render.

I especially like the way you can have custom shapes on controllers in Maya, using curves. I might not have looked hard enough, but so far I've only found there's primitives in LW. Custom shapes for eyes, hands, fingers, feet, hips.. Would be quite helpful.

Why not just model one? You are free to use whatever object you see fit as a controller.

jwiede
02-03-2017, 05:14 AM
Hi All

Does anyone else here think that the bones and rigging tools need to be completely rethought in LightWave?

It would be more accurate to say they need to be "thought through, end to end" in the first place. This has been raised repeatedly in the past: As it stands currently, there isn't really a coherent, consistent, end-to-end CA workflow/methodology implemented in LW.

The whole situation with going from bones to z-bones to joints, and now back to bones/z-bones, has left LW with a mishmash of distinct separate toolsets each solving different needs (yet with no one toolset solving all or even most reliably -- internal simple & complex rigging/CA, external interoperability, and so forth). It's ridiculous, and LW3DG refocusing back on bones over joints just further affirms LW3DG won't be providing one any time soon.

Best to go find RebelHill's old discussions of joints vs bones, he's previously explained in depth why joints are superior to bones (it's fairly technical in places, but quite important w.r.t. CA flexibility/capability, and crucial to accurate CA interoperability with other packages). Ultimately, it needs to be about providing a general-purpose, _complete_ end-to-end toolset and methodology that enables the broadest set of CA workflows in common use (as opposed to just extending the existing mishmash to specifically address the requirements of an individual CA workflow).

TheLexx
02-03-2017, 06:46 AM
Very interesting, but how far would you go ? I think this is one aspect of the debate about backwards compatibility in LW Next, like removing old stuff to move forward will make some existing users very unhappy, but LW Next will be left with even more clutter if they keep old material and introduce yet something else on top.

I am still going through the Rebelhill material and was hoping to maybe explore Ryan Roye animation techniques in the future. If Newtek decided to focus on and "modernise" Lightwave CA, just imagine ditching all of that, completely tearing out IKBooster for example, in favour of a new unified CA workflow - that would be some overhaul indeed. I wonder what a unified CA workflow in LW would look like - what would it have to minimally (or maximally!) achieve to satisfy an expectation ?

RebelHill
02-03-2017, 06:49 AM
There are always improvements that can be made, but its pretty far and away from needing a complete do-over. Other than the occasional, and often quite small, peculiarity in the toolset, I certainly cant think what all these problems with them are.

lardbros
02-03-2017, 07:22 AM
LightWave gets a really bad rap for character animation, but as Rebel says it's really not that bad. I used to find it frustrating years ago, but it was mainly down to misunderstandings and not knowing how to rig in any tool, let alone just LightWave.

Any of Craig's videos, or Lino's rigging series that he did for the release of LW10 (I think) are great to help you find the pitfalls before you fall into them.

Spinland
02-03-2017, 07:31 AM
I personally prefer LW's rigging tools to those of Maya, at least Maya 2011 which is the version I have, dislike and never use. YMMV, of course, because there exists no perfect workflow that will please everyone. ;D

bazsa73
02-03-2017, 07:41 AM
I would like to have something similar to Messiah.

bobakabob
02-03-2017, 10:02 AM
Hi All

Does anyone else here think that the bones and rigging tools need to be completely rethought in LightWave?
I hardly ever use rigging and every time I go back to it I find I have to relearn all the tools and all the quirky problems with them.
I would really like to hear your thoughts :)

What exactly can't you do in Lightwave that can be done in Maya? When it comes to rigging a character, imo there's no significant difference in speed. IK is straightforward to set up in both apps (people moan about nulls but they're so easy to set up. Watch Lino Grandi or RebelHill at work in tutorials). Binding a character once the hard work of placing the bones is complete is as simple in LW as pressing "r" and you can get frequently away without using weightmaps which are easy to create if you need them. Maya's autoweights and weight painting can take some time and patience to get right though it's great to work directly on the rigged animateable model. With 3rd Powers tools you can now do this directly in Layout.

You only have to watch RebelHill's tutorials or invest in RHiggit to see how you can create very sophisticated rigs in Lightwave. The latest Genoma biped rig is very powerful. If you prefer to autorig you can get straight into animating very quickly.

OT slightly: Although there's not a vast difference, the only reason I prefer animating in Maya (then importing into Lightwave) is Maya's Graph Editor, as autotangents allow you to block out animation very quickly and sort out footsliding for example without too much trouble. I hope the LW dev team update Layout's graph editor in LW Next with a similar approach

Marander
02-03-2017, 10:38 AM
There are always improvements that can be made, but its pretty far and away from needing a complete do-over. Other than the occasional, and often quite small, peculiarity in the toolset, I certainly cant think what all these problems with them are.

Character animation with RHigghit is one of the areas where LW can still shine in my opinion.

Would be interesting to know if Rhiggit is already up-to-date and waiting for LW2017... :-)

Surrealist.
02-03-2017, 11:00 AM
For me it is simply a matter of not being able to model, rig, paint weights and animate in Layout. That is how I prefer to do it. And I like the strong character cloth and hair tools in Maya as well. There are some other annoying minor things animating in LightWave. Small things.

But I don't mind animating cameras and objects. Totally usable. But I prefer to use Mocap data as well which sends me to MotionBuilder.

leandropedrouzo
02-03-2017, 11:55 AM
weights in layout....a must.
corrective morphs...any form that is straight and WYSIWYG, not using modeler or using edit in softfx also a must.
not sure if it has to do with rigging per se, but...have you tried to have several rigged charachters in the same scene? Sluggish as hell!
Reference rig so we can change the rig in a base scene and affect all others? Maybe. It's a pain to make a rig change mid-job when you have a lot of scenes scattered around and you have to replicate it over and over.

paulhart
02-03-2017, 12:06 PM
Could we please have a simple "UNDO" that works. I go along, thinking every thing is doing fine, then one command, and the mesh goes severly wonky, can't undo to understand my mistake, don't even know what it is that happened, have to reLoad the file to the latest save and cautiously creep forward, frustrating process. Yes, I know, if I knew everything, it wouldn't happen, but I am a long way from that exulted status. </RANT>

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 12:27 PM
There are always improvements that can be made, but its pretty far and away from needing a complete do-over. Other than the occasional, and often quite small, peculiarity in the toolset, I certainly cant think what all these problems with them are.

The main gripe I have is aligning the orientation of bones. It most often results in a weird thing happening. I'm sure it is because I am not following a particular sequence of tools to record pivots and align things etc, but my point is its not intuitive. So every time I forget what way to do things it ends up breaking something. I so understand that this is because I don't do it enough and get use to it.

RebelHill
02-03-2017, 12:29 PM
Maya's Graph Editor, as autotangents allow you to block out animation very quickly and sort out footsliding for example without too much trouble.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdU9SYS7_U

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 12:35 PM
LightWave gets a really bad rap for character animation, but as Rebel says it's really not that bad. I used to find it frustrating years ago, but it was mainly down to misunderstandings and not knowing how to rig in any tool, let alone just LightWave.

Any of Craig's videos, or Lino's rigging series that he did for the release of LW10 (I think) are great to help you find the pitfalls before you fall into them.

This is kind of my point though. I know nothing can be perfect, but positioning bones and aligning them surely shouldn't require so many different button clicks and different tools and editing modes.
I am completely happy with all the IK setups etc, but its just that initial bones alignment that always annoys me when I havent been using the tools for a while.
I do understand this now cause a lot of people to start defending LightWave and point out that its my own fault for not being familiar with the tools. I do take that on board. I just get frustrated when something so simple is not very intuitive unless you do it a lot. I am no trying to be negative, I just think the UI and workflow for the tools is bad.

- - - Updated - - -


Could we please have a simple "UNDO" that works. I go along, thinking every thing is doing fine, then one command, and the mesh goes severly wonky, can't undo to understand my mistake, don't even know what it is that happened, have to reLoad the file to the latest save and cautiously creep forward, frustrating process. Yes, I know, if I knew everything, it wouldn't happen, but I am a long way from that exulted status. </RANT>

Yeah thats one of my gripes too

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 12:51 PM
RebelHill, can I ask you a question about your RPR (Record Pivot Rotation)? How is it different from the LightWave one? Often when using the LightWave version the rotation moves and doesn't reset it to zero where it is.
Just interested :)

bazsa73
02-03-2017, 01:17 PM
Could we please have a simple "UNDO" that works. I go along, thinking every thing is doing fine, then one command, and the mesh goes severly wonky, can't undo to understand my mistake, don't even know what it is that happened, have to reLoad the file to the latest save and cautiously creep forward, frustrating process. Yes, I know, if I knew everything, it wouldn't happen, but I am a long way from that exulted status. </RANT>

+1
Went through this quite a few times. Super irritating.

jeric_synergy
02-03-2017, 01:53 PM
I do take that on board. I just get frustrated when something so simple is not very intuitive unless you do it a lot. I am no trying to be negative, I just think the UI and workflow for the tools is bad.

Not busting your balls here, but, do you have another tool in mind where the process is easier? Rigging looks intrinsically difficult to me, so I'm not surprised when it's a huge PITA, but LW is all I really know, and even that knowledge is fading. If there's another system that does it as well, but with a simpler workflow, I'm sure everyone here would like to know it.

Good on you for taking constructive comments positively. :thumbsup:

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 01:56 PM
Not busting your balls here, but, do you have another tool in mind where the process is easier? Rigging looks intrinsically difficult to me, so I'm not surprised when it's a huge PITA, but LW is all I really know, and even that knowledge is fading. If there's another system that does it as well, but with a simpler workflow, I'm sure everyone here would like to know it.

Good on you for taking constructive comments positively. :thumbsup:

Yeah I haven't used any other rigging software. But you know what its like when you are trying to do something and in your mind you can see how you would like it to work and then you think surely this can be easier than this :)

And don't take comments negatively at all unless they are obviously attacks at me for having a different thought to others. But no one is being like that, so its cool :D

Marander
02-03-2017, 02:07 PM
Not busting your balls here, but, do you have another tool in mind where the process is easier? Rigging looks intrinsically difficult to me, so I'm not surprised when it's a huge PITA, but LW is all I really know, and even that knowledge is fading. If there's another system that does it as well, but with a simpler workflow, I'm sure everyone here would like to know it.

Good on you for taking constructive comments positively. :thumbsup:

Hi Jeric

Sorry can't resist but since you learn C4D I have to mention this (I have the plugin since V1.0 and it's great):

People in Motion plugin, version 2.0 was just released yesterday.

It can one-click rig characters from DAZ, Autodesk etc. and has built-in ik, motion designer, walk cycles and many other motions, crowd functions for automatic stairs and escalator use. The characters automatically walk along the spline you draw and follow the terrain. Secondary animation can be set at any time. Really easy-to-use tool for a great price.

135880 135881

https://youtu.be/3pVFTsUEQ5o
https://youtu.be/Yub0-lKubrs

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 02:18 PM
I just noticed there is two record pivot rotation tools!

Record Pivot Rotation
BT_RecPivRot

I'm guessing Rhiggit RPR just calls the BT version then

Ryan Roye
02-03-2017, 03:26 PM
weights in layout....a must.

Is this WYSIWYG enough?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cX-RPMP0MQ

Also, this tool works with every other tool in Lightwave and usually yields immediate updates if a weight map is assigned. Here's the same tool being used with inertia to emulate a sword swipe effect:

http://www.delura.tanadrine.com/image_manualupload/GeoLag2.mp4

In addition, if that wasn't enough, the weight paints toolset comes with a bunch of other functions like symmetry, heat maps (better "auto-skinning"), smoothing, etc.

These people are the real deal, buy their tools, you won't be disappointed.

http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html

jwiede
02-03-2017, 04:27 PM
These people are the real deal, buy their tools, you won't be disappointed.

http://www.3rdpowers.com/index_store.html

I believe the 3rdPowers tools are very useful and valuable, and I'm thankful for them. Regardless, LW needs a native weight-painting toolset in Layout, because LW relies on weight maps for native CA workflows. It is ridiculous that LW customers are required to spend additional money on a third-party tool, to obtain _any_ weight-painting in Layout.

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 05:02 PM
I believe the 3rdPowers tools are very useful and valuable, and I'm thankful for them. Regardless, LW needs a native weight-painting toolset in Layout, because LW relies on weight maps for native CA workflows. It is ridiculous that LW customers are required to spend additional money on a third-party tool, to obtain _any_ weight-painting in Layout.

I agree completely

gamedesign1
02-03-2017, 05:26 PM
I have just used BT_MirrorHierarchy and the Heading limits of the new bones are backwards. Is this something that anyone else has experienced?
its just three simple bones for a leg. So now the knee on the bones that the tool created are now bending in the wrong direction.

bobakabob
02-03-2017, 05:51 PM
@RebelHill Thanks for the info on what RHiggit can do for splines in Lightwave. It looks great. Still, it would be nice to have the immediacy of Maya autotangents (which I believe started out as an external Mel script). They have a well coded 'in - out'

Some fair points here about weight painting. It's great 3rd Powers have created an intuitive, quality plugin, especially good for fixing deformation issues but it is strange after all this time a native solution hasn't been developed. Situations where you're switching between Modeler and Layout to fine tune weights is no fun when you're second guessing how they'll turn out.

On the other hand, the fact you often don't need weights at all in Layout is certainly a plus. Hold bones or targeted weight maps made quickly in Modeller usually work fine in many situations. The new Genoma biped 2 rig has built in hold bones in the torso - genius in its simplicity.

Bottom line is you need reserves of patience in both LW and Maya when rigging. Despite sophisticated options for skin binding in the latter, it can still take hours of work to get it right.

Yes, Undo in LW doesn't compare to Maya and after all these years I still find this facility in the Graph Editor erratic. However, provided you're careful with workflow and backups you can work pretty quickly in Layout and Undo will suffice for most missteps in posing characters.

cyclopse
02-03-2017, 05:59 PM
I believe the 3rdPowers tools are very useful and valuable, and I'm thankful for them. Regardless, LW needs a native weight-painting toolset in Layout, because LW relies on weight maps for native CA workflows. It is ridiculous that LW customers are required to spend additional money on a third-party tool, to obtain _any_ weight-painting in Layout.

Agreed. The problem (as I see it) is that LW has been around so long that it's built like a house of cards that they just keep piling more on top of. Seeing as they've taken a 2-year break in releasing a new version, I'm hoping it's completely reworked. It seems like there's very little you actually DO in LW anymore. Everything is just a plugin that's included (and that doesn't make it native). For instance, morph mixer, Genoma, Nevron, Bullet, etc.. etc.. etc....

Maya (people may not remember this) was not the first product in the line. It wasn't Autodesk that developed it (it was bought by them). It was Alias | Wavefront (I learned on Wavefront). Maya was a complete rework for the same reason (having to use a bunch of separate programs became too glitchy and burdensom), and they even moved away from the Wavefront interface, and made it more like Alias (which was for industrial design).

On the bones... it's the same issue. They're still (essentially) what we would jokingly call "magnet sticks" in the 90s and early 2000s. Yes, they have a kind of hacked in weight-mapping. But c'mon... we've been able to paint weight maps in Maya since the early 2000s. When it comes to Lightwave, Newtek should rename that division OldTek. The only viable way to use bones in LW is using Genoma (yet another plugin that is included and stacked on... but not native code).

I'm seriously hoping that the long delay before a release of a new version of LW means they're overhauling the whole thing. It was my favorite tool (before Maya came out). It has a lot of potential. The learning curve is much shallower than Maya. But it seems like getting anything to work isn't about learning a tool... it's about learning some sort of workaround.

leandropedrouzo
02-04-2017, 12:16 AM
Is this WYSIWYG enough?


I was talking about corrective morph. I hate blindly making them in modeler.

Surrealist.
02-04-2017, 02:25 AM
On the other hand, the fact you often don't need weights at all in Layout is certainly a plus. Hold bones or targeted weight maps made quickly in Modeller usually work fine in many situations. The new Genoma biped 2 rig has built in hold bones in the torso - genius in its simplicity.

This is why when rigging in LightWave over the years I eventually listened to Larry who was always saying just use hold bones. So for me if I am going to rig in LW that is how I do it.

I have also found that weight painting is indeed an art in itself. I have barely scraped the surface, but you can start to really get specific effects, subtle effects that would take a lot longer to accomplish any other way. The brush fall off, view port performance of Maya painting is so far superior to even Blender. So it is not even just being able to paint weights, it is using a weight painting tool that is robust and fluent. Like many things in Blender, it falls short of reaching the mark. As an aside, people go on and on about Blender's lack of compliance to industry standards regarding interface and so on. And I understand for some people that this is an issue. Or appears to be an issue. Whatever.

But I have been saying for years, it has nothing to do with this. From my personal experience and plain logic observation, it has only to do with the quality of the tool set. What would keep an animation studio from using Blender over Maya for example is not right click and a funky interface, it is the fact that wieght painting is inferior. That the animation tools, while nice, don't compare. It is because dynamics for cloth, while decent, can not hold a candle to Maya nDynamics. And the list goes on and on and on.

Zbrush is a great example because it is a horrible interface. It is not a comparison to Blender interface as much as it is a statement of the fact that people will fall over themselves to get at a robust and powerful tool set. It is all about the tools. So the time invested in something as quirky as Zbrush, pays off 100 fold.

Now back to LightWave. The next release is going to set the stage, as Rob points out, "for the next 20 years of Lightwave".

The feature set as promoted - face value untested - will offer something that no other tool has currently. A modern render solution with a powerful state of-the-art geometry engine sporting astounding performance.

There are a lot of people - and studios - who will fall over themselves to get at that. Just as it is. No promises, no investment in LW future. No "win back our loyalty". Just plain and simple features that people will want in their pipeline. My opinion of course.

Now with that in place, if they can then start to add painting in the view port, maybe even some vertex animation, new rigging tools and all the rest of it, LightWave has a bright future.

samurai_x
02-04-2017, 02:29 AM
There are some clever tools in Modo that I'd like to see in lw.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB-AJ4ZmCHM

Joint placement tools, snapping, weightmap containers, layering order of operations, etc
This is only possible with a unified app.

erikals
02-04-2017, 03:08 AM
> sort out footsliding
for clamp / hold keys also see this thread (scripts)

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?122175-Switching-between-stepped-and-tcb

and of course, the already mentioned plugin > RH Animation ToolBox


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdU9SYS7_U

VermilionCat
02-04-2017, 03:24 AM
RebelHill, can I ask you a question about your RPR (Record Pivot Rotation)? How is it different from the LightWave one? Often when using the LightWave version the rotation moves and doesn't reset it to zero where it is.
Just interested :)

I also have experienced this occasionally and LW native one (+P) seems busted somewhat or I don't know the limitation of the tool.

Spinland
02-04-2017, 04:04 AM
I was talking about corrective morph. I hate blindly making them in modeler.

I'm probably going to incite another rant about native versus buying plugins, but Cage Deformer makes the need for corrective morphs pretty much evaporate.

135883

RebelHill
02-04-2017, 06:10 AM
This is kind of my point though. I know nothing can be perfect, but positioning bones and aligning them surely shouldn't require so many different button clicks and different tools and editing modes.

I really dot know what a these clicks and editing modes you're referring to are. Just point a bone (or other item) in the alignment you want it (which can be done in different ways with different tools, but doesnt specifically require one tool or the other) ad pivot record it... done.


your RPR (Record Pivot Rotation)? How is it different from the LightWave one?

Nothing too exciting, primarily it allows pivot recording of multiple items at once, rather than one at a time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iJ3QHQmkYA

TheLexx
02-04-2017, 08:03 AM
I believe the 3rdPowers tools are very useful and valuable, and I'm thankful for them. Regardless, LW needs a native weight-painting toolset in Layout, because LW relies on weight maps for native CA workflows. It is ridiculous that LW customers are required to spend additional money on a third-party tool, to obtain _any_ weight-painting in Layout.Jwiede, I came across your incisive and interesting comments elsewhere regarding the Cactus Dan plugins for Cinema 4D, but surely 4D customers have had to pay extra for CA tools and all sorts of other weird and wonderful plugins ? Now that poor Cactus Dan is no longer with us, is it fair to say those 4D customers are now desperate to pay extra for CA tools, so LW should get a pass too ?

jwiede
02-04-2017, 11:38 PM
Jwiede, I came across your incisive and interesting comments elsewhere regarding the Cactus Dan plugins for Cinema 4D, but surely 4D customers have had to pay extra for CA tools and all sorts of other weird and wonderful plugins ? Now that poor Cactus Dan is no longer with us, is it fair to say those 4D customers are now desperate to pay extra for CA tools, so LW should get a pass too ?

They are completely different situations: The Cactus Dan tools remained popular because their workflow was so similar to that of Maya's CA tools (MAXON's native CA tools differ in their workflow), and that made interoperability between the CD CA tools, CD FBX, and Maya/MB a bit easier. The C4D native CA tools are generally capable of interoperability with Maya/MB, though, the process just isn't as flexible/efficient as doing so with CD CA tools and CD FBX importer. LW Layout has no native weight-painting support at all. Unlike the LW Layout situation where the functionality is absent, in C4D the functionality exists, but isn't as flexible/efficient.

Also, Cactus Dan only just passed away late last year (2016). I had no expectation MAXON should have already delivered enhanced CA capabilities (I only asked if they had any future plans). LW Layout has needed but hasn't has a weight-painting solution for well over a decade. This has been a common, long-standing request yet Newtek/LW3DG have yet to provide any solution. That also makes the C4D situation different (IMO, anyway).

Due to the combination of the above, no, I don't believe LW3DG/LW should get a "pass". I'm not giving MAXON/C4D a "pass" either, really, I just acknowledge they've barely had time to notice the issue (unlike LW3DG/LW).

bobakabob
02-05-2017, 01:39 AM
They are completely different situations: The Cactus Dan tools remained popular because their workflow was so similar to that of Maya's CA tools (MAXON's native CA tools differ in their workflow), and that made interoperability between the CD CA tools, CD FBX, and Maya/MB a bit easier. The C4D native CA tools are generally capable of interoperability with Maya/MB, though, the process just isn't as flexible/efficient as doing so with CD CA tools and CD FBX importer. LW Layout has no native weight-painting support at all. Unlike the LW Layout situation where the functionality is absent, in C4D the functionality exists, but isn't as flexible/efficient.

Also, Cactus Dan only just passed away late last year (2016). I had no expectation MAXON should have already delivered enhanced CA capabilities (I only asked if they had any future plans). LW Layout has needed but hasn't has a weight-painting solution for well over a decade. This has been a common, long-standing request yet Newtek/LW3DG have yet to provide any solution. That also makes the C4D situation different (IMO, anyway).

Due to the combination of the above, no, I don't believe LW3DG/LW should get a "pass". I'm not giving MAXON/C4D a "pass" either, really, I just acknowledge they've barely had time to notice the issue (unlike LW3DG/LW).

Are C4D rigs reliant on weights to work? You might be comparing apples with oranges.

I just rigged a character in 30 minutes using the Genoma biped. It doesn't need weights at all and deformations are looking good so far. Not always the case, of course, but this can greatly speed up production.

There is the issue of corrective deformation. Along with others I've continued to request this feature until investing in the 3rd Powers plugins (now part of a LW deal) which hardly broke the bank. Larry Schultz advocated hold bones as opposed to weights which would usually produce sound results if you knew what you were doing.

Comparisons with C4D are interesting but talking it up as an alternative to LW is unfair as there's such a huge difference in running costs.

samurai_x
02-05-2017, 02:16 AM
A lightwave rigged character with no/zero weightmaps? That's impossible.
There would be some parts of the mesh that will be pulled even with hold bones in place.
I count atleast 10 weightmaps needed + the fingers so thats atleast 20 weightmaps.
20 weightmaps is similar to how basic weightmaps are needed in maya, max, modo. And people do use hold bones in other appz.

bobakabob
02-05-2017, 03:40 AM
A lightwave rigged character with no/zero weightmaps? That's impossible.
There would be some parts of the mesh that will be pulled even with hold bones in place.
I count atleast 10 weightmaps needed + the fingers so thats atleast 20 weightmaps.
20 weightmaps is similar to how basic weightmaps are needed in maya, max, modo. And people do use hold bones in other appz.

My point is, LW is not necessarily so weight dependent. I can spend hours in Maya painting weights. Larry Schultz used as few weightmaps as possible in his LW tutorials and saw this as an advantage. It depends on the character, your purpose and what precisely you are animating, of course. You don't necessarily need so many weights in LW especially if using hold bones. Weights can be overdone. If the rest position of your mesh is spread out enough this usually allays problems. In RHiggit tuts, simple limb torso and head weights are advised as starting points (which I usually do).

I'll test out the mesh I mentioned further and upload images if I have time, but am presently animating a walk cycle of an astronaut character without weights using Genoma 2 and so far no stetching issues. I'll apply weights on the fly if issues start arising e.g. With fingers. That's still not going to be too time consuming in Modeller.

Btw Check out Lino's video of rigging in Biped 2 - he checks out deformations and uses weights only when needed e.g on the ears which are overly long and affected by the arms.

samurai_x
02-05-2017, 04:03 AM
Larry Schultz used as few weightmaps as possible in his tutorials and saw this as an advantage. It depends on the character, your purpose and what precisely you are animating, of course. You don't necessarily need so many weights, especially if using hold bones. If the rest position of your mesh is spread out enough this usually allays problems. In RHiggit tuts, simple limb torso and head weights are advised as starting points (which I usually do).

I'll test out the mesh I mentioned further and upload images if I have time, but am presently animating a walk cycle of an astronaut character without weights using Genoma 2 and so far no stetching issues. I'll apply weights on the fly if issues start arising e.g. With fingers. That's still not too time consuming in Modeller.

Btw Check out Lino's video of rigging in Biped 2 - he uses weights only when needed e.g on the ears.

Yes I know Larrys methods and if you count them its around 20 including the fingers.

Basic character for rhiggit - Head, neck, torso, hips, Left leg, Right leg, Left foot, Right foot, arms, hands, eyes, 10 fingers. Count the toes if the character has toes then its more.

Its the same count of basic weightmaps in other appz.
Its better to use the vertex values to assign basic weights in maya or max. Paint weights for finetuning only.

I don't really see how people can say they're getting good deformations in lightwave without using weightmaps for biped characters. Not using weightmaps ends with rubbery deformations.

Spinland
02-05-2017, 05:30 AM
Yeah, I'm a wee bit baffled by any "no weight maps" suggestion, myself. At a bare minimum I find necessary:

• head
• left and right eyes
• arms
• hands
• left and right legs
• fingers/digits/tail/wings/ears/et cetera when a character has them

Hold bones are a definite must for me but, even with my current workflow being heavily reliant on Cage Deformer for good deformations, I consider well-adjusted weight maps a must. The new 3rd Powers plugin that lets me paint them in Layout is pure gold because even I, Pollyanna Fanboi that I am, find having to adjust weights in Modeler a pain. ;D

bobakabob
02-05-2017, 05:43 AM
Here's a character I'm working on with no weights at all. I could do with some digit weight maps, which wouldn't take too much time in Modeler but there's no stretching and deformations don't seem too bad at this stage

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/71/186041479_44c55dc03e_b.jpg

Here's the character "in flight"... limbs are kicking about in the animation and the jacket is morphed to give illusion of wind. Rigged with RHiggit and a few hold bones. Again, no weights...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/1/186006118_9180a52c50_b.jpg

A better view of digits...

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/273/31458716881_7ba19b650b_h.jpg

I'm not saying weights aren't needed in Lightwave. They are of course essential in many cases. In the above character I'll probably add weights at least for the digits. However, it's interesting to see what you can get away with especially when you're up against deadlines.

Spinland
02-05-2017, 05:57 AM
Interesting approach, thanks for sharing that! Okay, so another data point for the statistical population known as "YMMV." :beerchug:

bobakabob
02-05-2017, 06:09 AM
Interesting approach, thanks for sharing that! Okay, so another data point for the statistical population known as "YMMV." :beerchug:

Spinland, I usually go for the basic approach you outlined. Overly complex weights aren't always needed. There are so many different scenarios. I just rigged a flea model and the legs definitely needed weights, but I got away with 8 in total - limbs, body, head.

In Messiah which I tried briefly years ago, weights weren't needed but deformations were beautiful. In Maya, weights are absolutely essential.

Spinland
02-05-2017, 06:12 AM
...overly complex weights aren't always needed.

In general I do strive to avoid really complex maps, myself. For the most part tweaking for me involves little more than getting the seams attenuated enough for smooth deformations. It's that subtle touch-and-go stuff that was such a pain in Modeler and that has become so much easier thanks to 3rd Powers.

bobakabob
02-05-2017, 06:13 AM
In general I do strive to avoid really complex maps, myself. For the most part tweaking for me involves little more than getting the seams attenuated enough for smooth deformations. It's that subtle touch-and-go stuff that was such a pain in Modeler and that has become so much easier thanks to 3rd Powers.

Agreed, the 3rd Powers Weights tool is fantastic if you need to do a precise job.

gamedesign1
02-05-2017, 02:04 PM
While we are talking about bones can someone help me with a problem I am having with keeping a ankle bone fixed to a null. I have setup the IK and have set the ankle null to be its goal. But the bone always seems to push through the null when the legs initially bend. This guy explains the problem here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQRBz13qrA
But I am wondering if there is a proper way of fixing this issue without having to use this rotation workaround.

Kevbarnes
02-05-2017, 04:29 PM
This guy explains the problem here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQRBz13qrA
But I am wondering if there is a proper way of fixing this issue without having to use this rotation workaround.

This looks like, not having enough 'pre-bend' in the IK chain. Not so much an issue but more a fact that the IK solver needs to know which direction to go in.
There is an alternative to LW-IK, by using a plug-in called Plug_IK - this was favored by RebillHill at one time but is not used anymore in his character rig system.
It was quite useful as you didn't need any pre-bend.

jwiede
02-05-2017, 05:17 PM
Agreed, the 3rd Powers Weights tool is fantastic if you need to do a precise job.

But that's kind of the point: Why did we have to wait this long for a third-party to solve it, when it's quite clear it's both necessary to CA workflow, and has been doable for quite some time.

LW3DG didn't need to provide something as rich as what 3rdPowers has provided, but they didn't provide _anything_ (despite the need being obvious for many, many years). If we were talking some complex/elaborate feature, I could potentially understand them not doing so, but a basic-but-adequate bitmap-painting toolset is neither complex nor elaborate to implement.

It's these kinds of long-ignored, "very-low-hanging fruit" omissions by Newtek/LW3DG which really aggravate (and eventually, alienate) customers.

gamedesign1
02-05-2017, 06:08 PM
This looks like, not having enough 'pre-bend' in the IK chain. Not so much an issue but more a fact that the IK solver needs to know which direction to go in.
There is an alternative to LW-IK, by using a plug-in called Plug_IK - this was favored by RebillHill at one time but is not used anymore in his character rig system.
It was quite useful as you didn't need any pre-bend.

Thanks for the heads up. Couldn't find any mention of that plugin though.

Vong
02-05-2017, 06:13 PM
It's actually PLG-IK, and it appears that the website containing it went offline back in November.

jeric_synergy
02-05-2017, 08:57 PM
But that's kind of the point: Why did we have to wait this long for a third-party to solve it, when it's quite clear it's both necessary to CA workflow, and has been doable for quite some time.
::SNIP::
It's these kinds of long-ignored, "very-low-hanging fruit" omissions by Newtek/LW3DG which really aggravate (and eventually, alienate) customers.

I was going to make this point, but I don't really have much of a dog in this fight any more. BUT, at one point I had made and requested lists of LHF (Low Hanging Fruit) that should have been "native-fied" years ago. Zip response.

A lot of 3rdP's plugins work with very old versions of LW, which mean they were POSSIBLE back to that version (some even back to 9.6?). Which means LWG just lacked the desire/will to achieve them. Foolishly, IMO.

Surrealist.
02-06-2017, 01:12 AM
One thing. Just an opinion over the years. I have come to find it completely off topic to talk about how LightWave is not the tool for the job in certain places, (and I am guilty of it in the past yes) when in a thread where someone is asking for support in an area for instance, rigging.

If you are asking for support for rigging and you open a thread, can we get some agreement that within that thread people offer the best ways to rig in LightWave with existing tools and plugins?

And in the opposite situation when someone opens a thread about features he'd like to see in LightWave that we openly and objectively discuss why those features are needed. Rather than "pollute" the thread with lots of reasoning and examples of how you can do that all in LightWave with various workarounds. And how one can just use LightWave after all as it is.

Is it just me? Or do both of these opposite situations turn out to be loosing the point?

I think there is a time and place for everything.

Don't you guys? Am I off base?

When someone asks for feedback on features, such as in this thread, can we focus on that? What is needed and why? Rather than always have the thread change direction into all of the existing workarounds?

Kevbarnes
02-06-2017, 02:50 AM
Thanks for the heads up. Couldn't find any mention of that plugin though.
The other thing you can try is placing a bone at the root of the ik chain and target that to the goal. - I'll post up the plg-ik plug in later this evening.

Spinland
02-06-2017, 04:35 AM
When someone asks for feedback on features, such as in this thread, can we focus on that? What is needed and why? Rather than always have the thread change direction into all of the existing workarounds?

When I worked on a recent political campaign one topic that was pervasive was that "passion opens wallets." It also fires up keyboards. My take is folks who very much have axes to grind are the first ones motivated to respond to a thread that taps a hot button of theirs.

Guilty. I will do my best simply to scroll on by and keep my virtual yap shut. :jam:

allabulle
02-06-2017, 10:44 AM
One thing. Just an opinion over the years. I have come to find it completely off topic to talk about how LightWave is not the tool for the job in certain places, (and I am guilty of it in the past yes) when in a thread where someone is asking for support in an area for instance, rigging.

If you are asking for support for rigging and you open a thread, can we get some agreement that within that thread people offer the best ways to rig in LightWave with existing tools and plugins?

And in the opposite situation when someone opens a thread about features he'd like to see in LightWave that we openly and objectively discuss why those features are needed. Rather than "pollute" the thread with lots of reasoning and examples of how you can do that all in LightWave with various workarounds. And how one can just use LightWave after all as it is.

Is it just me? Or do both of these opposite situations turn out to be loosing the point?

I think there is a time and place for everything.

Don't you guys? Am I off base?

When someone asks for feedback on features, such as in this thread, can we focus on that? What is needed and why? Rather than always have the thread change direction into all of the existing workarounds?

Yup! I completely agree.

Surrealist.
02-06-2017, 12:06 PM
Cool. And Spinland, me too. I have been guilty. Hard to resist. But when I objectively look at these threads, it seems like a mire of misdirected information. Looses focus.

When we are talking support, lets lot loose focus and start talking about other tools and how LightWave sucks at it. Focus. We are talking about LightWave and how to do it well in LightWave not program X.

When we are talking wanted features, lets talk openly about other tools and why and make comparisons and so on. And not get mired down in information which clouds over the need for improvement.

It is a conscious thing. It is something I started doing more and more a while ago to break the habit. (as I said guilty as charged) Just thought I'd bring it up and see what you guys thought about that.

jwiede
02-06-2017, 12:49 PM
Anything which might potentially stifle or otherwise reduce forum activity seems like a horrible idea under the current circumstances.

Spinland
02-06-2017, 01:07 PM
So is flooding threads with more of the same useless noise that derails threads and renders asking some potentially useful questions an exercise in futility.

Surrealist.
02-06-2017, 01:18 PM
Anything which might potentially stifle or otherwise reduce forum activity seems like a horrible idea under the current circumstances.

I have an idea. It was just something to think about. So here is a novel idea. How about just think about it. And then act or don't act. Do as you please. Ignore it. But lets not further derail this thread talking about it. Focus anyone?

jwiede
02-06-2017, 01:19 PM
So is flooding threads with more of the same useless noise that derails threads and renders asking some potentially useful questions an exercise in futility.

Unfortunately, the likelihood that a few folks agreeing with Surrealist's proposal will significantly change the incidence of that occurring is negligible. What it will do is provide yet another excuse for some here to try and silence others based on their holding a dissenting opinion.


I have an idea. It was just something to think about. So here is a novel idea. How about just think about it. And then act or don't act. Do as you please. Ignore it. But lets not further derail this thread talking about it. Focus anyone?

So discussion about it is fine as long as folks are agreeing with it, but the second any dissent occurs, discussion about it suddenly becomes "further derailing the thread"?

You've just highlighted a core problem with such "proposals", thanks.

Spinland
02-06-2017, 01:27 PM
So discussion about it is fine as long as folks are agreeing with it, but the second any dissent occurs, talking about it suddenly becomes "further derailing the thread"?

You've just highlighted a core problem with such "proposals", thanks.

Completely off-base, not remotely an accurate assessment of what he is proposing.

In the spirit of honoring his observation that I'm just contributing more noise I'll leave it at that and move along. Feel free to rant away and denounce this comment, it accomplishes nothing. :jam:

Surrealist.
02-06-2017, 02:12 PM
It is cool though John, I think it is fair to say that. It is ironic. And I do apologize for the unintended and almost unavoidable irony there.

But lets just leave it at that. Point taken. And move on.

Kevbarnes
02-06-2017, 03:47 PM
Thanks for the heads up. Couldn't find any mention of that plugin though.

2D_Ik
135901
Here is an example of 2D Ik leg control
The Ik is restricted to 2 degrees of freedom but pivots in X direction due to targeting rotations.
All bones and Goal have had RPR(Shift-p) operated on them, ie RecordPivotRotations will zero-out rotations.

Begin by creating the Ik-Plane Bone, the Goal-null and the Pole-null.
Then set Targeting of Ik Bone to the Goal-null and Pole setting to Pole-null controller.
Then build the leg bones from there.


PLG_IK (32bit only)
135900
There is also a tutorial videos by RebellHill which details how to use the Plug-in.
check out RebilHill Training
http://rebelhill.net/html/rhr.html

The plug-in may not be used so much now as RebilHill's rigging system uses native Ik only
but it's still a option.

jwiede
02-06-2017, 05:18 PM
Isn't pre-bend strictly a bone-related IK issue?

IIRC, a main point of joints' pole vector was to actually solve that issue (as well as generally improve IK solution stability), compared to pre-bend, etc. workarounds. Or am I misremembering?

RebelHill
02-06-2017, 05:35 PM
Yeah... dont bother with plg-ik anymore... its pretty much pointless these days.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2VYPnVIW0Y

jwiede
02-06-2017, 06:12 PM
Yeah... dont bother with plg-ik anymore... its pretty much pointless these days.

I'd so much rather LW3DG just fix joints ("reverse" them, you know what I mean), rather than this whole "going back to bones" folly.

bazsa73
02-07-2017, 03:59 AM
I'd so much rather LW3DG just fix joints ("reverse" them, you know what I mean), rather than this whole "going back to bones" folly.

Quite.

RebelHill
02-07-2017, 05:35 AM
I'd so much rather LW3DG just fix joints ("reverse" them, you know what I mean), rather than this whole "going back to bones" folly.

Not sure what that has to do with IK.

Kryslin
02-07-2017, 11:23 AM
Re : 3rd powers Weight Paint
My understanding is that they borrowed code from modeler to write to weight maps, because Layout doesn't have the code to do that; Read them, yes. Write to them and create them, no. If such was not part of the SDK for Layout, then it's not surprising that Newtek /LW3DG couldn't implement a native, weight painting solution in Layout. And how many other plugins would get broken, native ones, if this was implemented in the SDK?

As to what makes me think the whole tool, neat and useful as it is, is tacked on top and hacking it's way in to do the job? There was a much earlier version that I played around with; It was simply, one big workaround lightwave's SDK, from being able to write to weight maps, to hijacking OpenGL to display it's own mesh. Mr Hurley mentioned being able to hijack OpenGL from Lightwave to use different shaders for his Remodeller plugin, so I suspect it's an old, old trick, still usable because the mesh engine for Lightwave is ancient (or, at least, hasn't changed much since 9.6).

However, LW Next understands (according to the blog) vertices, and should be able to read / write / modify vertex information directly (instead of through transformations, deformers, etc) at the SDK level . Hopefully, this includes thing like vertex maps (weights, morphs, color), making a native version of weight painting tools in Lightwave a possibility in the next version cycle.

erikals
02-07-2017, 12:05 PM
my understanding is that the SDK only allowed for this just recently, and that LWG coders had more important things to code.
if correct, this means that we at least will be seeing cooler upcoming plugins, and with LW2017, if the SDK allows for it, plugin coders such as 3rd Powers will be able to make great modeler tools in Layout.

the downside, is that they will cost cash, while being free in Blender.
but such are transformations...

Ztreem
02-07-2017, 12:57 PM
my understanding is that the SDK only allowed for this just recently, and that LWG coders had more important things to code.
if correct, this means that we at least will be seeing cooler upcoming plugins, and with LW2017, if the SDK allows for it, plugin coders such as 3rd Powers will be able to make great modeler tools in Layout.

the downside, is that they will cost cash, while being free in Blender.
but such are transformations...

Strange then that vertex paint has been able to create and paint weights in layout since lw8.

erikals
02-07-2017, 01:18 PM
but i don't think it was particularly fast.
point tweaking is possible since lw8 as well, though not very good.
not impossible that these plugins were more of a hack. (guessing)

jwiede
02-07-2017, 03:36 PM
Not sure what that has to do with IK.

Well, it does in the sense that bones need a somewhat-arbitrary amount of pre-bend for stable IK, whereas joints with pole vectors offer a better, more reliable IK workflow. This IK discussion is just another example highlighting that bones are NOT "as good as joints".

IMO, that raises a legitimate question why LW3DG is clearly favoring bone-based tools and workflows over joint-based tools and workflows?

jwiede
02-07-2017, 04:08 PM
but i don't think it was particularly fast.

Regardless, if you're suggesting only recent LWSDK changes enabled weight-painting, the prior existence of Layout weight-painting clearly proves that isn't the case (and it isn't). If you wish to continue asserting some recent LWSDK change enabled weight-painting in Layout, then please cite or clearly describe which specific LWSDK change did so -- otherwise it's just empty supposition.

RebelHill
02-07-2017, 05:23 PM
bones need a somewhat-arbitrary amount of pre-bend for stable IK, whereas joints with pole vectors offer a better, more reliable IK workflow.

Nope... not true. IK is IK is IK... makes no difference if the items in that chain are bones, joints, cameras, or anything else.

Ztreem
02-07-2017, 05:44 PM
but i don't think it was particularly fast.
point tweaking is possible since lw8 as well, though not very good.
not impossible that these plugins were more of a hack. (guessing)

They made it possible for layout to utilize modeler plugins in LW8. I think Vertex paint is as fast in layout as in modeler (can't say for sure, long time since I used it).
Good or bad is more related to the design of the tools than LW's ability to actually manipulate points and weight-maps.

jwiede
02-07-2017, 07:54 PM
Nope... not true. IK is IK is IK... makes no difference if the items in that chain are bones, joints, cameras, or anything else.

Are you saying that neither pre-bend (bones) nor pole vector (joints) impact the stability*/desirability of IK results in LW for, say, a knee-type articulation?

They both certainly appear to have (similar) stabilizing affects on LW IK results here towards replicating a knee-type articulation. Obviously the IK itself gives a result fine whether they're present or not, but in their absence the IK result domain definitely appears to include more "undesirable" ("inaccurate w.r.t. replication of a knee-type articulation") results.

*: To be clear, I don't mean "stability" in sense of code defect, I mean stability in sense of stabilization of results towards intended use.

gamedesign1
02-07-2017, 09:52 PM
Nope... not true. IK is IK is IK... makes no difference if the items in that chain are bones, joints, cameras, or anything else.

Thanks RH for commenting I really appreciate it. Do you know a solution to this problem then, where a bone moves beyond it Goal causing a foot to push through the floor even when not pushing on a rotation limitation? Just like the problem shown in the link i posted.

RebelHill
02-08-2017, 06:22 AM
Are you saying that neither pre-bend (bones) nor pole vector (joints) impact the stability*/desirability of IK results in LW for, say, a knee-type articulation?

No, Im saying that there's no difference in the IK if you use bones or joints. Both bones and joints require prebend, ad pole vector setup ca be used with either (as well as any other item type). Furthermore... prebend really has very little to do with "stability" of the IK solution, its simply LWs way of knowing the preferred direction of the bend, whilst pole vector control really has nothing to do with IK at all, its simply "target for the bank channel", which can be used in any number of situations, and within an IK setup provides one possible method of controling the IK plane orientation.


Thanks RH for commenting I really appreciate it. Do you know a solution to this problem then, where a bone moves beyond it Goal causing a foot to push through the floor even when not pushing on a rotation limitation? Just like the problem shown in the link i posted.

See the video I posted previous.

stiff paper
02-08-2017, 10:35 AM
I especially like the way you can have custom shapes on controllers in Maya, using curves. I might not have looked hard enough, but so far I've only found there's primitives in LW. Custom shapes for eyes, hands, fingers, feet, hips.. Would be quite helpful.
Yes, yes. This is a very late reply. I know.

Draw yourself a curve in Modeler -whatever shape you need- then load it into Layout. Bring up its Object Properties and do this:
Object Properties > Add Custom Object > Show Curve

Done.

William Vaughan has a free download on his site of "SpiderBait Rig":
http://pushingpoints.com/v2/2011/07/15/spiderbait-rig/
It was rigged by Kurt Smith and he uses a few custom curve controls exactly like you're asking about, so you can check out his setup.

bobakabob
02-08-2017, 01:35 PM
Isn't pre-bend strictly a bone-related IK issue?

IIRC, a main point of joints' pole vector was to actually solve that issue (as well as generally improve IK solution stability), compared to pre-bend, etc. workarounds. Or am I misremembering?

Pre bending joints (connected with bones) to avoid unpredictable IK when rigging is a convention in Maya also. This is no weakness in Lightwave's system if that's what you were suggesting. Btw have you tried rigging and animating in Lightwave lately? The auto rig RHiggit and Genoma 2 biped are extremely powerful with switchable IK / FK and compare with rigging systems available for Maya such as Advanced Skeleton.

bazsa73
02-08-2017, 02:32 PM
Pre bending joints (connected with bones) to avoid unpredictable IK when rigging is a convention in Maya also. This is no weakness in Lightwave's system if that's what you were suggesting. Btw have you tried rigging and animating in Lightwave lately? The auto rig RHiggit and Genoma 2 biped are extremely powerful with switchable IK / FK and compare with rigging systems available for Maya such as Advanced Skeleton.
Pre bending in my opinion is a more natural way of rigging than making the rig totally straight. Some sources say that even models can be slightly pre bent priori to rigging.

jwiede
02-08-2017, 02:47 PM
Pre bending in my opinion is a more natural way of rigging than making the rig totally straight. Some sources say that even models can be slightly pre bent priori to rigging.

Well, it all depends on how much control the rigger has over the source mesh being rigged. In the cases where users are rigging prepared content (like Daz figures), you wind up a bit limited in amount of pre-bend you can add, because the figures and their default poses are essentially fixed w.r.t. how they're delivered. You can still often manage a small amount without introducing too much distortion, but sometimes you cannot, and those can be problematic (where rigging prebent alters deformation in an undesirable manner).

jwiede
02-08-2017, 02:55 PM
No, Im saying that there's no difference in the IK if you use bones or joints. Both bones and joints require prebend, ad pole vector setup ca be used with either (as well as any other item type). Furthermore... prebend really has very little to do with "stability" of the IK solution, its simply LWs way of knowing the preferred direction of the bend, whilst pole vector control really has nothing to do with IK at all, its simply "target for the bank channel", which can be used in any number of situations, and within an IK setup provides one possible method of controling the IK plane orientation.

Okay, that's interesting. I could swear the pole vector was also used by IK to hint the direction of bend (or rather, the opposite direction, as in "pole forward, swing back") in a hinge-type articulation, not just the plane of the articulation -- it's entirely possible I'm thinking of how it works in another pkg, though. It's been some time since I worked with LW IK.

RebelHill
02-08-2017, 03:14 PM
Well, it all depends on how much control the rigger has over the source mesh being rigged. In the cases where users are rigging prepared content (like Daz figures), you wind up a bit limited in amount of pre-bend you can add, because the figures and their default poses are essentially fixed w.r.t. how they're delivered. You can still often manage a small amount without introducing too much distortion, but sometimes you cannot, and those can be problematic (where rigging prebent alters deformation in an undesirable manner).

Immaterial, because in LW (as in some other apps, though not others), you can choose the reference frame that the IK works from. As such you can bind in one pose (perfect straight), and set another, on another frame for the IK to reference. Whilst it might be handy to have your mesh base pose the same as your control setup base pose, there's no reason they cant be different without problems.


Okay, that's interesting. I could swear the pole vector was also used by IK to hint the direction of bend (or rather, the opposite direction, as in "pole forward, swing back") in a hinge-type articulation, not just the plane of the articulation -- it's entirely possible I'm thinking of how it works in another pkg, though. It's been some time since I worked with LW IK.

Nope... and if you have seen it anywhere, its been badly mislabelled. A pole vector, also known as an up vector is always an alignment reference (or more simply, "target") item. Make a sphere, add a null, set that sheres pole item as the null... hey presto the "north pole" (or the "up") points at that null... hence the name.

gamedesign1
02-09-2017, 12:33 PM
Immaterial, because in LW (as in some other apps, though not others), you can choose the reference frame that the IK works from. As such you can bind in one pose (perfect straight), and set another, on another frame for the IK to reference. Whilst it might be handy to have your mesh base pose the same as your control setup base pose, there's no reason they cant be different without problems.


That is a great idea, I had never thought of having an IK setup frame so I can add enough prebend even with straight posed models.

jeric_synergy
02-09-2017, 12:56 PM
That is a great idea, I had never thought of having an IK setup frame so I can add enough prebend even with straight posed models.

I rarely rig, so where is that frame designated? Or is it by default Frame zero?

hypersuperduper
02-09-2017, 01:07 PM
It would be wherever you want it to be. zero is probably good. With a negative frame number for the bind pose to keep it out of the way.

jeric_synergy
02-09-2017, 02:55 PM
It would be wherever you want it to be. zero is probably good. With a negative frame number for the bind pose to keep it out of the way.

I can't get the number to UNGHOST!!!11!

hypersuperduper
02-09-2017, 03:16 PM
Huh?

jeric_synergy
02-09-2017, 04:26 PM
Never mind, I see it..... doh!

gamedesign1
02-09-2017, 05:37 PM
Am I missing something? I have just made a test rig of a leg with an ankle goal. I have set it up as straight to see if its possible to solve the issue. I have then moved the top bone down to bend the leg on frame -1. And then I have setup to calculate based on frame -1. It doesn't seem to make any difference, the ankle still pushes through the ankle goal.
Any pointers would be great thanks :)

hypersuperduper
02-10-2017, 02:11 AM
make sure that you set the "Base on frame.." to -1 in the IK options for all the bones in the chain.

Or...You could set it to base on current time then you can pick which way the knee bends on the fly!

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 03:11 AM
Yeah I've done that, doesn't make a difference. I must be missing something. What do you mean you choose which way it bends on the fly? What does that entail?

hypersuperduper
02-10-2017, 03:39 AM
I mean you can change the calf rotation during an animation to make the knee bend right or wrong, not something that you would want to do normally, but a silly possibility.

Are you sure you are setting the base on frame for EVERY bone in the chain? Not just the bone that has the IK goal assigned?

When you say moved the top bone down you mean rotated it right? The important thing is that you pre-bend the knee and make sure You base the IK on that frame.

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 03:54 AM
Ah ok I was moving the bone down to cause the knee to bend. I didn't realize you meant rotate it. That's the solution the guy does in the video i linked to, but now with the addition of using a different frame for IK setup. Thanks :)

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 12:25 PM
It still seams like a bodge way of correcting a problem. And by the way I am not saying that its any worse than any other software. I just find it strange that it won't calculate correctly to allow the bone to stay stuck to a goal. I'm not saying I completely understand the way the algorithm works for IK, but it just seems odd that even after all this time this problem isn't handled better somehow.

RebelHill
02-10-2017, 12:30 PM
for the SECOND time... watch the video I posted previously.

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 12:48 PM
for the SECOND time... watch the video I posted previously.

Hi RH, I'm sure I watched all of that video and didn't see a way of correcting the problem, without having to add lots of pre-bend. I will watch again now.

RebelHill
02-10-2017, 12:53 PM
Many things ca contribute to problems in getting correctly resoled IK... Its not about looking for 1 thing, its about making sure that you're following ALL of the practices properly.

Or... you could just use this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfzwUiFb1SI

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 02:23 PM
Many things ca contribute to problems in getting correctly resoled IK... Its not about looking for 1 thing, its about making sure that you're following ALL of the practices properly.

Or... you could just use this...



I understand what you are saying I just find it frustrating sometimes. I personally don't want to use the Make IK Chain, because it doesn't really teach me anything. I have watched the video you uploaded "RH Rigging - Tools -10 Inverse Kinematics", but I cannot see which bit of that has anything to do with a bone passing through its goal. I know you find it frustrating that I don't understand how to correct this problem, hence the comment "for the SECOND time" haha :)
I was not ignoring you, I just wasn't finding the solution that makes sense to me. I am someone who needs to know specifics about why something is happening for me to then understand how to fix something. A lot of the time this way of thinking doesn't help me, but it's just how my mind works. To me if I setup a bone rig that needs to have a bone always stick to a Goal object then I find it really frustrating when it doesn't. In my head, right or wrong, I visualize that the bones need to rotate in a way to create the shortest distance between that specific bone and its Goal. But clearly with this issue they are not rotated to create the shortest distance. There is obviously a reason why at certain points the shortest distance is not able to be calculated and this is where my mind can't get passed.
Does that make sense?

RebelHill
02-10-2017, 03:42 PM
If there were one thing, then obviously itd be easy to tell u that one thing... but as ought be obvious from the video, there are many things going on in the IK chain which can alter its effects and outcomes... most common for erroneous outcomes are either violating planarity, non termination, misaligned axes, attempting to use multiple axes, incorrect or insufficient bending in the initial setup, stiffness settings, cyclic dependencies, and doubled over constraints interfering with operation within the chain or other constraints messing with the evaluation order.

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 03:52 PM
If there were one thing, then obviously itd be easy to tell u that one thing... but as ought be obvious from the video, there are many things going on in the IK chain which can alter its effects and outcomes... most common for erroneous outcomes are either violating planarity, non termination, misaligned axes, attempting to use multiple axes, incorrect or insufficient bending in the initial setup, stiffness settings, cyclic dependencies, and doubled over constraints interfering with operation within the chain or other constraints messing with the evaluation order.

Yeah I understand

hypersuperduper
02-10-2017, 03:56 PM
You may want to post the scene you are having trouble with. As RH stated there are lots of things that need to be set up right for IK to work correctly, and having a strict bind pose and prebend pose in the timeline complicates things a little because you need to make sure that the IK chain is set to calculate from the prebend frame and not the bind pose.

It could be that one of your bones in the chain has rotation that isn't along the rotation plane.

You might want to use RH tools make bone chain and compare the result to your own. It doesn't do anything magic, you can see what is produces and then duplicate by hand.

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 05:58 PM
You may want to post the scene you are having trouble with. As RH stated there are lots of things that need to be set up right for IK to work correctly, and having a strict bind pose and prebend pose in the timeline complicates things a little because you need to make sure that the IK chain is set to calculate from the prebend frame and not the bind pose.

It could be that one of your bones in the chain has rotation that isn't along the rotation plane.

You might want to use RH tools make bone chain and compare the result to your own. It doesn't do anything magic, you can see what is produces and then duplicate by hand.

Good idea :)
Here is my test scene. 135960
If you go to frame 1 you will notice the heel pushes down and then raises up again on frame 2.

RebelHill
02-10-2017, 06:17 PM
What a surprise... your IK isnt planar, you're using multiple channels with IK, etc...

This si precisely why I told you to watch the video multiple times, and told you twice that correctly behaving IK is the result of following all the rules... because the very clear procedures that explain how to setup IK correctly... youve decided to ignore.

gamedesign1
02-10-2017, 06:40 PM
What a surprise... your IK isnt planar, you're using multiple channels with IK, etc...

This si precisely why I told you to watch the video multiple times, and told you twice that correctly behaving IK is the result of following all the rules... because the very clear procedures that explain how to setup IK correctly... youve decided to ignore.

I will be honest RH, because I don't understand something does not mean I have chosen to ignore you. Having this attitude towards me is very unfair. I am not lazy or arrogant or anything you might want to suggest. I am having difficulty understanding some aspects of rigging. And it would be nice to get help without attitude. I am really glad it all makes perfect sense to you, good for you :)

If this problem is to do with the IK bones not being planar, I have created a new scene where I just have one set of bones in the center of the object which are completely upright and in line which each other. And I still get the bounce on frame 1.
135961

The only thing that corrects it is to have more of a pre-bend, but as previously mentioned by another person in the forum we are not always given models that have a pre-bend modeled into the mesh. So I tried to use the Based on Frame option, which I have now got to work perfectly. Thanks to everyone for your help advice :)

jeric_synergy
02-11-2017, 12:12 AM
And it would be nice to get help without attitude. I am really glad it all makes perfect sense to you, good for you :)

+1.

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 01:30 AM
@gamedesign, why don't you open a separate help thread?

And also I don't have the RH tools. I got an error message opening your file.

My advice with rigging of any kind is to start out very simple.

I would say just for the sake of being scientifically accurate as far as a test case we can all look at, create a scene with no plugins. Just first try and set up an IK chain. It is fairly simple to do.

The main mistake I have seen people make over the years is diving in head first and taking on too much with rigging. If you can't make a simple leg or arm chain that works, then something fundamental is wrong. And it would be very easy to sort out.

So I would say, first before exploring plugins, understand LightWave native tools which do work.

Here are some videos using basic LW tools:

Older videos. But. You get this working and you will have a good foundation to work from.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvNI0S72l1M

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 01:34 AM
And a follow up video on IK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evURhtxch0&t=24s


Once you have learned LW fundamentals, then move over to RH excellent plugins. :)

By the way if you don't have a character you can find lots of free stuff online.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 02:09 AM
I had no trouble opening the second file. it looks ok to me, so whatever is causing the 1 frame bounce is above my paygrade. You can nearly eliminate the bounce by lowering the bones stiffness, to something like 0.2 but that feels intuitively like the wrong solution. here is an updated scene file.

135962

As you can see I have removed the pivot rotations. In general, I don't know If other people agree, but It might be a good idea not to record the pivot rotation (+p) for all of your bones all the time, as you have done on scene 1. It can hide issues such as non zero rotations. I try to avoid using it on joints operated by IK, personally.


I have also added a plane bone (red) at the top of the IK chain. you are going to need that bone if you want to have a pole vector for the knee.

IK in LW forces you to set up the Rotation plane yourself, which other packages do not. That is the single most important thing to grasp about LW IK in my opinion if you compare it to say maya or blender where the rotation plane is built into the solver.

I recommend using RH's tools IK setup, or A genoma 2 rig and picking through them to see what does what.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 02:19 AM
Thanks Surrealist, yeah that is what I am doing at the moment and just using LW native tools and no plugins. I'm not sure why you get an error. It's a 2015.3 file. I will reupload when I can. I have literally got it working great now by adding more prebend to frame -1 and using Based on Frame option.

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 02:53 AM
But it is really a drastic prebend. You should not have to do it that much. The reason I am getting the error then is that you have a RH plugin loaded in your scene and your interface is looking for it. Something that is stored in the file even if not used in the particular scene.

I can not stress enough the importance of taking my advice. (Not to mention RH Advice) Go back to the basics. Learn the basics of rigging. Do the tutorials I have linked. I have seen this time and time again with people. I don't know why it happens. But they jump in head first and seem to ignore suggestions to learn the basics. I can not tell you how many times I have seen this in past years on the forums. With rigging more than anything else, it does not work to try and wing it.

Don't try and re-invent the wheel. One step at a time. Learn from someone who has done it, how to do it. If a step in a tutorial is not working for you, come here and ask questions and get it sorted before moving on.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:27 AM
But it is really a drastic prebend. You should not have to do it that much. The reason I am getting the error then is that you have a RH plugin loaded in your scene and your interface is looking for it. Something that is stored in the file even if not used in the particular scene.

I can not stress enough the importance of taking my advice. (Not to mention RH Advice) Go back to the basics. Learn the basics of rigging. Do the tutorials I have linked. I have seen this time and time again with people. I don't know why it happens. But they jump in head first and seem to ignore suggestions to learn the basics. I can not tell you how many times I have seen this in past years on the forums. With rigging more than anything else, it does not work to try and wing it.

Don't try and re-invent the wheel. One step at a time. Learn from someone who has done it, how to do it. If a step in a tutorial is not working for you, come here and ask questions and get it sorted before moving on.

I personally didn't think creating a simple leg with a goal was jumping in the deep end though. To me thats a basic thing to make. Believe me I am listening to all advice and watching all links. The original issue I mentioned is was it possible to stop the drift without adding lots of prebend when my model doesnt have enough bend in the mesh. And the best solution I have been given is to add the prebend before frame 0 to stop it happening and it works. Nothing else has stopped it.
I made sure the bones were planar and it still happened even with a terminated IK on the bone above the leg using unaffected by descendants.

Obviously when rigging my own models I make sure I have enough bend in the mesh to setup with plenty of prebend which means I don't get any issues.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:33 AM
I had no trouble opening the second file. it looks ok to me, so whatever is causing the 1 frame bounce is above my paygrade. You can nearly eliminate the bounce by lowering the bones stiffness, to something like 0.2 but that feels intuitively like the wrong solution. here is an updated scene file.

135962

As you can see I have removed the pivot rotations. In general, I don't know If other people agree, but It might be a good idea not to record the pivot rotation (+p) for all of your bones all the time, as you have done on scene 1. It can hide issues such as non zero rotations. I try to avoid using it on joints operated by IK, personally.


I have also added a plane bone (red) at the top of the IK chain. you are going to need that bone if you want to have a pole vector for the knee.

IK in LW forces you to set up the Rotation plane yourself, which other packages do not. That is the single most important thing to grasp about LW IK in my opinion if you compare it to say maya or blender where the rotation plane is built into the solver.

I recommend using RH's tools IK setup, or A genoma 2 rig and picking through them to see what does what.

Thanks for taking a look and sending the file. I will take a look as soon as I can :)

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 05:03 AM
I personally didn't think creating a simple leg with a goal was jumping in the deep end though. If you are doing it on your own, it absolutely is.

Don't just watch a link. Sit down, in a fresh scene and recreate what is being shown in the tutorial. If, when you try each step, something is not working, stop. Find out how to fix it. If there is something wrong with IK and you are having to prebend that much, you are missing something basic. But this is typical with rigging. I don't know how to say it any other way. Don't just sit there and try to figure it out yourself. Watch and recreate a tutorial. If any step is not working, stop and ask here. Don't learn rigging by trying to hodge podge each concept one at a time. Learn how to rig each step from a tutorial. And even then you will likely have to do it several times.

Sorry but I don't know why this is with rigging. And you are not the first. People ignore the advice to do tutorials and try to move ahead alone. It happens every time.

It is not like modeling where you can probably get away with 6 different approaches to a mesh and still be OK. Rigging is very exact and precise tech. There is some leeway. But not as much as anything else.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 05:08 AM
I will be honest RH, because I don't understand something does not mean I have chosen to ignore you. Having this attitude towards me is very unfair. I am not lazy or arrogant or anything you might want to suggest.

Maybe not any of those things... but clearly not paying attention. The video shows quite clearly that you need a planar chain, that if you try using multiple channels you get instability, that pre bend alters behaviour, stiffness rate of rotation at a given joint etc... and very clearly shows which exact settings lead to which exact outcomes. If you cant connect the dots between the way its shown you need to set things up, and the ways you have set things up... I dont know what to tell you, mate.


If this problem is to do with the IK bones not being planar

Once again... for clarity... there are MANY things that can affect the stability of a IK chain... planarity, channels used, prebend, stiffness. So you set it up planar and that didnt fix it... guess what, that wasnt the particular thing (or not the SOLE) thing in this instance was it... could it be one of the other things?

Simple process of elimination, not rocket science.


And a follow up video on IK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2evURhtxch0&t=24s

DO NOT follow these instructions... the apply to the OLD IK system, doing things this way will only give you problems in newer versions of LW. This method is obsolete.

jwiede
02-11-2017, 05:58 AM
Once again... for clarity... there are MANY things that can affect the stability of a IK chain... planarity, channels used, prebend, stiffness. So you set it up planar and that didnt fix it... guess what, that wasnt the particular thing (or not the SOLE) thing in this instance was it... could it be one of the other things?

Seems like just about all of problems you've cited can be detected by the app at the moment when IK is assigned. If there's so many things than could be configured incorrectly, and the system makes no effort to warn users about them (or at least confirm they are intentional), that's a poor system design. It sure as heck isn't good UX.

At the very least, displaying to the user an "assessment" of what the IK is solving w.r.t. such issues (based on configuration), indicating whether planar or spatial, whether adequate prebend exists for IK to determine intent, whether joint channels are properly aligned, and so forth, would make it much easier for users to detect whether the IK is solving per their expectations.

I'd actually take it a step further: Just by adding a few checkboxes, channel selectors, etc. the user could express precisely what they want from IK (and believe they've configured properly). At that point the IK can assess and indicate whether any of the actual configuration is incompatible with selected behavior (and even indicate the source of the incompatibility in many cases). That would also allow default values to coincide with most common IK requirements, as well as potentially open the door to presets, etc.

Hmm...thinking about it, is there any reason a third-party couldn't construct an "IK config verifier/reporter" today? It might not be able to verify certain "IK-internal values" (like whether enough prebend is present for the IK to understand the hint, at least without LW3DG help or extensive testing), but most of the rest of the problem conditions should be verifiable. Heck, it could probably even be written in lscript, no C or Python needed.

There's no durable justification to push detecting misconfiguration on the user when the computer can do so more accurately and more reliably.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 06:17 AM
And how exactly would this system understand the intention behind what had been setup?

What we have here... the case of a leg (or similar) is the simplest, most banal IK setup... the things pointed out that serve or hinder that are somewhat case specific. All of the things I mention CAN be violated, because, in truth, they're NOT violations... they're certain inputs which lead to specific outcomes. In the case of the banal limb, they're undesired outcomes, but that wont necessarily be the case in every instance or possible mechanic.

What a user needs to do is to first understand the fundamental properties of the system they are working in... hierarchy, inheritance, rotations, space, alignments, etc, etc... then learn how the different tools (be that IK, or constraints, or nodes, etc) give access to, and ways of directing those elements, and then work through to develop an understanding of how to use that knowledge such that you know your desired outcome, you link that back to the specific control that produces it, and construct sequentially thus.

Thats the level of understanding and intelligence the system you propose would have to posess just to be able to spot when something was wrong... and to not just be throwing up warnings that missed the target, it would need the "cognitive" ability to be able to figure out what the user had tried to do, and what the intention of the setup was, when the specific "checkboxes" that would ordinarily define that setup are missing.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 06:30 AM
Something that would be helpful, is a way for Layout to identify the plane created in a 2bone Ik chain and reorient the bones accordingly.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 06:34 AM
And when it doing that pushes them away from the points where the user has drawn them to be... then what?

The (uninitiated) user will only go... wth, why does it do that, I dont want them there, I want them here... thats what.

Chris S. (Fez)
02-11-2017, 07:09 AM
A) Purchase, watch and rewatch all of RebelHill's educational material for the reasoning behind the rigs. B) Buy and use Rhiggit to create and edit rigs even if it is just for dissection.

A miniscule investment for knowledge and toolsets that save so much time, trial, error, and headache.

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 07:11 AM
Thanks for the heads up I did not realize the tut was obsolete. But there are others. The point being. Have a win first. Do it the way you see it working. Simplify. There are a ton of things to know and understand about rigging. But first, tackle something simple that you can see is working. Duplicate that. Then sit back and enjoy having had a win for a minute. Then go more complex from there. Dig in to a deeper understanding and more theory. Balance is the key in my book. That is how I like to approach things.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 07:23 AM
And when it doing that pushes them away from the points where the user has drawn them to be... then what?

The (uninitiated) user will only go... wth, why does it do that, I dont want them there, I want them here... thats what.

Why would it do that? A two bone chain defines a triangle which is by definition on a single plane. What I would want is a tool that would identify that plane and twist all the bones so the heading or pitch was in line with the plane. Right now unless I am mistaken, there is no easy way to take bones that are for example generated from skelegons at an off angle and twist them correctly. You have to eyeball it.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 07:32 AM
Not so...

The 3 "points" in the chain (lets think of them as hip, knee, ankle) WILL form a plane, yes, because all triangles are planar (for our purposes at least)... but each of those points will have its own local rotation axes, and it is these axes, from one item to the next that need to be oriented planar to one another... it is perfectly possible to set the bones/items of the hierarchy against one another in a way such that the LRAs cannot be aligned planar to one another. Look at the video, where I discuss this, see how I offset the bone positions from one another... clearly NOT a plane, but, because the LRAs remain aligned, and "axial plane" does still exist.

That aside, even if it were not so, and what you suggest could be done reliably... you'd have the issue of the "fold direction" changing. So a user would setup theie bones with the intetion if the knee folding along a certain line, the "fixer" would alter this, causign the knee to now fold off (lets say) back and a bit sideways... and once again, you'd have the user going... wth, why did LW change my bones, I wanted them this way, etc, etc.

Trust me, all you're doing is exchanging one set of problems, and confusion for another, and doing nothing to address the fact that it is the user who needs to ensure they are applying the proper rules if they wish to get the desired outcome.

I quote... "On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 07:49 AM
Yeah sure you move the bones on the x or y and such a tool would be useless, but I sort of went off on a tangent here. I am not looking for some some of magical IK panacea Fixer tool, simply an alignment tool like bone twist that could align to a predefined plane, defined by a triangle. I was looking at the scene that gamedesign1 uploaded, and the legs were either bowlegged or slightly splayed out and the calf bones had a rotation along the pitch. Let's say I decide that the model has knees that are tilted a little outward and is not bowlegged due to the joint being offset. wouldn't it be great if I could simply twist them right so that they only bend along the heading without redrawing them or using the snapless, undo-less bone twist tool.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 07:57 AM
Let's say I decide that the model has knees that are tilted a little outward and is not bowlegged due to the joint being offset. wouldn't it be great if I could simply twist them right so that they only bend along the heading without redrawing them or using the snapless, undo-less bone twist tool.

Yes... it would, but you seem to have missed the point that in doing so, either you will have a situation where it is impossible to line the axes up and make the chain AXIALLY PLANAR, or you will cause axes to offset from their "drawn" alignments, causing the knee to bend sideways some amount (infact an amount inversely equal to the degree of tilt you'd drawn in), or you force the bones to line back up, removing the tilt you had drawn in.

One of those 3 things MUST happen... there exists no other possibility.

So yes... what you suggest would be great... but it would also be impossible without introducing some other problem as the compensation for the thing youve done wrong in the first instance.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 09:09 AM
Yes... it would, but you seem to have missed the point that in doing so, either you will have a situation where it is impossible to line the axes up and make the chain AXIALLY PLANAR, or you will cause axes to offset from their "drawn" alignments, causing the knee to bend sideways some amount (infact an amount inversely equal to the degree of tilt you'd drawn in), or you force the bones to line back up, removing the tilt you had drawn in.

One of those 3 things MUST happen... there exists no other possibility.

So yes... what you suggest would be great... but it would also be impossible without introducing some other problem as the compensation for the thing youve done wrong in the first instance.

Either I don't understand how bone twist works or I am not communicating my point clearly. The situation that I want to correct is one where I have two bones in a chain. the second bone is bent at an angle like for a pre bend. Let's say the bones have been generated from a pretty standard skelegon chain so the x and y positions of bone two are 0. there is no offset. HOWEVER, for whatever reason, the bend is currently along the heading AND pitch and I want it to be only along the heading. I can use bone twist to get it close. I managed to get the pitch down to 0.02 degrees using my absolutely amazing eyeballing skills. but in order to get it perfect I would need to re-draw the bones wth the bend along the heading and then rotate the whole hierarchy into place.

My hypothetical tool would simply make it easier to find the correct angle.

BINGO! I actually figured out how to do exactly what I wanted using a wonky lightwave workaround! What I did was
1. copy the thigh to create the RP bone that goes at the top of the IK chain but I didn't reparent the thigh.
2. put a pole null at the knee joint and a goal null at the ankle using basic lightwave snapping
3. set the rp bone's target to be the goal null and the pole to be the pole null.
4. THEN I reparented the thigh bone under the rp bone
5. I used align pitch to zero out the heading on the thigh and calf.

Voila! No bones moved, nothing changed, but the rotation was only along the pitch. YAY!

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 09:50 AM
I think you'll find u have misunderstood.

And indeed... misexplained. Previously you said "tilted"... which means sloping, or listing, sideways. Now you appear to mean "twisted"... in the sense that the calf bone is not tilted with respect to the thigh, but twisted, such that the axis (be it pitch or bank) isnt properly aligned with the chosen "hinge direction".

If that's what you're getting at, then the tool you're after already exists...

Select the calf bone, set bank to 0.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 11:59 AM
I think you'll find u have misunderstood.

And indeed... misexplained. Previously you said "tilted"... which means sloping, or listing, sideways. Now you appear to mean "twisted"... in the sense that the calf bone is not tilted with respect to the thigh, but twisted, such that the axis (be it pitch or bank) isnt properly aligned with the chosen "hinge direction".

If that's what you're getting at, then the tool you're after already exists...

Select the calf bone, set bank to 0.

Clearly we are still talking past one another.

I was having trouble describing the difference between someone who is bowlegged and someone who has naturally straight knees, but is "tilting" their knees outward. my bad.

Setting the bank of the calf bone to 0 does nothing helpful if the thigh is not aligned along the IK plane, which is the problem that needs fixing in this case.

The method I described aligns the thigh perfectly along the IK plane without moving the bones at all (it also fixes the calf's pitch without affecting its children). just so so long as the IK plane is defined by the triangle between the knee, ankle and hip, and the joints aren't offset on the x or y axes.

My entire point was that this seemed like something that would be a useful tool. It struck me as odd when you said it couldn't be done, which made me believe that I didn't properly explain what I was trying to do. Now that I have done it manually using a simple step by step process I am sure it could be condensed into a one button tool. or perhaps added as part of an IK builder tool. (if it isn't already)

here is the gamedesign1's scene file on which I performed the method and got the result I was looking for. right leg only. left leg is as it was except that I removed the pivot rotation:
135963

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 12:22 PM
Right... so, this is EXACTLY what I was describing...

The correction you have made, has moved the knee joint position... The calf and thigh bone are inline with one another... which is exactly what I said.

I didnt say what you wanted CANT be done... I said it can ONLY be done by changing something else, in this instance, all you've succeeded in doing is removing the tilt/bowleggedness... which brings me back to my original point when you started this... If you have such a tool... the user will draw in bones in one position/shape... and the tool will MOVE them, causing the user to wonder why.

You have simply exchanged one problem or source of confusion for another.

How can I make that any more clear??

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 12:41 PM
Right... so, this is EXACTLY what I was describing...

The correction you have made, has twisted the knee joint such that the "direction of fold" is now back, and a bit sideways, because in order to compensate for the misalignment between the thigh and calf bones, youve had to twist out the axis... But the result is that the knee now BENDS SIDEWAYS a little bit... if the knee is modelled such that it points forwards... its wrong.



Yeah. again. miscommunication. I looked at the model and decided that the characters knees were tilting outwards. It doesn't look to me like the leg is modelled such that it points forwards. it looks to me like they point a little outwards. I don't know the modelers intention of course, but I made the call I wanted to make, because this is not a job, and I got interested in solving a particular problem.

so what you claim is the "problem" I have created was the desired result.

Also, I don't think the joint moved. they remained in place, but the orientation of both bones was changed.


Lets say I was making a weird spider with legs radiating outward (a really weird spider with human legs). this lets me place skelegons in modeler without regard for the orientation so long as the joints are where I want them and fix the orientation perfectly afterwards.

I mean clearly I am not the only one to have figured this out, but it was new to me, and I still think it would make a nice little tool.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 12:56 PM
Good grief... you cant even SEE whats wrong can you... let me spell it out plain as day...


https://youtu.be/M_ZphF7kw6U

You see... your "solution" only has one of 2 possible outcomes... either the direction of fold is altered, and thus no longer in line with the intention as the bones were laid out... OR... the position of one (or other) of the joints is moved such that the bones fall back into correct planarity... which again, alters how the bones were initially laid out. You cannot.. CANNOT keep both the same joint positioning AND the folding direction IF the initial setup has been made incrrectly. You can only introduce a new and different problem, or go back and correct the initial mistake.

Perhaps when youve learned a bit more about how all this stuff works you might finally come to understand why and how you've gotten it wrong.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 01:05 PM
ok. thanks for the video. Just so I understand: what is it You think I think I am doing? because I don't think its the same as what I think I am doing. I DO NOT want to keep the initial folding direction. that was the ENTIRE point of all this. I want a new folding direction. Is there a better way to get a NEW folding direction based on the joint positioning? If so show me. if not, there should be.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 01:12 PM
Is there a way of deleting this thread? I am sick of arguments on this forum.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 01:14 PM
sorry. I think we are done.

Some useful information has come up though, so it might be good to let it live

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 01:20 PM
ok. thanks for the video. Just so I understand: what is it You think I think I am doing? because I don't think its the same as what I think I am doing. I DO NOT want to keep the initial folding direction. that was the ENTIRE point of all this. I want a new folding direction. Is there a better way to get a NEW folding direction based on the joint positioning? If so show me. if not, there should be.

Ok... you want a new folding direction... congratulations... but, notice how your folding direction on the right is different from that on the left... The one on the left is (or one presumes should be) that which is inline with the way the mesh is modelled, so by taking a new folding direction, you've now gone against the way the mesh is modelled... so your choices are either... allow the knee to bend sideways a bit (which is obviously wrong)... or, remodel the mesh so that it now agrees with the new alignment youve created.

I dont see how this much isnt obvious.

At this point though, I dont care... Ive explained it clearly enough, enough times... if you still dont get it, by all means, carry on.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 01:21 PM
Good grief... you cant even SEE whats wrong can you... let me spell it out plain as day...


https://youtu.be/M_ZphF7kw6U

You see... your "solution" only has one of 2 possible outcomes... either the direction of fold is altered, and thus no longer in line with the intention as the bones were laid out... OR... the position of one (or other) of the joints is moved such that the bones fall back into correct planarity... which again, alters how the bones were initially laid out. You cannot.. CANNOT keep both the same joint positioning AND the folding direction IF the initial setup has been made incrrectly. You can only introduce a new and different problem, or go back and correct the initial mistake.

Perhaps when youve learned a bit more about how all this stuff works you might finally come to understand why and how you've gotten it wrong.

I am going to have to stop speaking to you now RH, because I do not appreciate the way you are speaking to me and the patronizing tone. I wish you all the best.


EDIT:
I am really sorry that you find me frustrating and for some reason you feel the need to humiliate me on this forum by posting a video where you start speaking with a patronizing voice and at one point sounds like you are banging on your keyboard with some kind of anger towards me. You clearly have a total grasp of LW rigging and you have made some very in depth tutorials which demonstrate this. But please please remember that because someone doesn't understand why something is not working does not make that person deserve to be spoken to like a total moron. I personally think you lack respect. At no point have I tried to put you down or make you feel bad.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 01:28 PM
I get it and I understand that this would not be a correct solution if the knee is SUPPOSED to be offset off to the side and my job as a rigger would be to rig the character with IK while maintaining that offset. and the original fold direction.

I genuinely appreciate your input. You are after all one of the, if not the foremost authorities on LW rigging. But I do think this is all a miscommunication.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 01:35 PM
You are after all one of the, if not the foremost authorities on LW rigging. But I do think this is all a miscommunication.

Yes... I am... which is why you should listen when I tell you you're mistaken in the outcome of your proposed solutions... because even if it seems to make perfect sense to you, you might simply not realise why it ultimately doesnt work.

jwiede
02-11-2017, 02:38 PM
And how exactly would this system understand the intention behind what had been setup?

Checking co-planarity is no different to test for a set of entities' operational planes (what really matters for articulations) passed to an IK solver, than it is for a set of vertices. Checking channel orientations of the entities relative to each other, and ensuring they're within a given tolerance is basic, direct 3D math, and so is determining the angle between the vectors formed by adjacent entities. And so forth. The majority you've cited already are basic ordering and tests of absolute/relative positioning/alignment properties.

Better understanding user IK intentions is exactly why I suggested the additional IK controls, though: If user intends planar IK, they indicate planar IK. If user intends prebend hinting, they indicate prebend hinting should be present. Likewise with channel alignment (user indicates they're supposed to be aligned, and can even indicate by channel selectors what alignment(s) they intended.

While I fully believe that some misconfigurations may be "too abstract" for easy verification by a parametric verifier, as long as the verifier can detect and identify SOME common/frequent misconfigurations, it offers objectively-measurable real-world UX value. That value exists regardless whether it can absolutely check every single possible misconfiguration that can occur.

An independent third-party checker could give user opportunity to set such parameters as checker input. IMO, though, it makes more sense to have them as part of the IK solver UI (allow their states to be queried externally) because they describe an expected contract between user and IK solver(s), and would hopefully encourage contract verification within the IK solver code itself.

That's not what's there today, so a verifier today has to get that info from the user elsewhere, but going forward I see no reason the IK solver(s) couldn't as easier get those parameters from the user, and do their own config verification. Understanding the user-desired contract would even provide info which could help the app choose between different IK solvers for which offers the greatest efficiency given the user-set contract, and so forth.

bazsa73
02-11-2017, 02:42 PM
Yes... I am... which is why you should listen when I tell you you're mistaken in the outcome of your proposed solutions... because even if it seems to make perfect sense to you, you might simply not realise why it ultimately doesnt work.

C'mon Craig, you freak out the common nerds here.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 02:58 PM
Checking co-planarity is no different to test for a set of entities' operational planes (what really matters for articulations) passed to an IK solver, than it is for a set of vertices. Checking channel orientations of the entities relative to each other, and ensuring they're within a given tolerance is basic, direct 3D math, and so is determining the angle between the vectors formed by adjacent entities. And so forth. The majority you've cited already are basic ordering and tests of absolute/relative positioning/alignment properties.

Better understanding user IK intentions is exactly why I suggested the additional IK controls, though: If user intends planar IK, they indicate planar IK. If user intends prebend hinting, they indicate prebend hinting should be present. Likewise with channel alignment (user indicates they're supposed to be aligned, and can even indicate by channel selectors what alignment(s) they intended.

While I fully believe that some misconfigurations may be "too abstract" for easy verification by a parametric verifier, as long as the verifier can detect and identify SOME common/frequent misconfigurations, it offers objectively-measurable real-world UX value. That value exists regardless whether it can absolutely check every single possible misconfiguration that can occur.

An independent third-party checker could give user opportunity to set such parameters as checker input. IMO, though, it makes more sense to have them as part of the IK solver UI (allow their states to be queried externally) because they describe an expected contract between user and IK solver(s), and would hopefully encourage contract verification within the IK solver code itself.

That's not what's there today, so a verifier today has to get that info from the user elsewhere, but going forward I see no reason the IK solver(s) couldn't as easier get those parameters from the user, and do their own config verification. Understanding the user-desired contract would even provide info which could help the app choose between different IK solvers for which offers the greatest efficiency given the user-set contract, and so forth.

I totally agree. I'm not sure who it was, but someone said the reason for IK pushing a bone through a goal was because the IK doesn't know the direction of the bend. Well if you could specify the main direction when rigging surely that would eliminate the problem. Am I wrong here?

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:00 PM
I am going to have to stop speaking to you now RH, because I do not appreciate the way you are speaking to me and the patronizing tone. I wish you all the best.


EDIT:
I am really sorry that you find me frustrating and for some reason you feel the need to humiliate me on this forum by posting a video where you start speaking with a patronizing voice and at one point sounds like you are banging on your keyboard with some kind of anger towards me. You clearly have a total grasp of LW rigging and you have made some very in depth tutorials which demonstrate this. But please please remember that because someone doesn't understand why something is not working does not make that person deserve to be spoken to like a total moron. I personally think you lack respect. At no point have I tried to put you down or make you feel bad.

Look, OK, you feel you're having a frustrating position. I get it. I used to be a teacher, I've seen this reaction you're having plenty (and quite enough) of times over those years. Please look at it from another view.. he really did went far and beyond out of his way to explain it to you. He even created a video for it. Now he is lecturing you.. OK.. fine. But it is of the good kind. I do know (as we all do) that it stings, and so did he when he made it.. but he is helping you. I really hope you do understand this. And btw.. his tone wasn't patronizing, it is holding back irritation. You're not hearing it because you are hurt as well. And no.. just to be clear.. I am not patronizing you now either. I'm trying to help you see things in a different light.

jwiede
02-11-2017, 03:07 PM
A miniscule investment for knowledge and toolsets that save so much time, trial, error, and headache.

Except for the minor problem that even knowledgable humans are fallible, and make mistakes even when they "know what they're doing".

I'm mystified why some folks here seem so strongly against the notion that instead of just providing unwanted results, the IK solver provide some indication of what the user has actually configured, for the user to compare against what they believe they have configured. Again, even if it only catches a few common misconfigurations, that still offers significant value (and significantly improved UX over just providing undesirable results).

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:07 PM
Besides, if you want to know the direction of things, add a null to it, and place it in the direction. So you know how things move.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 03:09 PM
Look, OK, you feel you're having a frustrating position. I get it. I used to be a teacher, I've seen this reaction you're having plenty (and quite enough) of times over those years. Please look at it from another view.. he really did went far and beyond out of his way to explain it to you. He even created a video for it. Now he is lecturing you.. OK.. fine. But it is of the good kind. I do know (as we all do) that it stings, and so did he when he made it.. but he is helping you. I really hope you do understand this. And btw.. his tone wasn't patronizing, it is holding back irritation. You're not hearing it because you are hurt as well. And no.. just to be clear.. I am not patronizing you now either. I'm trying to help you see things in a different light.

To be fair, he was berating me in the video, and I sort of hijacked this thread with my own thing (new fold direction ftw!). I don't particularly care about the abuse. I can take it, I'm married. But I think the OP got hit with the shrapnel cause it was his rig that I was playing around with.

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:12 PM
...I can take it, I'm married..

Hahaha, I'm hearing you. And the woman is always right.. even when she is wrong. ;)

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 03:14 PM
Checking co-planarity is no different to test for a set of entities' operational planes (what really matters for articulations) passed to an IK solver, than it is for a set of vertices. Checking channel orientations of the entities relative to each other, and ensuring they're within a given tolerance is basic, direct 3D math, and so is determining the angle between the vectors formed by adjacent entities. And so forth. The majority you've cited already are basic ordering and tests of absolute/relative positioning/alignment properties.

Yes... that is all very simple... but that tells you NOTHING about the intention that a given setup or string of controls is trying to emulate or describe... hence, unless it can read minds, the computer has no way of knowing if a given offset, or twist a bit this way or that, is the intentional action of someone who knows what they're doing, or a minor mistake by someone who doesnt... Not to mention lacking the ability to know when such things represent a catastrophic error by a total noob who has gone so far down the wrong road that what they've got is nowhere near where they're trying to get to.


Better understanding user IK intentions is exactly why I suggested the additional IK controls, though: If user intends planar IK, they indicate planar IK. If user intends prebend hinting, they indicate prebend hinting should be present. Likewise with channel alignment (user indicates they're supposed to be aligned, and can even indicate by channel selectors what alignment(s) they intended.

Ok, so sure, that solves the "psychic machine" problem described above... you just get the user to somehow tell the checker everything about how the IK chain has been setup and the rules its supposed to be observing in order to ensure correct outcomes. This raises 2 questions... Firstly... if the user is THAT clued in and knowledgable to be able to tell the system all the little details it needs to know to "understand" the intention, then the checker itself becomes somewhat pointless, as you'd expect such a user to be able to do things properly all by themselves, wouldnt you? Secondly... even if that were not the case, then you have to have all these other options and checkboxes and dropdowns or whatever else in order to be able to input all this detail (and youve got to include every possible permutation of how things could be rigged... which is a near infinite list btw)... and you think... what... taht this would be "simpler" for people? lolololol.

I know this all seems to make sense in your imagination, but I dont rate it, not a bit.

By all means, go away and code something to this effect and prove me wrong, Id love to see it.


if you could specify the main direction when rigging surely that would eliminate the problem. Am I wrong here?

Yes... yes youre WRONG... You CAN specify the direction whilst rigging... BY PREBENDING THE JOIT IN QUESTION... that IS how it is done.

I swear... its like talking to a wall.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 03:22 PM
Ok. Now he's berating the OP.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 03:26 PM
Ok. Now he's berating the OP.

A summary of how the conversation has gone with the OP...

How can I setup X

Do Y, thatll fix it.

Ok, tath works, wish there were a way to setup X though.

Does no one else see whats wrong with this picture?

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:26 PM
Yes, he is letting the steam out. I would too If knew I am right, and someone insisted on keeping on falling to the ground at the same spot over and over. He is correct, you do need to make sure the directions are OK when you create the rig. If you do it wrong, that rig would be sent right back to you by the animation department. Probably with a note saying something along the lines of 'WTF' in it :)

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:30 PM
Look, OK, you feel you're having a frustrating position. I get it. I used to be a teacher, I've seen this reaction you're having plenty (and quite enough) of times over those years. Please look at it from another view.. he really did went far and beyond out of his way to explain it to you. He even created a video for it. Now he is lecturing you.. OK.. fine. But it is of the good kind. I do know (as we all do) that it stings, and so did he when he made it.. but he is helping you. I really hope you do understand this. And btw.. his tone wasn't patronizing, it is holding back irritation. You're not hearing it because you are hurt as well. And no.. just to be clear.. I am not patronizing you now either. I'm trying to help you see things in a different light.

I really don't want to talk about this anymore, but thanks anyway.

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:31 PM
I really don't want to talk about this anymore, but thanks anyway.

No worries. I understand. Take care.

erikals
02-11-2017, 03:33 PM
A summary of how the conversation has gone with the OP...

How can I setup X

Do Y, thatll fix it.

Ok, tath works, wish there were a way to setup X though.

Does no one else see whats wrong with this picture?

i guess there is a point to it...    http://forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/arteest.gif :)

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:38 PM
Yes... yes youre WRONG... You CAN specify the direction whilst rigging... BY PREBENDING THE JOIT IN QUESTION... that IS how it is done.

I swear... its like talking to a wall.

So rude its unbelievable. I have stated many times that I understand that adding a pre-bend determines the direction for the IK. But for the SECOND or THIRD time (as you like to phrase it) I have said that often the rigger is not provided with a mesh that has enough room in the mesh to add enough pre-bend. And I was just asking what could be done in that situation. That is all. And this has turned into an attack at me for absolutely no reason.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 03:39 PM
I feel responsible because I riled up the beast and let him loose on gamedesign1.

All I wanted to do was create a planar IK solution out of haphazardly placed bones. I wasn't sure how to do it and I figured it out and shared my solution. Apparently that wasn't the assignment.

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 03:42 PM
So rude its unbelievable. I have stated many times that I understand that adding a pre-bend determines the direction for the IK. But for the SECOND or THIRD time (as you like to phrase it) I have said that often the rigger is not provided with a mesh that has enough room in the mesh to add enough pre-bend. And I was just asking what could be done in that situation. That is all. And this has turned into an attack at me for absolutely no reason.

Not enough room? How? I'd like to see an example of that type of mesh. As in really, I would. Sounds to me that the mesh itself needs adjustment in that case.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:44 PM
A summary of how the conversation has gone with the OP...

How can I setup X

Do Y, thatll fix it.

Ok, tath works, wish there were a way to setup X though.

Does no one else see whats wrong with this picture?

That is not how things went. So no wonder you are annoyed if you think that.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 03:53 PM
Not enough room? How? I'd like to see an example of that type of mesh. As in really, I would. Sounds to me that the mesh itself needs adjustment in that case.

I am just talking about provided meshes with almost straight legs, where you can only add a little bit of pre-bend.
Seriously I am not really wanting to talk about this anymore as I have now grasped what I needed to solve the problem.
Its just a shame that I had to go through hostility to get there.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 03:58 PM
I have said that often the rigger is not provided with a mesh that has enough room in the mesh to add enough pre-bend. And I was just asking what could be done in that situation.

Immaterial... because the binding of mesh to bones, and setup of IK dont have to "happen at the same time"... thus the answer is STILL... prebend.

You seem to think that "rigging" is simply the place/point/time where one is binding bones to the mesh... and thus that having to do prebend in a separate step/place is somehow not "part of rigging". This is flat out incorrect... The rigging is the whole process of setting up controls and binding and whatever other bits are included, and dont necessarily have to happen "together".

So you ask how to do something, and get the answer, then say it doesnt work in this situation, then get shown that there's an included way to take care of that case... then you complain that because you have to go about it via this second step i this specific case, that it's somehow wrong, or missing some option, or ill designed, whilst failing to understand that this is there precisely to account for the situation you've found yourself in... THIS IS HOW IT WORKS... If you dont like that it is such a way, or find it weird or hard to follow, fine... but perhaps, since you clearly dont know any of it, you should actual learn and master what is there ad the way it is first before thinking that you know better, or that your judgement of what would be easier, or make more sense is actually worth anything.

So if Im being rude, its because you're being obtuse and making any attempt to help you out spectacularly difficult.

If you want to know something... ask... once you get the answer, follow the instructions and thus learn how it works... OR... carry on fumbling until you figure these things out all by yourself. I care not which.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 04:05 PM
Immaterial... because the binding of mesh to bones, and setup of IK dont have to "happen at the same time"... thus the answer is STILL... prebend.

You seem to think that "rigging" is simply the place/point/time where one is binding bones to the mesh... and thus that having to do prebend in a separate step/place is somehow not "part of rigging". This is flat out incorrect... The rigging is the whole process of setting up controls and binding and whatever other bits are included, and dont necessarily have to happen "together".

So you ask how to do something, and get the answer, then say it doesnt work in this situation, then get shown that there's an included way to take care of that case... then you complain that because you have to go about it via this second step i this specific case, that it's somehow wrong, or missing some option, or ill designed, whilst failing to understand that this is there precisely to account for the situation you've found yourself in... THIS IS HOW IT WORKS... If you dont like that it is such a way, or find it weird or hard to follow, fine... but perhaps, since you clearly dont know any of it, you should actual learn and master what is there ad the way it is first before thinking that you know better, or that your judgement of what would be easier, or make more sense is actually worth anything.

So if Im being rude, its because you're being obtuse and making any attempt to help you out spectacularly difficult.

If you want to know something... ask... once you get the answer, follow the instructions and thus learn how it works... OR... carry on fumbling until you figure these things out all by yourself. I care not which.

At what point have I said that I think I know better? This is obviously where your anger comes from. I have never said that I know better than you, ever.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 04:07 PM
I think the OP Had moved on from "how do I do this thing?" to "gee wouldn't it be easier if" . He wasn't being obtuse. He was responding to jwiede who it seems to me was arguing for a different approach to IK setup in lightwave.

He probably shouldn't have gotten in a huff because you were bitching at me in that video, but I think because it was his scene I was messing with he felt like you were criticizing him too.

erikals
02-11-2017, 04:08 PM
and with that, we close this discussion... (?)

fine by me, but seems like wasted energy.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 04:09 PM
At what point have I said that I think I know better? This is obviously where your anger comes from. I have never said that I know better than you, ever.

That would be the very first post you opened this thread with...


Does anyone else here think that the bones and rigging tools need to be completely rethought in LightWave?
I hardly ever use rigging and every time I go back to it I find I have to relearn all the tools and all the quirky problems with them.

Despite clearly knowing nothing about even the most basic of rigging operations (and this standard IK setup is like... noob level 1 basic)... you seem to have it in your head that the tools need to be completely rethought. Thats like me sitting here telling you your bedroom needs redecorating despite the fact I have got the first clue what it looks like.

I think its YOU that needs to be completely rethought.

MichaelT
02-11-2017, 04:15 PM
Now were moving into argument territory.. Perhaps time to take a small breather guys? Or at the very least agree to disagree?

jwiede
02-11-2017, 04:19 PM
Despite clearly knowing nothing about even the most basic of rigging operations (and this standard IK setup is like... noob level 1 basic)... you seem to have it in your head that the tools need to be completely rethought. Thats like me sitting here telling you your bedroom needs redecorating despite the fact I have got the first clue what it looks like.

I think its YOU that needs to be completely rethought.

That is a clear and inappropriate personal attack. The original post in question was in no way a personal attack on you.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 04:26 PM
I think its YOU that needs to be completely rethought.

Come on, man. That's just mean.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 04:27 PM
No... its a provocative sardonicism.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 04:29 PM
No... its a provocative sardonicism.

And that's just silly.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 04:31 PM
............ the end

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 04:35 PM
Like I said what happens when you mix two kinds of threads. Are we talking feature requests or support? They do cross over at times. Perhaps it would be better to start a thread for one of the other with a clear goal in mind?

Beyond that, I am a bit mystified why anyone would want to spend so much energy beating around the bush. I have the very unusual opinion perhaps that this all has to lead to being able to animate a character and lay down some key frames. The sooner the better in my book.

The most direct approach to that is to learn how it works now from people who have done it before. A few hours of tutorials, some manual, rig a character and start animating. I wold imagine if you are spending more than 3 hours on these basic concepts, something is wrong.

Being a master rigger I imagine could take years. But learning enough to get up and running should be in the hours not days.

hypersuperduper
02-11-2017, 04:40 PM
Three kinds of threads actually.
1. How do I do X?
2. Wouldn't it be better if...
3. Hey guys look at this cool thing I did!
These should have been in three different forums.

prometheus
02-11-2017, 04:44 PM
pick a
:) or a :(

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 04:47 PM
Like I said what happens when you mix two kinds of threads. Are we talking feature requests or support? They do cross over at times. Perhaps it would be better to start a thread for one of the other with a clear goal in mind?

Beyond that, I am a bit mystified why anyone would want to spend so much energy beating around the bush. I have the very unusual opinion perhaps that this all has to lead to being able to animate a character and lay down some key frames. The sooner the better in my book.

The most direct approach to that is to learn how it works now from people who have done it before. A few hours of tutorials, some manual, rig a character and start animating. I wold imagine if you are spending more than 3 hours on these basic concepts, something is wrong.

Being a master rigger I imagine could take years. But learning enough to get up and running should be in the hours not days.

The thing that solved the issue I was having was the stiffness on the shin bone, that was it. For whatever reason in trying all the settings from the tutorial videos sent it didn't seem to solve it at the time. But I was obviously doing something wrong. So when someone on here looked at my rig and said it could be solved from adjusting the stiffness, I thought I would try it again in case i had done something wrong before. I tried it again and it solved it. Simple issue, that got resolved.

In regards to starting new threads, I am now weary that if I do I will be jumped on and bullied for whatever questions or opinions I might have. But I guess that is the danger in talking on any forum with people you don't know and that also don't know you. If anyone would meet me in person they would see I am a nice, mild, reasonable person that lacks confidence and does not have any ideas of being better than anyone else. I will leave it there.

Surrealist.
02-11-2017, 04:56 PM
The thing that solved the issue I was having was the stiffness on the shin bone, that was it. For whatever reason in trying all the settings from the tutorial videos sent it didn't seem to solve it at the time. But I was obviously doing something wrong. So when someone on here looked at my rig and said it could be solved from adjusting the stiffness, I thought I would try it again in case i had done something wrong before. I tried it again and it solved it. Simple issue, that got resolved.

In regards to starting new threads, I am now weary that if I do I will be jumped on and bullied for whatever questions or opinions I might have. But I guess that is the danger in talking on any forum with people you don't know and that also don't know you. If anyone would meet me in person they would see I am a nice, mild, reasonable person that lacks confidence and does not have any ideas of being better than anyone else. I will leave it there.

So cool. Get on with it then. Glad it eventually got sorted. I really have not done much rigging in LightWave lately so I could not be much help. But don't get discouraged. It really does help to focus. A thread like this starts going in 3 or more directions.

Anyways keep plugging along and get that thing animating!

prometheus
02-11-2017, 05:06 PM
In regards to starting new threads, I am now weary that if I do I will be jumped on and bullied for whatever questions or opinions I might have. But I guess that is the danger in talking on any forum with people you don't know and that also don't know you. If anyone would meet me in person they would see I am a nice, mild, reasonable person that lacks confidence and does not have any ideas of being better than anyone else. I will leave it there.

I urge you not to be afraid of asking questions, or being obtuse...if someone canīt handle that and still tries to explain it to you, they should just drop it ..not go at a rampage at you for not knowing better.
The thing you should be afraid of..that is to become harsh at others for not understanding or not chiming in with you, and to loose your humble approach and transform in to a smart a....
Good luck

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 05:25 PM
So cool. Get on with it then. Glad it eventually got sorted. I really have not done much rigging in LightWave lately so I could not be much help. But don't get discouraged. It really does help to focus. A thread like this starts going in 3 or more directions.

Anyways keep plugging along and get that thing animating!

Thanks :)

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 05:31 PM
Rebel Hill, can I just shake your hand (virtually) and just put this behind us. I hate bad feelings and would rather not keep going at each other. I think we have misunderstood each other. I don't want you to ever think I am criticizing you and your knowledge.

RebelHill
02-11-2017, 06:26 PM
A fair request. Consider it so put. Do know that I speak my mind, and often bluntly... thats who I am and wont apologise for that... but, should I have caused you upset or hurt your feelings in some way, then let me say sorry for that, as such is not my intention with my manner.

gamedesign1
02-11-2017, 06:34 PM
A fair request. Consider it so put. Do know that I speak my mind, and often bluntly... thats who I am and wont apologise for that... but, should I have caused you upset or hurt your feelings in some way, then let me say sorry for that, as such is not my intention with my manner.

That's great, thank you for your comments. And at no time did I mean to make you feel like your help wasn't appreciated. Thanks for letting us sort this out :)

Kevbarnes
02-12-2017, 05:57 AM
If anyone would meet me in person they would see I am a nice, mild, reasonable person ....

Untill you turn green!

Hi gamedesign - Depending on where you are in the uk - If you want to put your offer to the test - there are occasionally meet-ups in the uk ----- check out

1
Create Theatre, Vision West, Nottingham - Hopefully another event is being organised for 2017?
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?146908-Lightwave-3D-Event-at-Vision-West-Nottinghamshire-College-in-the-UK&p=1433612#post1433612


2
North West UK- LW Group - Some of us guy's meet up occasionally - long overdue
I think the thread for this has disapeared


3
London Lightwave group - I don't think have met -up for some time now?
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?62393-London-Lightwave

Regards Kev

or contact me if your in Gloucestershire some time

gamedesign1
02-12-2017, 03:27 PM
Untill you turn green!

Hi gamedesign - Depending on where you are in the uk - If you want to put your offer to the test - there are occasionally meet-ups in the uk ----- check out

1
Create Theatre, Vision West, Nottingham - Hopefully another event is being organised for 2017?
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?146908-Lightwave-3D-Event-at-Vision-West-Nottinghamshire-College-in-the-UK&p=1433612#post1433612


2
North West UK- LW Group - Some of us guy's meet up occasionally - long overdue
I think the thread for this has disapeared


3
London Lightwave group - I don't think have met -up for some time now?
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?62393-London-Lightwave

Regards Kev

or contact me if your in Gloucestershire some time

Thanks, but nothing near me really.