PDA

View Full Version : How do you approach this rig in LW?



liquidik
06-16-2006, 05:30 AM
How do you approach a similar strtchy/deformable rig in LW?

http://downloads.alias.com/gcs/edu-mt_st_mod_rigging_sample.mov

Larry we need you help...

Gianmichele

t4d
06-16-2006, 05:59 AM
this is going to turn out bad ....

pooby
06-16-2006, 06:51 AM
this is going to turn out bad ....
LOL!!

The best approach is to Nag Newtek to add a decent rigging system, show them examples of rigs such as this and pray that this kind of ability is added in a fufure release.

At the moment, you could cobble something along these lines together for one arm using shift spline deform. However, you can only use one instance of this per object, so, that's not really an option.
Shift spline transform breaks easily too..

With Cycler, you can fake bendy IK, but it entails a massive workaround and still uses bones, which won't really cut it for rigs of this type.

By using , nulls and Muscle bones wiht targetting you can fake a (quite crummy) control 'spline' that could be attached (but not constrained properly) to an IK chain.

To be honest- You wont find a solution in LW for this currently without forcing tools that aren't designed for it. (and would end up with poor results)
It's this kind of rigging ability that makes a lot of artists choose other packages to animate in at the mo.

Dodgy
06-16-2006, 08:03 AM
Here's an example of that last rig. The bones take the place of the curve, and the nulls take the place of the bones. If LW accepted bones as IK goals, you could do it all with bones, but for some reason you can use Bones as targets but not IK goals.

As for stretchy IK, I've been planning to write an easy to set up stretchy IK plugin, but haven't got around to it yet :P

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 01:27 AM
The answer is YES and its pretty easy to setup.
Heres an example done with only bones, IKBoost, RV_Muscle
and no nulls. Youll notice that I can easily stretch things out
and the IK/FK works just fine.
Sorry no audio, I thought I had my mic plugged in but it wasnt.
Ill replace it with an audio version later when Im more awake. :)

http://www.3dtrainingonline.com/examples/ikb_stretchy_rig.mov

DiedonD
06-17-2006, 02:39 AM
LOL!!
To be honest- You wont find a solution in LW for this currently without forcing tools that aren't designed for it. (and would end up with poor results)
It's this kind of rigging ability that makes a lot of artists choose other packages to animate in at the mo.

After SplineGod proved your wrong, all knowing Pooby, your comments on this?
And do real artists go ahead and choose other packages now, or do they learn more about LW, and find out how easy it is to do these rigs for that, before they do so.

metahumanity
06-17-2006, 03:22 AM
the moment it takes more effort than to simply tick the bedy IK/fK box under bone options, itīs a workaround!

t4d
06-17-2006, 03:23 AM
yeah Larry was Totally right !!

that video he posted truely showed that maya video rig can be done in LW
every detail small and large shown in the video were just hammered home By the SplineGod SLAM DUNK all in LW too !!
one point the SG !!:thumbsup:

I put the same idea behide this video using standard IK on a standard LW righttp://www.thomas4d.com/bonescale.wmv 8 megs :lwicon:

showing that stuff in the Maya video is just kids stuff Nothing cool they at all.
that maya rig is just lame those guys have nothing on LW
I Have no idea why everyone uses Maya or any other 3D app
when Lightwave is SO good at character animation and rigging .

Why on earth have so many character artists left LW for Maya, XSI, messiah over the years ???

if they only had Larry in the building and Lightwave ,.??
Man they could have done Lord of the rings & gollum in half the time using with LW

Newtek please just leave the character animation side of things as they are
Don't mess with a system that works I say :hey:

get Larry to do the manual for LW 9 and Lightwave will be at the cutting edge of the the character animation industry again without a problem..

Who needs programers/developers to improve a system that hasn't been touch for 4 or 5 years Why on earth do Maya, XSI, messiah keep changing and adding things ?? waste of money if you ask me !!


the meaing of Sarcasm in case you didn't pick it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)

Watch the maya video again please and watch the details and the workflow then watch SG's video again.....

if you knew Lightwave rigging & workflow & really watched that Maya video you would not have asked the question in the first place
if you knew anything about LW rigging or character animation you would not have poked pooby OR went all WOW !! over SG's video.

I knew this thread was going to turn out bad .....

Cageman
06-17-2006, 03:35 AM
LOL!!

The best approach is to Nag Newtek to add a decent rigging system, show them examples of rigs such as this and pray that this kind of ability is added in a fufure release.


I agree... but I believe that NT are aware of some of the shortcommings. I cite Jay Roth:

"One area that we recognize we need to further enhance is the character animation system. We want to make sure that we get this one right, and we are going to take the time needed to insure the best results. We are all working very hard to insure that you don’t wait too long to get what you want. We hear you."

I just don't know if naging is the right approach, but showing examples from other packages is a good start!

Cageman
06-17-2006, 03:38 AM
I knew this thread was going to turn out bad .....

It only turned out bad when you made fun of Larrys efforts. It may not be as "cool" or as "good" as in Maya, but pretty darn close if I may say so. Yes, I can honestly say that the workflow is better in Maya, but I can't discredit Larry for making something that is close enough, whatever I personaly feel about the workflow.

Edit: I think this could be a good thread and it is important to point out the workflow issues with LW.

t4d
06-17-2006, 04:01 AM
It only turned out bad when you made fun of Larrys efforts. It may not be as "cool" or as "good" as in Maya, but pretty darn close if I may say so. Yes, I can honestly say that the workflow is better in Maya, but I can't discredit Larry for making something that is close enough, whatever I personaly feel about the workflow.

Edit: I think this could be a good thread and it is important to point out the workflow issues with LW.


Jay and the gang are working on LW's CA tools they done a great job at upgrading LW's render, I think there may be hope for LW and Character animation if the same effect was put in to that area.
saying LW will have that before NT's work has been released is Silly.


if we sit here and try to throw mud Maya's Features just to make are selfs feel good is not going to do anyone any good at all.

IF we sit here saying We already have that, When we are FAR FAR from it that's not going to do any good as well.

IF we think Newtek really need these forums to tell them what to do on CA improvments,.. well where in trouble as well.

I know some Newtek developers Have copies of Maya, XSI, Messiah, Max etc
( if your shocked at that news you truly are a mushroom )

only afew here can go into details on both those video's and tell everyone what's really going on and what it means to the big pictures in term of character animation workflow and rigging.

But what is the point ?? this type of thread ALWAYS goes the same way.
and happens about everyweek or so...

Do a search all the info you want is just afew pages from the front page..

we just end up with pages of BS if this keeps going..

IF you really want to know ( if you don't already )
Sit down with lightwave spend time rigging and animating using the tools shown and if you want to see what Maya and other are like
DOWNLOAD THEM !!! free demo's everywhere people !!

Dodgy
06-17-2006, 04:14 AM
if we sit here and try to throw mud Maya's Features just to make are selfs feel good is not going to do anyone any good at all.

IF we sit here saying We already have that, When we are FAR FAR from it that's not going to do any good as well.


No one has said any of this. Instead of laughing that this guy might have the gall to ask if LW can do this, we attempted to help him. In this case we found analogues to the specific case.

Do we have to keep going around and around on this? No, LW's character tools aren't as complete as maya's. Yes, Jay Roth has said they'll be working on them for the 9 cycle. Yes, some of us are using LW for character animation. No, you think they're not good enough for your needs.
There's no need for mud throwing.

Cageman
06-17-2006, 04:28 AM
we just end up with pages of BS if this keeps going..


Well, you have contributed alot to the BS already. ;)

I'm not saying LW is perfect, ****... I'm using Maya. I don't have the experience that Larry has in LW-rigging and I will not pretend I do. I can only say that I find it easer to do rigging in Maya than in LW, and that is only using simple tools (no scripting and no expressions). What I can't understand is why you, who seems to have alot of experience, jumps into this thread with mostly sarcasm?

A guy asked how to do a similar rig in LW, Larry answered with a video, and the results looks similar. Wether or not LW is awkward to use has little to do with the original question, but I hoped for some positive chat about pros/cons here. However, I see your point, and agrees to alot of what you say, I just can't discredit people for finding solutions (how awkward they may be)... thats all.

t4d
06-17-2006, 04:55 AM
No one has said any of this. Instead of laughing that this guy might have the gall to ask if LW can do this, we attempted to help him. In this case we found analogues to the specific case.

Do we have to keep going around and around on this? No, LW's character tools aren't as complete as maya's. Yes, Jay Roth has said they'll be working on them for the 9 cycle. Yes, some of us are using LW for character animation. No, you think they're not good enough for your needs.
There's no need for mud throwing.

yeah true I'm jumping in a thread and saying this is all going to turn bad,
way before it has. and your points have logic I can't argue with you they.
sorry :)

But what do we do now ?

talk about how Larry done it ?
will larry post the rig ? I can COMPLETELY understand if he doesn't

do we start talking about the different workflow on something we don't have an exsamples of are own to play with ?

Do we just follow Larry's post and say YEAH WE GOT IT
even tho Larry is the only one who has animated that rig know it's good and bad sides ?

Do i start posting XSI and Messiah exsample videos ? ( this is a Newtek forum so No )

Do non Character animator just start attacking the guys who are using other apps for Character animation and want to talk about what we have and what the workflow is ?

yeah I'm jumping in early but these threads, once started go for pages and always end up with the same thing
but why not look past the first page on the thread list and read some history

Cageman Yeah no problem I've posted my point I'll leave it there

pooby
06-17-2006, 05:28 AM
To be honest- You wont find a solution in LW for this currently without forcing tools that aren't designed for it. (and would end up with poor results)

Quoted by me...


I hardly think I've been proved wrong.

However.. both Dodgy's and Larrys are indeed LW's equivalents. Personally I don't think they would achieve the same animation results as the Maya rig, but it depends on what you are using it to do. If you want curved IK then Dodgy's does that. If you want stretched out limbs then Larrys does that.

If you want the elegant all in one solution demonstrated in the maya rig then you will have to wait till we get it in LW.

By the way.. I was wrong about Shift spline transform.. you CAN have more than 1 occurance in an object. I think I'd experiment with that if I were you but it can be flaky. especially when loading from scene.

colkai
06-17-2006, 05:30 AM
this is going to turn out bad ....
...

I Have no idea why everyone uses Maya or any other 3D app
when Lightwave is SO good at character animation and rigging .

Why on earth have so many character artists left LW for Maya, XSI, messiah over the years ???

if they only had Larry in the building and Lightwave ,.??
Man they could have done Lord of the rings & gollum in half the time using with LW

Newtek please just leave the character animation side of things as they are
Don't mess with a system that works I say ....

I knew this thread was going to turn out bad .....


I beleive they call this a self-fullfilling prophecy.
Best way to ensure the thread turns bad, do it yourself. :screwy:

t4d
06-17-2006, 06:09 AM
colkai for someone who uses Motionbuilder for your character animation needs

I find it funny you attack me for what i say and defend LW CA so much ??

Why don't you do your Personal rigging and animating in LW ?

hrgiger
06-17-2006, 06:24 AM
After SplineGod proved your wrong, all knowing Pooby, your comments on this?
And do real artists go ahead and choose other packages now, or do they learn more about LW, and find out how easy it is to do these rigs for that, before they do so.

um, actually no...
All Larry has done is stretched out some limbs. I don't know whether we could do that was in question. That's an order of magnitude less complex then is what is going on in the Maya Video. In Maya, the IK setup is driving a curve that contains additional joints that are bound to the surface of the model. You can use those joints to not only stretch out the surface, but also pull it away from tbe bones. As was mentioned in the video, additional joints could be parented to the joints of the curve allowing for a variety of deformation options.

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 07:56 AM
the moment it takes more effort than to simply tick the bedy IK/fK box under bone options, itīs a workaround!

Welcome to the world of CG. EVERY package has its workarounds then. Find me ANY app that has to do something with more then a single mouse click. Other effects can be added in as endomorphs. Maya would require a new object to get a new blend shape. Thats a workaround to being able to h ave a single object with the morphs embedded.
Every app will have its own way of achieving the same goal. That doesnt mean its a workaround.

colkai
06-17-2006, 07:56 AM
colkai for someone who uses Motionbuilder for your character animation needs

I find it funny you attack me for what i say and defend LW CA so much ??

Peter, yes, you're right, I use MB, because it was fast and easy to learn.
Even with auto-riggers etc, I couldn't wrap my head around C.A., regardless of LW C.A. products sold such as your own. My failing, I just could not "see" it.
MB was so easy even a numpty like me could use it, plus, it was the product of choice for the Project and so fits in for the team.
We do have LW C.A. artists available to us now, (would that we had them ealier), we don't use them because we have put so much time into MB now, which is coming back to bite us due to Autodesk, but that's another story. I wish we could use them, because at present I'm finding things would be a lot easier in LW.

What I abhor is you seem to take great delight in attacking LW C.A. tools and anybody who says they can be used.
You like to infer by saying something can be done that we do not want enhancements and improvments to LW, not so, what people are saying is results can be obtained.

Now, given your stance on all this, I find it rather hypocritical that you have your own LW C.A. tools if you feel that LW C.A. is useless.

We know it is not as good as we want, but it works, yes, there may be workarounds, but hey, I thought in the "professional" 3D world, workarounds were part of day to day tasks. I and many others have voiced what we want for LW C.A, does that mean we should drop it and spend time and money on other packages because they are "better", or do we find ways and means of achieving the results, as Dodgy and others have pointed out.

What irks me the most is, the first two responses in this thread were not helpful, as per Dodgys example, but instead came from two people we know have very scathing and negative outlooks to LWs C.A. tools.

Neither of you bothered to offer any assistance and followed up your initial replies with more sarcasm and derogatory statements. Now, seeing as you have sold LW C.A. tools and have used it in the past, surely you could have offered some helpful assistance.
No, it seems you could not, that being the case, why did you bother to reply, especially with such negativity.

You have, by many posts, made it abundantly clear your hold LWs C.A. tools in contempt, yes, you have provided free lessons, but then you taint that by deriding the product every chance you get. I don't get that, I really don't.

Why not simply stay away from any and all LW rigging / C.A. questions if you don't want to offer any useful advice.

If I ask what is the best way to get a rain effect, I don't want "LW doesn't have a proper fluid system and it's all workarounds, it sucks", I wan't advice on the best way to get a rain effect. I don't need to hear how XYZ Complete has a better particle system and the renderer on RYZ will give better results that my package could ever do, I want to know how to get a rain effect in my current product at it's current release.

Jeremy Birn, in his book ,makes a couple of comments, to paraphrase, cheating is done in practically every 3D project, workarounds are inherent in any package as not one package has every solution to every problem. So if one needs to do a 'workaround' instead of 'true' actions, what is the problem?
Why, when it comes to LW, are these workarounds / cheats viewed with such distain, when in other packages, they are carefully ignored?

Pointing out that things can be done/faked is seen as "defending LW", it is not, it is saying, you can get a result. Is it perfect? maybe not, will it please the client / get the job done on time, yes. Then really, what is the problem.

Even at the most basic level, people have been doing workarounds, using smooth-shift then tweaking / moving points to get a result does not mean that the advent of multi-shift was not needed or welcomed.

Let me say this again, the people showing how to achieve results in LW now, at the current release, are not therefore saying they don't want improvements, they are saying you can get a result. This ain't rocket science!

t4d
06-17-2006, 08:36 AM
You have, by many posts, made it abundantly clear your hold LWs C.A. tools in contempt, yes, you have provided free lessons, but then you taint that by deriding the product every chance you get. I don't get that, I really don't.!

I posted the lesson to Show LW CAN be used for Character animation
And I do uses it that's how I can show my workflow and I posted the rig and scene files to show how My workflow works
again I uses Lw for CA as well as Messiah and XSI, you uses Motion builder,. I still find it hard to take you defending LW ??

I have never said Character Can NOT be done in LW I have always said LW needs work to do advanced CA
now this thread title CLEARLY is Wanting a Maya rig in LW, for me That's an Advanced Rig SO I have an opinion.

Note thread title .



If I ask what is the best way to get a rain effect, I don't want "LW doesn't have a proper fluid system and it's all workarounds, it sucks", I wan't advice on the best way to get a rain effect. I don't need to hear how XYZ Complete has a better particle system and the renderer on RYZ will give better results that my package could ever do, I want to know how to get a rain effect in my current product at it's current release.
!

Dodgy posted a Top rig showing his way, everyone can clearly see his POV
He didn't say YES LW does that, it was his go at it one of the issues shown in the Maya rig and it's a cool method and we can load it up and learn.

Now if you want an option for the sake of it
You could do a null rig and string it up with Shockmonkey.

BUT to my mind it's still no where near that Maya rig
it would take alot longer to make and in the end you would not have anywhere near the workflow that the maya rig has.
why post advice that even i think is floored ?

Now SG posted a cool video showing IKB doing some cool things

but if you look at the thread title what has happen really ?
no tips on how to make that rig ?
not really showing how that IKB rig animates ?
Doesn't really even look the same as the maya rig workflow wise ?

you seem to say the answers has been posted and we should be happy
well what answers ?? Back to thread title
"How do you approach this rig in LW? "

how does a person who knows how to rig in LW make that Maya rig in LW ?

colkai
06-17-2006, 08:57 AM
How do you approach a similar strtchy/deformable rig in LW?

Similar, stretchy, not Maya rig in LW.

But yes, I'll leave it to someone to answer who knows how to do advanced rigging in LW to see if they can come up with an answer.

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 09:01 AM
I updated the video I posted earlier. This one has audio and also shows how to get the curvy joints.
Theres always people who use what I like to call the "strawman" argument which is that basically you create this premise, which on the surface APPEARS to be like a big imposing figure until you find out that its just clothing filled with straw. The premise here is that Maya uses a spline hooked into bones and thats good. Lightwave is bad because it doesnt achieve the same goal in the EXACT same way. I can tell you from experience that nobody cares. Only two things matter: That you get the end result and you get it done on time. You find out how your app of choice does it and you create a workflow that uses that method.
http://www.3dtrainingonline.com/examples/ikb_stretchy_rig.mov

ericsmith
06-17-2006, 10:18 AM
I think what's being missed here is that the Maya rig provides a spline based deformation that's controlled by an IK bone structure. Squash and stretch may be one of the end effects of this idea, but it goes way beyond that. As the commentator on the Maya video stated, it gives you the ability to pull the mesh away from the bones, and opens up a lot of possibilities to re-shape the character. Using an endomorph to curve the mesh at an elbow joint really isn't anywhere near the same thing.

Dodgy's rig kind of simulates the curve deform idea, but the bones are fixed in length, so it doesn't compress/expand, and it's unfortunately extremely unstable.

If anything is going to push this thread in the right direction, it would be shift spline transform. I don't have much experience with it, though, so I'm not sure if that's a wild goose chase or not.

Eric

hrgiger
06-17-2006, 10:20 AM
Again, not the same thing so it's not the same end result, not really even that close. The maya rig is using a curve with joints that is bound to the mesh which allows for a curve to control the deformation of the mesh. It's not using rigid bones. Adding a slight curve with an endomorph at the elbow might produce a curvy joint, but it does not produce a curvy limb.

prospector
06-17-2006, 10:20 AM
How do you approach a similar strtchy/deformable rig in LW?
I thought the operative word here was 'similar' too
And SG showed just how to do it. Good work SG.

Is everything in LW a workaround just because it may take 1 more ouse click?
I mean come on 1 mouse click done every min throughout the day equals what 3 min total? And that's a workflow slowdown?? I take more time lighting ciggys during the day. (I left out the M in mouse so I could speed up the typeflow here, tho this sentence may have overridden the time saved :D )


I think someone has stock in some other 3D programs and needs for thier sales to go up so thier portfolio looks better :thumbsup:



As the commentator on the Maya video stated, it gives you the ability to pull the mesh away from the bones, and opens up a lot of possibilities to re-shape the character.

Hey, my meshes frequently leave the bone structure, even when I don't want it to, So I think LW is WAY WAY ahead in that feature :D :D :D :devil:

evenflcw
06-17-2006, 10:42 AM
No, it's a workaround because it's not as stable or flexible a solution and it probably only works in few cases. It's a trick and as a trick it might looks like the original but isn't quite the same (often far from it). Splinegods second video showed some clever use of morphs, but as the video demonstrates and many understand it won't work in every case and cannot yield the same amount of control as the maya rig (personally I don't think this is the best stretchy ik rig I've seen in Maya; Out of the really pro ones, it is probably the worst; or maybe the demonstrator just isn't artistic enough to show it off) - I take it all SG did was space the segments in the arm further apart to get the very slightly curved elbow. Hardly a solid solution. The squash and stretch is always cool though and I agree that that isn't hard to set up.

I agree with a couple of others that neither SG or T4D showed something that could be said to be even close to the maya video. All they did was mimic what the demostrator did using their standard rigs (except for the added stretching in SG 2nd video). Only one that came close was Dodgy. I do appreciate the efforts of all though. Always fun to see rigs in action.

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 10:58 AM
The point is that a stretchy rig can be created in lightwave. What I posted was put together in a few minutes. ANY complex rig will always take more time to do.
As I said, something quick and simple may be all someone needs. Something more time consuming and complex may be what someone else needs. To simply say that LW cant produce a stretchy rig is ridiculous because the rig needed will always vary from job to job and individual preference, needs etc. Blanket statements about such things are a matter of opinion. If my simple example works great for someone then its a solution and a solution is a solution. What is or isnt a solution is based on the end users specific needs.
Ive yet to see any rig that works for every case. It doesnt always have to. It only needs to work for those cases that it needs to. Additional things can be added such as Spline Transform etc etc depending on whats needed.

evenflcw
06-17-2006, 11:45 AM
"To simply say that LW cant produce a stretchy rig is ridiculous because the rig needed will always vary from job to job and individual preference, needs etc. Blanket statements about such things are a matter of opinion."
I agree. But the problem with your demonstration and argument as I see it, is that you yourself make the mistake of making a blanket statements that LW can do even advanced stretchy rigs and that somehow your simple rig proves this. It's a very poorly founded conclusion. Far more poor than what "the other side" is claiming. They've seen advanced rigs demonstrated in other softwares but not in LW - Ergo it's very hard to do advanced rigs in LW. I think that is a better founded conclusion, although it isn't watertight either.



"Ive yet to see any rig that works for every case. "
"Only two things matter: That you get the end result and you get it done on time. "
I think the second statement is lacking. It works in short term but not in the long run (atleast not comfortably). The idea isn't that the very same rig should work for all situations. Instead it's the workflows and practices that you develop that should be adaptable and work in several simular situations, hopefully all. You shouldn't have to come up with a new and different solution every time. It's much better to develop practices that work in numerous cases and stick by them and evolve them instead of coming up with solutions that only work for the particular case. Your morph trick honestly barely works in the demonstration as it only affects such a small area. In conclusion, only three(!) things matter, that you get the end result, that you get it done on time and that you learnt something for the next time. :)

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 11:55 AM
Why is that when someone posts a very simple, proof of concept rig that its assumed that its presented as a be all, end all solution? I made a statement that LW CAN do stretchy rigs. I never said that LW can do anything beyond what I demonstrated, namely, that it can do stretchy rigs. The term 'advanced' is a subjective term and I never used that word. That term can mean just about anything to anyone.

How adaptable a workflow is also depends very much on ones knowledge of the software. My idea of something new and different is to apply the same tools in a variety of ways. Having to write scripts would be the epitomy of coming up with something new to get things done. :)

evenflcw
06-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Why is that when someone posts a very simple, proof of concept rig that its assumed that its presented as a be all, end all solution?
Because you often seem to present them as proof that we can also create the be all, and all solution. Or rather, you present them and then you're satisfied and seem to expect everyone else should be aswell. But as you say yourself, advanced means something different to everyone. Along the same lines, what can be considered and fullfills the criteria of a "stretchy rig" is different for everyone. This discrepancy is no doubt the reason for most of these discussions. Personally I don't mind discussing. Apparantly you don't either :D

Sorry if I read to much into your posts, Larry.


The term 'advanced' is a subjective term
That's why I used it. :)
Seriously though. It was just to set it apart from a nondefined level or a basic level. Basic in this case are for example fk controlled stretching or a short ik chain stretch without additional controls for stuff like bias etc. That's what I would consider basic in this case. Those are the simplest setups you can do and say you have a stretchy rig. You can only go higher level from there, you can't go much lower.

Please note that in the initial post, what was asked for was not simply any "stretchy rig", but a stretchy rig simular to what was shown in the maya video. Again we might discuss how "simular" it needs to be to be considered "simular", but who cares anymore :)


Having to write scripts would be the epitomy of coming up with something new to get things done.
So is creating that morph. You'll have to create a unique one for each character and rig. I'd agree with this statement if it weren't for the fact that scripts and expressions can be adaptable and reused without having to start from scratch everytime. As such they are timesavers and time well spent in the long run if done right. They also have the potential to give you exactly what you need instead of having to settle for a native solution and scale down what you initially wanted to achieve.



PS. Maybe one day I'll get my lazy *** to do a rig to present to you guys.

SplineGod
06-17-2006, 02:08 PM
I think its more important for people NOT to read into statements what is a private interpretation. I would say that its more true the LW can do stretchy rigs rather then not. :)

Creating unique morphs for a character is standard in any package. I doubt that Maya has a generic stretchy rig that works for every character. It would have to be customized. Its no different. Setting up endomorphs in LW is VERY easy, and probably easier then setting up spline defomers and constraining them. :)

I consider any rig that gets the job done to be advanced. :)

colkai
06-18-2006, 02:31 AM
Never mind advanced rigs actually, at present LW almost demands unique rigs.

As T4D correctly stated, at the project, we use MB, to pull characters into MB, we use as a base rig 3DDaves kindly donated rig with correct naming etc.

Now, we have several folks doing characters, they are all subtly, or not so subtly, different. Each time, I have to pull the character into LW and edit the rig to suit the character. In some cases, we have to add additional bones / skelegons.
We've also found, data imported is key to matching that one chatacter, unless you edit the model to have exactly the same size, bends etc and even then, it isn't a foregone conclusion. Mind you, I wouldn't lay the blame squarely at LW's feet for that as the FBX format is getting less 'universal' with each release.

SplineGod
06-18-2006, 02:44 AM
Maya also has problems with FBX. Motion Builder also has its unique set of gotchas when doing some types of rigs as well. Quadruped or multilegged rigs are one example. Characterizing isnt always seamless and any deviations from their strict naming conventions can also cause issues. Other then that its nice
One thing that is nice though is that its pretty easy to animate a motion builder compatible rig using IKBoost. Since IKBoost applies motion data directly to bones
the animation can be easily exported to motion builder. Motion builder created motions can be brought back into LW and IKB used to edit the motions further using IKBs ability to copy/save/load/mirror poses and motions. Even motion clips imported from MB can be blended in motion mixer. I think this might be more useful since the price of motion builder is now out of most peoples range and you never know what Autodesk will eventually do with it later. :)

colkai
06-18-2006, 02:59 AM
My biggest gripe with MB is it plotting the data to every key when the FCurves should import nicely into LW anyway. But that, s they say, is a story for another place. ;)