Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
hah, hah :) very funny evil , you mean I can give my fingers a rest,?
but seriously, I would use morph targets, :) morph targets fix everything
Would the movement be restricted to a linear movement?
Okay, well, I'm kinda scratching my head trying to figure out what point you're making, but whatever you're saying I guess I'd just make this caution to folks:
If you're doing stuff solely for yourself and just enjoy playing with the software, then yeah, whatever makes you happy is fine. No need for the most efficient solution, no need for the best results. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
However, and this is a point I've made here 365 million times, IF you are making something for others to see, keep in mind that people have certain expectations in order for them to buy the premise that your animation is depicting reality. And many of those expectations are very very very subtle and complex, and if your renders don't meet those expectations they won't buy it.
And when it comes to stuff falling and flying and bouncing around due to gravity and physics, you need to make sure your results look like they would in real life or else it looks phony and people will discount it. And IMO, it is EXTREMELY difficult to manually replicate those motions using keyframed morphs or bone chains or whatever.
In any case, if there are any folks here who might shy away from using a physics simulation because they're kinda scared of them and think they're real difficult, I'd encourage you to rethink that. Especially rigid physics....as long as you're familiar with a few very basic principles, setting up a rigid body physics sim is a piece of cake. And the results will pass anyone's expectations for realism, because it IS an exactly accurate calculation of reality.
And as an example, for the video I posted with the dangly things flying around, there were only TWO settings I changed from default in order for the sim to work: I cranked up simulation accuracy to the max because I knew with a lot of motion I'd need to do that, and I crank collision distance down to a pretty typical 10%.
That's it. I modeled the dangly bit very quickly in Hex, imported, applied physics to it, then duplicated and moved it to the other side, and voila, I had a working sim. Extremely easy. Anyone can do it, as long as they are taught the basics.
If you want to stick with what you're comfortable with, and it gives the results you need, then fine. But don't use it as an excuse to not learn how to become proficient with other tools, because you may be getting results that are a lot less than what you could be getting.
Would the movement be restricted to a linear movement?
good point, but the idea is to trick the eye.
if you just had two morph targets to describe a curve it would be linear movement of the verticie, so you just have another three at different points of the curve - a curve is just a series of straight lines after all !
cheers from 'ere :)
Joe :)
I'm not testy
No,. that's not the reason for my comment,.
the reasons are quite simple,.
You make a claim, about using physics,. as being the most efficient method of animating this type of scenario.
I'd like to see the step by step guide to achieving that in carrara, using the specified model (Magus staff) in carrara.
As you are an industry professional,. I'd like to learn from you, and have others learn from your knowledge.
The other claim you make is that bones are not designed for that purpose,. they're apparently only for use in human figures,. so I'm afraid that I'd need to ask more questions to follow that information ,. because many non human models have bones in them,. for example Clothing, or even vehicles, have bones to create the effect of wind on the clothing,. or to opens and close doors,.
Also animals like snakes and effect figures like a Rope,. have bones, and those move is a very slinky / dangling way,. so if a ball joint in a bone can be connected to a series of ball joints,. and the bone length can be as short as a single chain link,. doesn't that create the same effect you would see on a chain. where each link could potentially bend in any direction,. ?
so,,. your explanation of the designed purpose of bones in 3D seems to be missing something, perhaps it's not as simple as bones are designed for this purpose only,.. and never for anything else.
Just to clarify, since you're having difficulty understanding what I meant by "Whatever works"
There are many methods to achieving the same result,. and the OP can select whatever method they want from those suggested,.
All of the methods can be used to achieve a similar end result.
So,. whatever method you chose,..... If it works for you,. and you're happy with that,.. then it has worked.
I hope that makes sense to you.
Whether it's the best,. easiest, most useful, most efficient,. etc,. is an "opinion". that's a personal judgement derived from experience.
The "Fact" is that the user has achieved the desired effect, and the user is happy with those results.
If it has achieved what the user wanted to achieve,... that's what matters to the OP
If you feel that physics is the best, easiest, most efficient method,.
please add a simple to follow guide of your steps to achieving this, and if possible,. show the animated staff,. being moved by a figure, and the"dangling bit's" on the staff, moving in a realistic way, using physics simulation,. in an animation.
In other words ,.; Please show us why this is your method of choice, why it's the most obvious,. best, and easiest method.
and some steps to guide us to accomplishing the same goal.
the main problem I'm having in trying to use the physics method is that the whole thing falls apart when the figure moves with the staff, or whenever the staff moves forward / backward,or in any direction, at normal speed. the chains fall apart, so what I'm asking is,..
Can you show us the method you use,. (explain the steps, and setting you're using)
Can you show us, a figure moving the staff, in an animation,. using physics on the staff dangling bits.
thank you.
Okay, well, I'm kinda scratching my head trying to figure out what point you're making, but whatever you're saying I guess I'd just make this caution to folks:
If you're doing stuff solely for yourself and just enjoy playing with the software, then yeah, whatever makes you happy is fine. No need for the most efficient solution, no need for the best results. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.
However, and this is a point I've made here 365 million times, IF you are making something for others to see, keep in mind that people have certain expectations in order for them to buy the premise that your animation is depicting reality. And many of those expectations are very very very subtle and complex, and if your renders don't meet those expectations they won't buy it.
And when it comes to stuff falling and flying and bouncing around due to gravity and physics, you need to make sure your results look like they would in real life or else it looks phony and people will discount it. And IMO, it is EXTREMELY difficult to manually replicate those motions using keyframed morphs or bone chains or whatever.
In any case, if there are any folks here who might shy away from using a physics simulation because they're kinda scared of them and think they're real difficult, I'd encourage you to rethink that. Especially rigid physics....as long as you're familiar with a few very basic principles, setting up a rigid body physics sim is a piece of cake. And the results will pass anyone's expectations for realism, because it IS an exactly accurate calculation of reality.
And as an example, for the video I posted with the dangly things flying around, there were only TWO settings I changed from default in order for the sim to work: I cranked up simulation accuracy to the max because I knew with a lot of motion I'd need to do that, and I crank collision distance down to a pretty typical 10%.
That's it. I modeled the dangly bit very quickly in Hex, imported, applied physics to it, then duplicated and moved it to the other side, and voila, I had a working sim. Extremely easy. Anyone can do it, as long as they are taught the basics.
If you want to stick with what you're comfortable with, and it gives the results you need, then fine. But don't use it as an excuse to not learn how to become proficient with other tools, because you may be getting results that are a lot less than what you could be getting.
The point I have made 365 million bajillion times is that just because it's not the way you would do it, doesn't make it wrong or unprofessional as you seem to always imply if anybody suggests a method you don't care for.
As to the physics being real world accurate- They're not. The manual even says they're not. Bullet will be the same way, as it was designed for video games, which means it has to be fast. If you want a physics simulator that is as close to real world accurate as we understand it, talk to MIT or NASA. Carrara is an art program not simulation program. It has the ability to do limited physics calculations, but I wouldn't base a thesis on them.
Besides, even if the physics engine was real world accurate (which it's not), reality isn't what the client always wants. Movies and Hollywood effects houses included.
The folks at Pixar still prefer to hand animate the figures in their movies. Wouldn't motion capture be more real world accurate? I wonder why?
I watched the special features for Terminator 3, and they had a bit about a major sequence in the film where a large crane truck crashes. The team that designed and animated the truck added extra wheels flying off the truck because it added to the impact of the scene.
Well, not just that, evilproducer, but I, for one, don't want to have to keep simulating those physics calculations over and over and... until I get the look I want. It's the dog gone danglies on a staff - which I will now compare fairly equally to the necklace that my main character wears. More times than not, no animation setting will be required - just a simple pose will do. Personally, I don't like a part of joe's physics demo. Nothing wrong with it if it was someone else's video I was watching - but for my own - he sold me into doing things my own way - using morphs. 34dage, on the other hand, has sold me on trying the rigging method - as it just seems elegant and simple. I don't want to have to keep messing with my animation just because a simple dangly keeps knotting up and throwing off my eye for the whole darned animation.
Many people will have argued - back in a day, that the BEST way to get good hair is to use dynamic hair. Now you will likely find the percentage of that fan club has changed. It all goes back and forth. Like you and 3dage have mentioned, however, it all depends upon what the individual artists wants to use for an animation method. The idea of how many people are to see it has no bearing on that - only the final video result. Dan Ritchie is an industry VFX professional as well - and he could (probably) easily animate the whole dangly ordeal using the key framer in Dogwaffle.
I went back to the Morph idea after I was already sold on trying out new methods because the OP wanted whatever he did to work in Daz Studio as well as Carrara. Yet the argument of physics is still in play. I would like to see the tutorial on how to get a Carrara Physics calculation, Standard or Bullet, plus the process of steps prior to that to work again in Daz Studio for different poses/animations. Especially since the idea that I came up with that will work for DS, Poser and Carrara is just flat-out wrong. So wrong that one must reiterate it, what... 365 million times? I better go back and count. I'm not a "My way or the Highway" kind of guy. And I'm glad for it. I truly enjoy learning new ways to get things done. So I can't wait to see this compatible physics method. Do I need that beta DS for that?
No, that is NOT what I said. I said they were ORIGINALLY designed for characters. You took that to mean they are ONLY to be used in human figures. Don't twist what I say just to try and disprove me. For some reason you guys insist on mis reading and twisting what I write so you can disagree with me. Please, show me a little respect and don't put words in my mouth.
Of course. That's obvious. But if the goal is to disagree with me, then that's a great area to focus on, not the main point I was making. FOR PURPOSES OF THE USERS IN THIS FORUM, the physics sims done by Bullet are, effectively, real world accurate. OF COURSE developers take shortcuts to get things to solve within our lifetimes, but the RESULTS are far more accurate than the vast majority of people here, including me, can animate by hand. And THAT is the point I'm making. However, since you know I'm right, you don't argue with that point, you focus on some irrelevant side issue.
With all due respect to the people here, don't compare what people here do to what the "folks at Pixar" do. The difference in the level of skill and artistry is day and night. To say that you're animating by hand because that's what some incredibly skilled and talented people do is just ludicrous. They do it because they know what they're doing, and they know how to get incredible results.
With all due respect to the people here, don't compare what people here do to what the "folks at Pixar" do. The difference in the level of skill and artistry is day and night. To say that you're animating by hand because that's what some incredibly skilled and talented people do is just ludicrous. They do it because they know what they're doing, and they know how to get incredible results.
With all due respect, I didn't compare Pixar animators to animators here. I asked why they would use a more difficult method to animate their characters when they could do what many other studios do, and that is motion capture. The point being they have more control over the process. Physics is great, but there is a certain randomness to the results that the artist may not want.
And since you're on a kick about words being put into mouths, let's not forget that I did say in a previous post in this very thread (GASP!) that physics can produce a dynamism that keyframed animation sometimes can't, which seems to suggest that I'm not adverse to using physics when it's called for or more convenient to other methods. My point, is that there is no wrong method as long as it gets you to desired end result.
You can use a rig and keyframes and produce results that are more than just, "playing with the software."
Now, another area that you guys like to cling to is the ability to express your artistic freedom. Maybe a physics sim, while giving you an absolutely realistic motion, doesn't allow you to "improve" upon reality.
I absolutely agree, that, many times reality isn't enough, and an artist wants to improve upon or exaggerate real life. Absolutely true, and I've mentioned that here approximately 176 million times. So after you've exhausted all of the techniques and features you have associated with the physics sim, or other tools you have to modify the response, you'll want to do something different.
However, it still applies that viewers have some very subtle and complex and important expectations when they see physical motion. That's why an artist has to START with the premise of realistic motion and exaggerate it. You must first UNDERSTAND the real motion, and then you can exaggerate it. You must first realize that swinging things accelerate and decelerate, that they use a simple sine function for their motion, and on and on. Only then can you exaggerate, and develop principles such as squash and stretch and anticipation and on and on....
People don't accept the premise unless their basic requirements are met. My point is that, if you want viewers to buy the premise, you need to meet those requirements. Which means you need to understand those requirements first. And then use them as a foundation, and modify or exaggerate as needed to get the effect you want. But there ARE rules that must be followed, and they are NOT made to be broken.
Like the TOS?
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/23006/#339602
Okay, well, to steer this discussion back on course from a last-ditch mudslinging attempt... :)
Here's a video of a dangly on a chain, not unlike that dangly thing on the Magus (?) staff in question, using Bullet physics. Personally, there ain't no way I could, or would ever want to, manually animate anything close to something like that, whether it is with morphs or bone chains or a flat bladed screwdriver. If you guys can do it believably, then I'm in awe.
And making that dangly bit was excrutiatingly easy. Make a torus, apply physics, replicate a bunch of times to get the chain, and run your simulation.
Now, if somebody insists, for whatever reason, on using ONLY the supplied danglies with the staff in question, and trying to apply physics to an object not designed for physics, then yeah, I can see where it might be problematic. But that's like using the aforementioned flat blade screwdriver to drill a hole in a piece of wood. At least in my opinion, that is....
http://youtu.be/kvzDgMdQUo8
This is your statement from page 4 of this thread.
Joe,. that was the original question,. ! ..that would be the,.. "whatever reason"
How can I animate the dangling bit's on the Magus Staff.
not,. How can I make a completely different object, and animate that to have dangling bits.
again you may have misinterpreted the original problem. ....that can happen sometimes.
So,.. you're saying now that, some (human scale) objects are not designed to be animated using physics,. ...or bones ?
Now I'm getting really confused...
How do we tell what is and isn't designed to be used with physics,... or with bones. ?
What method should be used to animate these types of object. ?
I dunno, Andy, if I didn't know better I'd think you were intentionally misinterpreting and misunderstanding what I write just so you can disagree. But you wouldn't do that, would you? :)
Honestly, with all due respect, I'm having real difficulty understanding what point you're trying to make. And I'd like to respond to you respectfully, but I really don't know what you're saying.
With one exception I think....
Apparently you're asking about my statement referring to objects that aren't designed for physics, correct?
Well that I'd be happy to answer for you....
A physics simulator solves better under certain conditions. One of those conditions is the condition of the mesh in the objects it is simulating. Depending upon the algorithm, some simulators prefer a uniform and fairly dense mesh. That makes its job of collision detection a bit easier, and you're less likely to have stuff break apart (in a rigid body sim), or pass/poke thru (in a cloth sim). So if an object you're gonna apply a rigid body sim to has a "poor" mesh, it's more likely that, in this example, your chain links will fail. And "poor" can include weird polygons which the simulator chokes on, or any number of irregular and non-uniform meshes which the simulator doesn't like. Which is why it's a good idea to build your physics objects with a clean, uniform, and dense mesh.
Unfortunately, Carrara is very limited in its ability to perform detection and repair of "nasty" mesh, so you might have a very nasty object that you won't even know is nasty. Again, a good reason to generate your own mesh.
Also, a critical piece of the simulation is the "collision distance". It is critical that the simulation, both rigid and cloth simulations, begin the simulation with all objects spaced further away than the set collision distance. And if some of the objects (say, chain links in this case) are too close together at the start of the sim, it's likely the links will fail and the chain will break. So if you just import an object, there's no guarantee that, in this case for example, the chain links are further apart than the collision distance setting. And if the links are too tiny, maybe you can't even set a minimum collision distance that will work. Another reason why you might want to develop your physics objects from scratch.
Now, once you have a good mesh with good initial spacing, the other part of achieving a good simulation is choosing the correct simulation settings, but that's pretty obvious I suppose.
So I guess the point is, that if someone asks how to import an object and make parts of the object look like they're moving under the influence of gravity and collisions, a skilled CG guy might tend to respond with something like "yeah, you can use the provided object, and animate it by hand using bones or morphs or whatever, but keep in mind that your results might not be visually accurate. And if you want visually accurate results, also keep in mind that you might have much better success by developing your own objects and using physics, instead of using the supplied object, and here's how...."
Joe,. I'm not disagreeing with you,.
I think that using physics is just as viable an approach as using Bones, Morphs, Deformers or any combination of those.
This can be done in many ways using many tools,. it's not something which can only be done in one way.
Whatever works ,. works.
But we should all want to ensure that the information being posted here is actually correct, and works,. and statements like "bones aren't designed for this" is not a good thing for a Newbie to read,. since bones are designed to help animate the motion of any 3D mesh.
It doesn't matter whether that's a page of a book, or an Elephant, dancing, or a chain swinging.
Any 3D mesh (which doesn't already have animation controls) can be animated using bones.
Again, I think you're misreading what I wrote. And I'm not going to argue history with someone who clearly doesn't know the history. Of course, you can use bones to do whatever you want. But that's not the point. But apparently you don't want to focus on the point. And, once again, that point is this:
Of course there are many ways to achieve a result. Nobody would argue that. However, each tool you use will provide a varying QUALITY of result, and some methods might not achieve a high quality no matter how skilled the artist. And each tool will perform the task with a certain EFFICIENCY (ie, how long it takes and how difficult it is to achieve the result). For some people those are important considerations.
And I also provided two examples of visually accurate, very high quality results that cannot be duplicated with the other methods.
I don't know why you choose to ignore all of that, but I guess that's up to you.
Do you have a point you want to make ?
You've just explained why it's not possible for you to use physics on the Magus Prop, which the user has in their scene,..
given that fact,. do you want to continue debating why physics is the best and less laborious method.
Umm...well...uh, maybe you missed the part where I said "And, once again, that point is this:"
Should I have put it in bold italics and 48 point type? :)
In any case, guys, really, in spite of popular myth, I'm not here to debate or argue or prove anyone wrong or prove myself right....I'm merely hoping to get people to focus more on the QUALITY of what they produce, rather than just checking off "yeah, my danglies bend a bit, so that's good" from your list of things to do. Honestly, I see people who have been doing this for 5, or even 10 or more years, and they're still satisfied to produce stuff that, well, isn't the highest quality. And no, that's not "in my opinion", it's based on some very legitimate criteria that many/most professionals use when developing for an audience.
I'm not trying to attack, just hoping that some folks would stop and re-evaluate what they produce. And you may find that producing very high quality might actually take less time and effort than producing something that is less interesting. And it also might be more satisfying and fun.
As one of my mentors told me very, very long ago...."Never pass up an opportunity to provide interest to the viewer".
...
Joe.
Your observations about the quality of other peoples work, has absolutely nothing to do with how to animate the specified object, and that's what this thread is actually about,. It's not about your interpretation of what the customer wants.
Your judgement of other peoples work is called an "OPINION"
it means nothing to anyone, but you,. because it's YOUR opinion.
(other people can agree with your opinion if they have difficulty forming one of their own)
Your preconception of what the customer wants as a final result are (Your Opinion).
Your "opinion" is different from facts,. facts are things which are true under all circumstances,. your opinion is actually a thought, or an an idea in your head,. and usually isn't true or factual.
There's a difference between your assumptions and opinions , and reality and facts.
Never pass up an opportunity ,.. Really ? but that's what you do most of the time,. in fact, right NOW you're passing up an opportunity.
I've asked you several times in this thread to show that what you're claiming is TRUE and CORRECT..
You've avoided all opportunities to provide that working solution,. and you're intent on arguing that this is still the BEST and least Laborious method,. (your opinion) and yet you cannot show or explain your reasoning behind this by direct example.
You can try to Fool people by showing a similar object, with some parts using limited motion and limited physics,. but that actually shows that you've avoided the question,. went off on your own interpretation of the question, and posted results which at best are simply WRONG, ..a mistake.. or deliberately attempting to mislead the viewer.
The fact is that the user specified the object they were working with,.
Your opinion lead you to ignore the facts, and model an object which would work using physics,..presumably to show that you were right.
So WHY are you continuing to do so.