LenseOnLife Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Hi, Having played around with pose sliders and building sub-assemblies I decided to start working on Bone Constraints. Looked easy enough - first mistake. Looked far too easy. Here is the model that I am using It has 1 bone, and all the CPs are allocated to that bone. Previously, I used a pose slider to allow the model rotate around the bone (i.e. along Z), so now want to do it with a bone constraint. Selected the bone and set up the constraints So far so good. I set up an action to test it out and when I selected it, there was just one ring to manipulate the model as I had hoped. However, I then tried dropping the model into a choreography and when I selected the bone it could be manipulated in all orientations. Is there something that I need to set to enable the constraint in the choreography - like surely you've turned on 'enable bone constraints' or something like that Oliver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I am not sure if that should work or if it is already as it should be...(I assume it should work the way you try it....) But you can do the same with Euler-LImits-Constraints... I would create a pose-slider (on / off) for that, select the bone and right-click on it. Choose "New Constraint > Euler LImit" (or what Limit you want) and set it up using the degrees on the axis. After the model has been dropped to the core, open the pose-sliders-view and set it to on. (if you can't see it initially, click on the tab-group in the pose-slide-view... this is only necessary if you created a new pose after dropping the model to the core...) See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 11, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 11, 2016 However, I then tried dropping the model into a choreography and when I selected the bone it could be manipulated in all orientations. Constraints - InChoreography.jpg This appears that you are still viewing in "Choreography" mode which will only show the model bone. Choose Skeletal mode to see bone you added to the model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenseOnLife Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 Hi, Just found a video tutorial called TankTurretManipulatorLimits which seems to be doing just what I was thinking and noticed the little running man command button was set - just as you predicted Robert There are loads of little bits and pieces to remember but I'm sure they will eventually become second nature with practice. Hi Fuchur - I've noticed Euler Limits mentioned in a number of posts - that is something that I will have to look into in the not too distant future, but for this particular little project I'm trying to get rid of Pose Sliders and look at alternative options and the simple rotate constraint seems to be just what the doctor ordered.. So Happy days! Another one bites the dust Thanks all, Oliver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 11, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 11, 2016 The rotate manipulator limits in the bone's props (in a Pose) are good for limiting rotation to a particular axis.The Euler limits are for if you need to limit the rotation to something less than an axis' full 360° freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenseOnLife Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 Hi Robert, As you might guess - I'm still toying with various ways of making assemblies from basic parts. The Pose Slider was handy as it created the constraint (both in axis and extent) automatically within the slider but the main problem was one of workflow. If I forgot to rename a pose after copying in a basic part, then that pose would become 'overwritten' when that part was next copied into the sub-assembly and just about everything would then have to be re-built again from scratch. I was hoping that using bone constraints would get over that problem and it is certainly a cleaner way of doing things (except for that that limitation of it being possible to do a full 360 rotation even when a limit would be desirable - which I hadn't noticed). I'll experiment a little more with these simple bone constraints and build up some complex sub-assemblies to understand the limitations a bit better before looking at Euler. Small steps. Thanks again, Oliver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 12, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 12, 2016 I should amend my comments... The manipulator limits restrict what YOU can do when rotating a bone manually. However I don't think they will limit what the bone can do under the influence of something like an AimAt constraint or an Orient Like constraint. To limit a bone's motion in those situations you'll want to use a Spherical Limit constraint or possibly an Euler constraint. Spherical would be my choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenseOnLife Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 Hello Again, Have to say up front that I've never used any software with such a great and active forum for beginners. Hopefully, before I reach senility, I will be able to help others on the journey. But back to the problem. I've started using the Euler Constraint/Limit today and they get over the problem of a bone rotating too far - as happens when the bone manipulator constraint is switched on. So thank you Fuchur and Robert for setting me down that path. Turned out to be much easier to use that the documentation. An advantage of the simple bone manipulator constraint is that the model can be copied any number of times into a sub-assembly and the constraint works in each and every copy without any problem. It is a joy to use (but for the lack of angle limits and, as Robert mentioned to me earlier that they only work when manipulated manually and not when using target bones .....). So, Euler seems to be the way forward. Going down the Euler Limits road needs a 'Pose Slider (On/Off) / Relationship' and therein lies the problem for me. When a model (part) is copied multiple times into a new model (sub-assembly), then the relationships get overwritten and are lost for all parts except the most recent one to be copied into the sub-assembly. Fuchur has suggested a workaround - rename the pose slider after every copy into the subassembly model. That works, but becomes cumbersome as the sub-assemblies increase in complexity and scope. Also, if I happen to forget to do the rename (and not realise my mistake), then I usually have to go back and reconstruct the new model over again from scratch. As I read back over the above I realised that it was very confusing (even for me after writing it!) so I've made a small video which I hope is clearer MergedPoses.mp4 Q: 1. Is there a reason why relationships are not protected when a model is copied multiple times into a new model? 2. Any possibility that it could be possible to preserve relationships in the future? regards, oliver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 I'll write a feature request for that, but in the mean-time: Why not use action-objects or just a chor to get the funcitonality you want? In general build stuff from different "models" is done in the chor, not in a modeling-window. The good thing about a core is, that it references stuff back... that means if you realise, that you need an additional feature on all of your referenced models, you'll get it by changing the original model instead of all the different itereations you are using in the chor. (just to mentin it: Robert did recommend the renaming, not me ) See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenseOnLife Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 Hi fuchur, Much appreciated. It's so easy to get lost in the forest of options - thanks for reminding me of the choreography. Time to go down that route and see how I get on. It is proving to be a very instructive and enjoyable journey As an aside in terms of the pose sliders, I have a feeling that, during the evolution of Animation Master, the psoe sliders have become complex and have lost an ability of being properly encapsulated. Think about how difficult it is to make a clean delete of a pose. Most times, artifacts remain in the model and only a partial deletion happens. This could be reason that the poses don't get handled as cleanly as the groups, bones ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted March 13, 2016 Share Posted March 13, 2016 Hi fuchur, Much appreciated. It's so easy to get lost in the forest of options - thanks for reminding me of the choreography. Time to go down that route and see how I get on. It is proving to be a very instructive and enjoyable journey As an aside in terms of the pose sliders, I have a feeling that, during the evolution of Animation Master, the psoe sliders have become complex and have lost an ability of being properly encapsulated. Think about how difficult it is to make a clean delete of a pose. Most times, artifacts remain in the model and only a partial deletion happens. This could be reason that the poses don't get handled as cleanly as the groups, bones ...... It will be fun . Exploring really is what it is all about . Poses can be deleted fully by going to the User properties option on the model the pose is placed on. Rightclick on the posename there and delete it. That should get rid of it without any left overs. Deleting for instance the relationship itself under relationahips will not delete everything. (i think because you can do different stuff manually with relationships too...) See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 13, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 13, 2016 I'll write a feature request for that... I suppose the consistent thing to do would be to append a number to the duplicate Poses, in the same way that a number is added to duplicated Bones and Groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LenseOnLife Posted March 13, 2016 Author Share Posted March 13, 2016 Hi fuchur, Success on a plate at last I've made a quick 'splash and dash' video of the process - how to make up parts into sub-assemblies into assemblies ..... This is very much 'quick and dirty' - will probably make up a proper one on Tuesday for other newbies like myself. MergedPoses.mp4 There was a time that I didn't think it would be possible to make up models from multiple copies of bits 'n pieces - but I've been proven wrong. A:M is quite flexible - just need time to get to know how it works. Thanks again for all your help and not giving up of me. Cheers for now, Oliver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 13, 2016 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 13, 2016 "Why don't the duplicate relationships also get a number appended to them?" It wouldn't be impossible to implement. Probably just a bit more involved than with the Groups or Bones because the Relationships can contain bone names in targets of constraints and those would need to be properly converted so they point to the right bones. Currently A:M will update target names in a relationship if you manually change a bone name, so part of the work is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.