Surface constraint

[robcat2075]

Does anyone have a small example PRJ that shows a "surface constraint" in operation?

[robcat2075]

Never mind. I got it to work a bit.

 

However, I'm finding the constrained object is following a jagged straight line path over the surface rather than following the actual surface curve.

 

this is an onionskin screen shot

 

 

 

Anyone know what's up with that?

[itsjustme]

It could be that the bone that contacts the surface loses contact? There's an old project that I put together here...it's a four-wheeled cart that uses surface constraints to keep the wheels on the ground. A better setup was put together by Mark Skodacek, here.

 

Hope that helps, Robert.

[robcat2075]

It could be that the bone that contacts the surface loses contact? There's an old project that I put together here...it's a four-wheeled cart that uses surface constraints to keep the wheels on the ground. A better setup was put together by Mark Skodacek, here.

 

Hope that helps, Robert.

 

Thanks David, that's a neat set up.

 

I'm not sure I can see it on yours, but I think the surface constraint really follows a four-subdivision-per-spline approximation of the surface rather than the actual patch surface. That's what the tests I've tried so far indicate.

 

This is a bone following the surface of a 3-cross-section lathed cylinder

 

 

 

edit:

 

subdividing the cylinder into 16 sections didn't help. the constrained bone is still moving in straight line paths, about 4 sections per 90° turn.

 

 

 

 

I'd be curious to see if anyone can load this test PRJ and get a different result.

 

SurfConTest.zip

[steve392]

I gave it a go ,it seems like it bump's int something around every 20 frames ,but it still looks prety smooth,Don't supose this will help mpeg 4 btw

test_R.mov

[yoda64]

I'm not sure I can see it on yours, but I think the surface constraint really follows a four-subdivision-per-spline approximation of the surface rather than the actual patch surface. That's what the tests I've tried so far indicate.

 

It's fixed for V15.f

 

[robcat2075]

I'm not sure I can see it on yours, but I think the surface constraint really follows a four-subdivision-per-spline approximation of the surface rather than the actual patch surface. That's what the tests I've tried so far indicate.

 

It's fixed for V15.f

 

 

Cool! I was thinking I might be crazy. The thing I thought was really odd was that increasing the patch density didn't reduce the straightline jagginess.