Costume change in pose

[jakerupert]

I am experimenting with encorporating different dressparts( and colors) into the same model by scaling them down

in a pose and hiding them inside the body, so that I can switch from normal to superheroe just by

moving the poseslider.

 

 

Has anybody some expierience with this?

 

Might this cause rendering artifacts for instance

or other problems?

[robcat2075]

If it's genuinely inside the body it should not be a problem.

 

Making it 100% transparent might be easier, however.

[John Bigboote]

OR--- both! Lately I have been making models with at least 2 outfits controlled by a pose slider... shoes can change as well! And when both outfits are 'OFF' you have a nude model... (sweet!)

 

I even lately made a gradient material...one color being the dress color, the other being transparent... and then in a pose you change the 'Y' value of both and you get a gradient 'disrobing' of the dress as opposed to a 'fade-out'. FUN STUFF!

 

EDIT: example posted.

[TheSpleen]

I want that model!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Bigboote]

Actually the body modeling was given away right here on the forum! I'll try to find the posting and give proper credit...it is a SWELL interpretation of the female anatomy I must say. I am enjoying doing my 'long hair' tests on it, I merely added the head, feet and other...'embellishments', and I hope to implement some ZignTrack(AM:Track) facial actions as well. THANKS!

[johnl3d]

I agree with Matt the gradient method would be the way to go

[Meowx]

If it's genuinely inside the body it should not be a problem.

 

Making it 100% transparent might be easier, however.

I've actually run into some rendering artifact problems with making stuff 100% transparent. It also seems to really bog down render times!

[John Bigboote]

I've actually run into some rendering artifact problems with making stuff 100% transparent. It also seems to really bog down render times!

 

It should not inhibit render times too terribly much... if you are going for minimal splineage-this may not be the way to go. As far as rendering artifacts, you will also need to (in your 'invisible' pose) make sure the group you are making transparent also has it's specular and reflective levels lowered to zero as well.

[rusty]

Hello,

 

Well, I have to jump into this topic as it kind of mirrors an effort I have ongoing. With my 'virtual actor' approach (a character model can play many parts so is only a bald, untextured head... all else -- maps and hair -- is 'snap on' and, the neck down is wardrobe) one area of research is an attempt to come up with a flexible morph-able outfit. It would have a 'top' and a 'bottom' (arms or hands and, shoes or feet are add-ons to this). Both 'top' and 'bottom' would have flattening poses and could be textured as needed.

 

Where it gets interesting is... just how many 'kinds' of tops and bottoms are there? So... whether the 'top' is:

* a coat and tie or just a shirt;

* long or short sleeve;

* collar, or none and vneck or round neck or tank top;

* pockets or no pockets

will be pose controlled.

 

Whether the bottom is:

* long or shorts (and how short)

* jean type or creased

* number of pockets and pocket types

* belt/no belt

will also be... pose controlled.

 

Yes making parts invisible has problems (even if shadow, specularity and so on is considered) so morphing/hiding is the way I'm going now.

 

I'm convinced it will work -- perhaps it will be somewhat limited. I'd almost certainly have to have a male and female model and, I think female dresses and skirts will need to be left out of this. The problem of course is rigging and weighting but if this is kept limited enough that really shouldn't be a problem either.

 

With one exception I only need one outfit for my current project so this effort is a background effort right now but it looks real promising. Admittedly it takes me for-friggin-ever to rig and weight clothes. I laugh when I think of how I used to believe I'd have a nude model and be able to dress it in cloth simulated mesh!

 

Rusty

[steve392]

Matt I would very much like to see that in action if possible ,sounds a graet way to go