adamP

I put in some lids. I think this looks pretty relaxed. Thanks for reminding me . test.mov

Here's a turntable of the head. As far as modeling goes, I THINK I might be done. Next step... visimes . buddy_2_turn.mov

Thanks guys I totally understand what you're saying (and you're right), but the look I was going for was not photo-realistic. I hate to say this, but I was going for a "pixar" look. It's hard to tell from a side view, but I actually think this model is achieving that for the most part. If you look at the humans in any Pixar movie (at least the adult humans), their heads are rather flat behind the ear. Anyways, thanks for the C&C.

Okay, I've been playing with the jaw a bit. Can anyone say which of these meshes looks the cleanest?

Okay, i think i got it. I might be making a big deal out of this, but please remember that I've never modeled a head with ears before. I was just hoping that someone could tell me which mesh looks cleaner. *The only difference between the two is that the one on the left has an extra spline going up the forehead.

Hey everybody, I've been going mad trying to model a dang ear for my character. I had the basic shape going, but I couldn't attach it to the head right. So, I went back and figured a way to attach the ear to anything, and now it'll be easier to attach to the head (I hope). Anyway, I just wanted some C&C before taking the next step. note: there's still some point pulling I need to do, I'm just looking for an accurate way to attach the ear to a head.

I started the head finally. This is still an early WIP. I'm still gonna smooth it out and make a couple of adjustments. I'm just trying to get the mesh together. I know it's not perfect, I just did copy/flip/attach just to show the full head. I just need to know if the layout is okay before I go any further. C&C appreciated. -thanks

Looks fine to me, nice and smooth. In my modeling experience (which isn't much), I've found that in some cases, less is more when it comes to splineage. Your model is very smooth, but IMO it might be a little spline heavy. Maybe try to keep the smoothness with less splines, but like I said, it looks fine.

Started working on the eye sockets. I'm having trouble with the nostrils. Still have a lot of work to do. I know the wire pic is messed up, I had some trouble. Anyway, C&C&Advice are welcome

Here's a chor shot. The one on the right is with the outermost lip ring cut out. I'm not keeping it like this, I just wanted to see if it looked better, but it looks too much like an M,B, or P pose.

Haven't had much time to work lately. I'm sure everyone's noticed the second spline ring that's real close to the lips in the wire frame. In "Stop Staring", that second spline ring is supposed to make the sharp edge of the lips visible. I followed the book exactly, but I just don't like how sharp it is. So I took it out. Personally I think it looks better. Also, In following the book, I started getting away from the concept sketches and made my Buddy look too realistic when he's supposed to be slightly cartoony. I'll keep updating when I get more work done. I attached a before/after pic to show the effect of removing that second spline ring. C&C welcome

I have to give the credit to "Stop Staring" for the clean splineage. I'm just going through the book line by line. This is my first HUMAN head, not my very first model. I know I need to work on the nose some more. Thanks guys

Well, this is the same model from my "mouth creasing" topic. I'm not really posting b/c I've run into a problem, I'd just like some C&C on the model so far.

Did some more work, and put some wire pics this time. They're labeled in order, but that doesn't mean it gradually gets better. Each one is different. I feel that the last one (v6) is the best. Anyone agree/disagree? C&C welcome and appreciated.

I started modeling my first human head. I'm pretty happy with the lips so far, but I can't get rid of the creases at the corners of the mouth. Any ideas?

I tried it without putting an orient like constraint on the toe bone to the foot target, but when animating, you have to deal with 3 bones instead of only 2: translation of the foot target, and rotation of the heel and toe bones. Instead, now you just translate and rotate the foot target, and then rotate the heel as needed. You might recognize the knee target and legroll target from Jeff Lew's rig. After buying the DVD over a year ago, that's the rig I've been using, but I also like certain things in the 2001 rig (like the hip null and inverted pelvis bone). So I sort of blended the two rigs together. And with the addition of this heel setup, it's turning into a very versatile, yet simple, rig. I'll post it when it's done, if anyone cares to try it out.

I am by no means a rigging expert, but here's my go at the heel rig... Heel_Tester.mdl

What if I wanted to basically use the MrFootTarget as my toe bone to where I would never actually animate the toe bone, just the MrFootTarget? If not, how do I add an expression to a bone, is there a tut or anything?

I'm not at MY computer right now, so I can't check it in A:M, but with the default 2001 Rig, doesn't the "knee rotator" have an orient-like constraint to the "Foot Target"? If so, why not just make the contraint's target "MrFootTarget" instead of the default "Foot Target"? That should give the leg the same rotation as the default rig. The other thing that bothers me is the toe bone, so I'm going to make a "Heel Setup" relationship where the toe bone is oriented like the MrFootTarget.

Had some time to fool with it... 1.)The new hierarchy you suggested does make it really rock 2.)The nice thing about it is that if you have IK legs turned on, you can choose to animate the legs with the FootTarget or the MrFootTarget without an extra relationship. 3.)I didn't notice a significant difference with having the knee rotator orient like the heelraiser. 4.)My ONLY problem with the setup is the toe bone. With this hierarchy, we don't need a Heel Setup relationship, but what I basically need is to make the MrFootTarget control the movement of the toes so all I have to animate is the MrFootTarget and the heelraiser. I guess the only way to do this is to have an orient like constraint from the toe bone to the MrFootTarget, unless there is a better way.

Mike, how do you do it man? You said you haven't done it yourself, but that's the best heel setup I've ever tried! Just one comment though, you said to add a translate to constraint from the foot target to the heel raiser, but I also added an orient like constraint from the foot target to the heel raiser. With just the translate to constraint, the heel breaks.

Okay, "attached to parent" and "lock IK" cannot be manipulated in a relationship. But I will probably be fine just having lock IK turned ON for the calves and forearms all the time. But there are 2 problems with this. 1.) If I move the forearm bone (with lock IK turned ON) in any way, it throws the IK arms setup out of whack. 2.) Lock IK turned ON works fine for the calves allowing me to rotate the bone independently however I like, but this isn't the case for the forearm. I think it has a limit placed on it, but I don't know how to remove it. I've looked through all of the relationships and can't find any limits or anything. Here's the rig if anyone wants to try to figure it out. (no mesh, just skeleton) 2001_Skeleton2.mdl

Is the attached to parent property something that can be turned off/on in a relationship?

Is that just a temporary solution? I need more of a permanent solution because I tend to use FK a lot more than IK.

Thanks for the answers to #2 and 3. For #1, with the 2001 rig, when you turn off IK arms, the whole arm can be moved by just moving the forearm bone. I'd rather move each bone (bicep, forearm, and hand) individually. It does this for FK because the forearm bone has "attached to parent" turned ON. In order to do it the way I want, "attached to parent" needs to be OFF. but this would screw up the IK setup. So do I need 2 sets of bones? 1 with attached to parent ON for IK, and 1 with attached to parent OFF for FK? Hope that clears it up a bit. Or can attached to parent be modified in a relationship?