Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums
Sign in to follow this  
robcat2075

How often do you weight to more than 3 bones?

Recommended Posts

This is a question for those who do quite a bit of rigging.

 

I was imagining an interface gadget that would assist in apportioning weight percentages. Currently we type in values in the Edit CP Weights dialog and we try make them always total 100%.

 

If a set of CPs had only two bones (A and B ) associated with it, A:M could show a slider that would adjust the weight from 100% A, 0% B on one end to 0% A, 100% B on the other end.

 

If a set of CPs had three bones associated with it, a linear slider wouldn't be sufficient. A triangle shaped gadget could represent all the possibilities however.

 

triangle_gadget.png

 

If your control was at position 1, that would indicate nearly 100% on bone B and almost 0 on the other two. Put the control at 2 and that would get 50% B, 50% C and 0% A

 

Position 3 would get you 33.3, 33.3, 33.3% and 4 would be something like 60% A, 25% B and 15% C.

 

That would be easier and more intuitive than typing in percentages.

 

I can't think of a way to easily represent 4 bone weights. A square wouldn't do it.

 

But how often are you weighting to 4 or more bones? I've done some face weighting that had some CPs on more than 3 bones but that was probably over complicated.

 

Is there a common situation where you are needing to weight to more than 3 bones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I weight to more than 3 bones maybe 10% of the time. Usually somewhere in the hips/shoulders/face.

A 2 dimensional slider (for three CPs) would still be useful for the majority of weighting. Just don't get rid of the ability to manually type in CP weight values for those rare times you need that.

I would imagine a 4-CP gizmo might look like a tetrehedran in 3 dimensional space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that all that would be necessary. If each bone had a slider in the weighting dialog (with the ability to type the percentage in next to it), that would be enough. It wouldn't matter how many bones a cp had assigned to it.

 

Or maybe something like a gradient slider, where the space between each marker could represent each bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually have CPs in the face and shoulders weighted to 4 bones. (Start simple and add as necessary)

I find it quite tedious to select one CP at a time, open the weighting editor, adjust weights, close editor, select next CP, open editor, and on and on. I would prefer it if the editor stayed open and just reflected the current selection, allowing the user to adjust the percentages. Every time that a new selection is made the associated bone names would be displayed, as is currently the case, and the user could adjust the percentages manually or by using sliders, or even some new intuitive interface gizmo. These new values would be stored in a buffer, (part of the weight editor), and A:M would use these temporarily so that you could test their effect. If happy with the balance the user would click the "Set Weights" button and the values in the buffer would be commited and the button would lose it's highlight. If the user made a new selection of CPs the buffer is flushed and the data for the new selection copied into the buffer and displayed in the interface. New bones could be added as in the current manner, via drop-down menus.

 

So the weight editor would become a "mode", like using the hair grooming mode, that A:M would be in while the weight editor was active.

 

The problem is what do you do when you have multiple CPs selected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it quite tedious to select one CP at a time, open the weighting editor, adjust weights, close editor, select next CP, open editor, and on and on.

 

Until something like "Weighting Mode" happens, you may find some useful tips for dealing with this situation in this tutorial:

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=34473

 

Basically, you don't have to do that. Select your CPs one at a time, THEN open the CP Weights Dialog. The first CP you selected will be first in the list. The second CP you select will be next. And so on. As long as you remember the order in which you selected your CPs, you can work you way down the list without having to close the CP weights dialog every time. Just hit the "Apply" button after you adjust weights for each CP. If it doesn't look right, adjust the percentages and hit the Apply button again. Then move to the next CP.

 

It works best for me if I select CPs along each spline or spline ring, then it is easy to remember the order in which I selected them. It is a little slower than group-selecting a mass of CPs, but it much faster than opening the CP Weight dialog anew for each CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that all that would be necessary. If each bone had a slider in the weighting dialog (with the ability to type the percentage in next to it), that would be enough. It wouldn't matter how many bones a cp had assigned to it.

 

This could work IF the sliders mutually affected each other so they always added up to 100%

 

If I had five sliders and added 20% to one, you couldn't just automatically subtract 5% from each of the other four because what if one of theme was already less than 5? Clipping it at 0 would be wrong.

 

A formula would have to be devised to proportionally reduce the other four.

 

Suppose we had an arbitrary number of bones and Bone A is the one we are presently adjusting via the slider

 

This formula would also have to work in the special case where one bone starts with 100% and others are 0%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could work IF the sliders mutually affected each other so they always added up to 100%

AM already does this by hitting the balance selected button.

 

If I had five sliders and added 20% to one, you couldn't just automatically subtract 5% from each of the other four because what if one of theme was already less than 5? Clipping it at 0 would be wrong.

I believe AM already subtracts proportionally, so if a bone has 4% set to the weighting, 5% of 4% is subtracted, or something like that.

 

A formula would have to be devised to proportionally reduce the other four.

I believe AM already does this, but it's distributed among all 5 bones, not just the 4 bones.

 

The biggest hassle with the weighting dialog (for me) is, having to select the bone at the top, then type in the percentage at the bottom of the dialog window. Adding a slider next to each bones name in the window would make things alot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This could work IF the sliders mutually affected each other so they always added up to 100%

AM already does this by hitting the balance selected button.

 

The balance buttons make all selected CPs have identical weighting. That's somewhat different from what I talking about.

 

If I had five sliders and added 20% to one, you couldn't just automatically subtract 5% from each of the other four because what if one of theme was already less than 5? Clipping it at 0 would be wrong.

I believe AM already subtracts proportionally, so if a bone has 4% set to the weighting, 5% of 4% is subtracted, or something like that.

A formula would have to be devised to proportionally reduce the other four.

I believe AM already does this, but it's distributed among all 5 bones, not just the 4 bones.

 

That's the effect I don't want.

 

If I have two bones each with 50% and I change one to 75%, the other bone doesn't get changed to 25%, it gets changed to 40% and the 75 gets changed to 60%. And this doesn't happen until after you hit Apply.

 

Obviously we live with it because *we* succeed in getting characters rigged, but relatively few people do.

 

Sliders that compensated in realtime would be easier and faster for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The balance buttons make all selected CPs have identical weighting. That's somewhat different from what I talking about.

I know I have done this before. I can add a bone to all selected cps and have the percentage compensated to only the bones that are applied to the individual cps. For example, I select 3 cps and each one has a different bone assigned to it. I can then add a 4th bone to the weighting and each cp will then have 2 bones assigned to it. It's been awhile since I did any weighting, so I guess it's not the balance button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The balance buttons make all selected CPs have identical weighting. That's somewhat different from what I talking about.

I know I have done this before. I can add a bone to all selected cps and have the percentage compensated to only the bones that are applied to the individual cps. For example, I select 3 cps and each one has a different bone assigned to it. I can then add a 4th bone to the weighting and each cp will then have 2 bones assigned to it. It's been awhile since I did any weighting, so I guess it's not the balance button.

 

When you do that, the 4th bone automatically assumes a value of 50%. You must then go through each CP in the Control Points list and adjust the weights so the total for each CP is 100%.

 

The 1 dimensional slider idea might work if each slider had a "lock" button. Say a CP is weighted to 4 bones. You move the slider for one of the bones and the sliders for the three others adjust proportionally, based on their initial values. But if you know you want one bone to be 25%, you enter that value and then "lock" it. Then when you slide one of the other sliders, only the unlocked sliders move. However, I'm not totally sure this is the best alternative ... unfortunately I can't think of a different one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching this tread with interest :-)

And I think it's possible to improve the weightdialog .

 

Paul

Your suggestion nice , but I see many complications , if the dialog will be a nonmodal dialog .

 

mtpeak

Slider a good idea , but will be only possible for the selected bone (one slider in the dialog)

More than one sliders will be a logical problem , offcourse most cp's are assigned to not more than 4 or 5 bones , but only this will be a problem with the size of slidercontrols in this dialog.

And hold in Your mind , that the slider controls on the mac has another size than on the pc , this complicates the sizing problem too .

And from experience , there is any user outside , wich have assigned a cp to 20+ bones .....

 

Robert

"If I have two bones each with 50% and I change one to 75%, the other bone doesn't get changed to 25%, it gets changed to 40% and the 75 gets changed to 60%. And this doesn't happen until after you hit Apply."

I think You are correct here , that this is not the behavior , that's expected . I will look if it is possible to change this (without breaking other things ...)

 

First attempt, and You'll see the first problem , horizontal slider control is top down ( means top position is 0%, down position 100 %) :-(

31.05.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More than one sliders will be a logical problem ,

 

You can only move one slider at at time so it should be possible for the program to switch to taking input from the one being moved and displaying changes on the others, right?

 

What are the minimum physical screen size dimensions for sliders on Mac and PC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that would speed things up for me would be an "eye-dropper" to select bones in addition to the pull-down list.

 

As for the slider...it would have to be able to move in ".1" increments, so 1000 positions. Instead of an actual slider, I would like it if the input box for the weighting behaved like the "Transform" properties...you can just click on something like the 'X' "Translate" and drag to change the distance incrementally (works the same with "Scale" and "Rotate"). I don't know if it would be easier to code, but on the surface it seems like it would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the slider...it would have to be able to move in ".1" increments, so 1000 positions.

 

Can you show a situation where a 0.1 percent weight change is significant? :blink:

 

I expect you could still do numeric input for these sliders, just like you can for pose sliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the slider...it would have to be able to move in ".1" increments, so 1000 positions.

 

Can you show a situation where a 0.1 percent weight change is significant? :blink:

 

I expect you could still do numeric input for these sliders, just like you can for pose sliders.

 

 

What would your cut-off be? I'm assuming you've never come across any weighting that required ".6"? Or ".9"?

 

 

---------------------------------

EDIT

---------------------------------

 

As long as there was an option to enter decimals manually, it wouldn't matter. So, if there was a slider, whole numbers would be enough. However, I know I've run into plenty of instances where I had to use decimals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something that would speed things up for me would be an "eye-dropper" to select bones in addition to the pull-down list.

 

As for the slider...it would have to be able to move in ".1" increments, so 1000 positions. Instead of an actual slider, I would like it if the input box for the weighting behaved like the "Transform" properties...you can just click on something like the 'X' "Translate" and drag to change the distance incrementally (works the same with "Scale" and "Rotate"). I don't know if it would be easier to code, but on the surface it seems like it would be.

 

You mean a Spincontrol , not much more effort to code , but has the advantage , that it would need much less place (and have the numerical input attached ..).

I think I try it , when I'm back from work ....

The 0.1 increment where also possible for slidercontrols .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distance between two bones on screen would have to be 1000 pixels for a weighting difference of 0.1 on a CP between them to appear as big as 1 pixel.

 

Right??

 

I've never had a situation where something like 78.3% was wrong and 78.4% was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The distance between two bones on screen would have to be 1000 pixels for a weighting difference of 0.1 on a CP between them to appear as big as 1 pixel.

 

Right??

 

I've never had a situation where something like 78.3% was wrong and 78.4% was right.

 

 

What about fish scales or something similar? I'll admit that whole numbers would work in the vast majority of instances, but that doesn't mean a capability should be eliminated arbitrarily. I like having as many options as I can get. As I said, as long as the capability exists to input decimals, then all bases would be covered that are possible now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For comparision

I have made a test with a slider and a (standard) spincontrol

advantage for the spincontrol

- has a numerical input field

- up to 15 spins are possible to place in the actual dialog dimension (slider only 10)

 

what's the better control to do this job ? (userfriendly)

and another question , how much bones You have maximal assigned to on cp ?

 

test_cpw.mov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what's the better control to do this job ? (userfriendly)

 

both work - For me, the most user friendly, I prefer the ability to directly input numerical - so I would vote for spin control.

 

I most likely work with integer numbers for weighting - and sometimes the sliders, or spin controls are too tweaky, touchy.

 

As long as the values that are "applied" by user are the values that get set - I can do the math to figure out the remaining balance between bones.

 

(Additional thoughts:

 

What would be nice from user point of view perhaps (but more complicated of course) - is that the cps that have been selected in the dialog, would also light up in the model, or action window when they are being weighted. Or vice versa - when in weighting mode - one could have both action or model window open AND the weighting dialog. When select the cp(s) in model - they show up in the dialog box - along with the current bone weighting.

 

And perhaps, maybe it would be nice if one could do weighting in bones mode - ie have the weighting dialog available. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this is what David was referring to. Having the spincontrol at the bones name, then be able to click and drag between the name and control (invisible slider), just like the transform properties. (red bar is just for visual)

 

Then have the other bones weighting adjusted to the amount needed to make up 100%. (Robert's request) Say you set Bone4 to 70%, then have Bone3 automaticly update to 30%. Can this be done?

weight.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to click and drag right/left in a numeric value to increase/decrease the value, like we can do in Properties would probably be the most screen-space efficient method. If it incremented 0.l1 per pixel of mouse movement that would probably be a good compromise between speed and precision.

 

I'd still like to see the change you make on one bone be distributed to the other bones so they always add up to 100%. There might also need to be a way to "lock" a bone's value so it is isolated from these all-over redistributions.

 

 

So if I knew Bone A should be 15% I could set that, lock it and then the remaining bones would work with the remaining 85% of available weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe this is what David was referring to. Having the spincontrol at the bones name, then be able to click and drag between the name and control (invisible slider), just like the transform properties. (red bar is just for visual)

 

That's a cooler interface than I was thinking, but same concept. Right now, it looks like the attached video.

 

 

I'd still like to see the change you make on one bone be distributed to the other bones so they always add up to 100%. There might also need to be a way to "lock" a bone's value so it is isolated from these all-over redistributions.

 

 

So if I knew Bone A should be 15% I could set that, lock it and then the remaining bones would work with the remaining 85% of available weight.

 

Being able to lock a value would be very useful.

 

 

For comparision

I have made a test with a slider and a (standard) spincontrol

advantage for the spincontrol

- has a numerical input field

- up to 15 spins are possible to place in the actual dialog dimension (slider only 10)

 

what's the better control to do this job ? (userfriendly)

and another question , how much bones You have maximal assigned to on cp ?

 

Both would work, but I like the spincontrol better since it will take up less space, look the same across platforms, accomplish the same thing and hopefully would limit the amount of extra work for you, Steffen. I'm not sure how much trouble adding the "eye-dropper" selection tool would be, but it would cut down on having to look through a long list of bones to find the right one if it can be added.

 

 

--------------------------------------------

EDIT

--------------------------------------------

 

I forgot to add, I'm not sure how many bones should be the maximum number for assigning...I know that I have some CP's in Squetchy Sam between the legs that have six bones assigned to them (three for each leg along the center). I doubt that it would be necessary to have the ability to assign more than ten in the vast majority of instances, but I would hate to put any limitations on the number if I could avoid it...you never know.

invisible_slider.mov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the most useful things would be:

Always make the bone weights add up to 100% when I hit [Enter] to set a value, while keeping the exact value for the bone weight I just entered.

The ability to lock the value on bones I do not want changed.

 

I would probably not use the slider or spin control because it does not appear to be any more efficient than entering values directly into the weight % field.

Old way:

Select a bone in the Bones list.

Enter a value in the Weight % field

 

Proposed new way:

Select a bone in the Bones list.

Slide the slider to adjust the weight.

 

-------------------------------------------------

One thing that would make it a little more efficient is if I could click on the weight value beside the bone name right in the bones list (the list of bones that are already assigned to a CP), the value would change to an input box with the value already selected. I enter a new value and hit [enter].

That way, I would only have to click once - instead of clicking once on the bone name in the bones list to select it, then clicking a second time in the Weight % field to enter a new weight.

-------------------------------------------------

Untitled_1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------------------------------------------

One thing that would make it a little more efficient is if I could click on the weight value beside the bone name right in the bones list (the list of bones that are already assigned to a CP), the value would change to an input box with the value already selected. I enter a new value and hit [enter].

That way, I would only have to click once - instead of clicking once on the bone name in the bones list to select it, then clicking a second time in the Weight % field to enter a new weight.

-------------------------------------------------

 

Having designed user interfaces for a good 25 years, I can say that the weighting dialogue is one of the most frustrating for this reason. It took me quite a while to train myself to use this screen in the right sequence.

 

As I was reading this thread this morning all sotrts of screen design options kept coming to mind. Since I'm a wee bit late coming to the party (spent the weekend doing absolutely nothing but soaking up the rays and relaxing in the hot tub with my bride!) I can see that many of what I envisioned has already been considered. My two cents: The above issue needs to be corrected first and foremost. The "lock option" is s sure win. The slider interface should be in issue of space, though the ability to simply enter a value needs to be there. The hidden slider would make the interface consistent with the rest of the app (important!). But the pie in the sky for me is the ability to have weight adjustments reflected in an action window without having to close the weighting screen. That would speed the process up tremendously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the pie in the sky for me is the ability to have weight adjustments reflected in an action window without having to close the weighting screen. That would speed the process up tremendously

 

It is already possible to see the results of any adjustments that you make and you don't have to commit until you are happy with it but once you do commit the interface closes and you have go through the whole process again for the next selection. Just highlighting important buttons, to reflect the state of your edits, and allowing the interface to remain open would help enormously. The sliders with a temporary "lock" button would enable some degree of control with auto balancing of values. Without the lock button I can't see how auto balancing would work across several bones and CPs, unless someone can visualize a funky new gizmo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the pie in the sky for me is the ability to have weight adjustments reflected in an action window without having to close the weighting screen. That would speed the process up tremendously

 

It is already possible to see the results of any adjustments that you make and you don't have to commit until you are happy with it but once you do commit the interface closes and you have go through the whole process again for the next selection.

 

It would be cool if CP weighting were something like a Properties window that can be active while you are moving bones in an action window and not have to close it first. Then you could more quickly test the result of your weight choices on the mesh when bones are moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all for Your input .

 

I will try to implement the weigthing like the Properties window .

But one restriction I know yet , weigthing will be limited to a specific number of bones (50 bones enough :-) ?)

because it's not possible to add properties dynamically to a window, like the properties window .

Changing this would be a change in the deep, where many side effects can occur , thatswhy I'll put my hand offf this ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I try it , when I'm back from work ....

 

I thought this *was* your work! :unsure:

 

As for me, it would be cool if the weighting box could have the option to stay open all the time and change dynamically depending on which cps are selected.

 

Also, I agree that if you are weighting a bunch of cps, they should all dynamically add up to 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, I agree that if you are weighting a bunch of cps, they should all dynamically add up to 100%.

You can't do that without being able to lock off bones otherwise the weight would always be distributed evenly among the bones. Not always what you want. I still think that some kind of graphical device could simplify the balancing of weights but it escapes me at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what my Wile E. Coyote drawing board says:

 

B1 = the original weight of bone being adjusted

B2 = new weight of bone being adjusted

L1 = original combined weight of locked bones

U1 = original combined weight of un locked bones

W1 = original weight of any single unlocked bone W

 

 

Of course... B1+L1+U1 should equal 100

 

And... B2 cannot become greater than B1+U1

 

So...

 

B2 - B1 = weight added to B1 = total weight that must be removed U1

 

(W1/U1) = the portion of the weight change that goes to any single unlocked bone W

 

W2 = the new weight of any un locked bone W = W1 - (W1/U1)*(B2 - B1) this calculation is done for each unlocked bone

 

 

The above formula proportionally distributes weight added or subtracted from one bone to each of the other non-zero unlocked bones.

 

It doesn't account for the case where all the other unlocked bones start with 0.

 

If all the other unlocked bones were starting from 0 then

 

W2 = 1/(total number of unlocked bones) * (B2-B1)

 

 

Do I have that right? Is that the way the rest of you are thinking of this re apportioning working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe something like this:

 

Select CP and lock any bone channels that you want to preserve.

 

CP is influenced by the following bones:

 

Bone1=25% (locked)

Bone2=25% (locked)

Bone3=30%

Bone4=20%

Total bones = 4

Total unlocked = 2

LockedValue = 50

Unlocked value = (100-LockedValue) = 50

 

Bone5 is manually added to the list and is automatically initialised with a value of 0%

Total bones = 5

Total unlocked = 3

LockedValue = 50

Unlocked value = (100-LockedValue) = 50

 

Press "Balance"

 

Result:

Bone1=25% (locked)

Bone2=25% (locked)

Bone3=%

Bone4=25%

Bone5=0%

The values of the unlocked bones are added together and divided by the number of unlocked bones.

ie. BalanceValue = UnlockedValue DIV TotalUnlocked = 16

 

Bone1=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone2=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone3=16% ||||||||||||||||

Bone4=16% ||||||||||||||||

Bone5=16% ||||||||||||||||

 

Editing Bone4 to 20% with a slider would produce the following:

 

Bone1=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone2=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone3=10% ||||||||||

Bone4=20% ||||||||||||||||||||

Bone5=10% ||||||||||

 

As the sliding value increases the other unlocked channels are reduced together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bone1=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone2=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone3=16% ||||||||||||||||

Bone4=16% ||||||||||||||||

Bone5=16% ||||||||||||||||

 

Editing Bone4 to 20% with a slider would produce the following:

 

Bone1=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone2=25% (locked) |||||||||||||||||||||||||

Bone3=10% ||||||||||

Bone4=20% ||||||||||||||||||||

Bone5=10% ||||||||||

 

As the sliding value increases the other unlocked channels are reduced together.

 

The last part is off.

 

 

 

If you increase Bone 4 to 20 that's only +4

 

If Bone 4 is 20% then Bone 3 and bone 5 need to get set to 15% each , not 10%

 

Aside from that, you're in line with what I am thinking.

 

 

 

(And of course, The three bones need to be 16.66 to start rather than 16)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And of course, The three bones need to be 16.66 to start rather than 16)

Well, not really. The algorythm can keep values to whole numbers, they are only an interface representation of the percentage of influence, (unlikely to be the actual values that A:M uses), but for the sake of precision I agree.

 

When you adjust the slider for bone 4 it's value is stored in a "live" buffer and the combined value of the remaining unlocked channels is divided by TotalUnlocked-1 and stored in those unlocked channels. Something like that anyway.

 

I am being called away. Have to go to Bristol for the day.

 

Later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I try it , when I'm back from work ....

 

I thought this *was* your work! :unsure:

 

No ,it's only my hobby ;)

 

My ( B) ) toys at work

Traub TNS60 with 3meter hydro loader

SIMG0007.jpg

 

Emco MT 65 with 1meter automatic loader, driven tools and y axis

DSCF0943.JPG

DSCF0947.JPG

DSCF0958.JPG

 

Back to the topic

It's more complicated that I've think ...

What I have now

06.06.png

Only a rough test

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I have now

06.06.png

Only a rough test

 

I'm confused... which are the bone names? It looks like all CP numbers there?

 

 

And what is a hydro loader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

 

Are "WeightCP#0,1,2" the bone names? How would you select CP#69 and CP#70 and weight them at the same time equally or use the "balance selected"? It looks as though you'll have to input weight values for each cp individually and select each tab for the other cps to input values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks as though you'll have to input weight values for each cp individually and select each tab for the other cps to input values.

 

Yeah, if you have to do each CP separately that would be... not good.

 

I started this thread with the triangle gadget idea because I was hoping to find something that would be more intuitive and less daunting to users. Obviously the 3-bone limit of the triangle is inadequate, but I don't want us to end up with something that looks even more mysterious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting.

 

Are "WeightCP#0,1,2" the bone names?

 

No , the propertie for bone (changing) , needs to be added to each weightcp propertie .

 

How would you select CP#69 and CP#70 and weight them at the same time equally or use the "balance selected"?

 

This is one of the problems left ....

 

It looks as though you'll have to input weight values for each cp individually and select each tab for the other cps to input values.

 

At this time , yes .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you had an "All CP#" tab, so you can weight them all the same. The AllCP tab would have to reflect the locked weights set in the individual cp tabs though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if you had an "All CP#" tab, so you can weight them all the same. The AllCP tab would have to reflect the locked weights set in the individual cp tabs though.

 

I have tried this today , but running into some problems

(watch percentage for Bone3)

ft_all.pngFT_CP1.pngFT_CP2.png

 

And If some more cp's selected , the problem will be not solvable .

weight_prob.mov

 

I have take now a reset (offcourse saved a copy from the changes , if at anytime I have a very good idea to solve this ....),

and back to start .

Added some changes to the weightdialog (updated, now with locking and spincontrol) .

c_weight.mov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity... is the triangle gadget something that could actually be done? It might be something that is enabled only when less than 4 bones are being weighted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of curiosity... is the triangle gadget something that could actually be done? It might be something that is enabled only when less than 4 bones are being weighted.

 

Not in the dialog , needs to much changes ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Added some changes to the weightdialog (updated, now with locking and spincontrol) .

That is an improvement from what it was before. Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Added some changes to the weightdialog (updated, now with locking and spincontrol) .

That looks great Steffen, Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yoda, Do you program those machines? Or do you operate them? Or both? They are scary looking :)

 

Is there any way you can initialize newly created bones in the CP Weight Dialog with a value of 0% instead of 50%?

Since the values of the other bones are now automatically adjusted when a new bone is added?

 

There are usually a couple of bones whose values I do not want to change when I add a new bone. I could keep the least important bone unlocked, so it's value can change when I add a new bone.

But ...

What if the bone I do NOT want to change is 82%, and the bone I will allow to be changed is 18%? If the 18% bone is the only one that is unlocked, then when the new bone, with a default value of 50% is added, what will happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yoda, Do you program those machines? Or do you operate them? Or both? They are scary looking :)

Both , also programming milling machines ....

 

 

Is there any way you can initialize newly created bones in the CP Weight Dialog with a value of 0% instead of 50%?

Since the values of the other bones are now automatically adjusted when a new bone is added?

0% is not possible , may be 0,1% , must need to be checked .

 

 

There are usually a couple of bones whose values I do not want to change when I add a new bone. I could keep the least important bone unlocked, so it's value can change when I add a new bone.

But ...

What if the bone I do NOT want to change is 82%, and the bone I will allow to be changed is 18%? If the 18% bone is the only one that is unlocked, then when the new bone, with a default value of 50% is added, what will happen?

The locking , needs some more test's on my side , in special to handle such cases .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with adding weigts is solved now too .

As background the recalculation is first down , after the weight entry field or the spin control lost his focus (TAB key as example)

The Apply button need not be used longer for this .

When adding a new weight bone , I put the 50% into the entryfiled , but set the focus also to this field , so no recalculation is done , You can now change the value

to what You want , and first after you go out this field the real weight is calculated and added .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reworked the weight dialog again, because there are (not solvable) problems occured on the mac regarding the spin control ..

The weight edit field (including spin/scrub) is now the same as used in the propertys (like transform property and so on)

If the weight changed via the spin/scrub control , the result is immediatly reflected on the weights , for numerical input first if the control

is leaved (focus lost)

Added also a popup menu for the weight list control .

weightdlgt.mov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...