Timeline for Cyclic dependency errors - Rigging problems with stretching
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2016 at 7:03 | comment | added | J. Gomez | As I explained in the main question. The problem origin seems to be in allowing bone stretching, which generates some kind of jumpy behavior. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 15:24 | comment | added | J. Gomez | I have tried but not working. I used another cloud service: link | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 14:20 | comment | added | Mike Belanger | Without a .blend, I can only guess how this could work as an armature-based rig. If possible, could you post a .blend to blend-exchange.giantcowfilms.com? That's considered standard practice here on Blender SE. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 14:04 | comment | added | J. Gomez | The point here is that the rigging is quite basic and, moreover, the armature seems to work properly (You can see the images in my second post here). It's the component parenting which seems not to be working as expected. I can't accept that Blender couldn't deal with such a basic rig as this one without further tools or freak hacks! | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 13:58 | comment | added | Mike Belanger | Plus, I think a node-based workflow like Animation Nodes allows the user to see, or simply avoid circular dependencies,to get back to your original question. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 13:56 | comment | added | Mike Belanger | Ah, well you had the right assumption anyways. It's generally good practice to use armatures, because they allow the mesh to be edited independent of the animation. Although an editable configuration is possible with just empties, and it sounds like you had that figured out too. Food for thought: I personally think drivers still have some usability issues, and while you've clearly figured it out, I think the Animation Nodes addon would work well if it supported bones -- for usage cases like yours : github.com/JacquesLucke/animation_nodes/issues/103 | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 13:37 | comment | added | J. Gomez | The model works as you said. The top bone controlles all! In fact, original rigging was without bones, just drivers and so, and worked fine. However, that approach requires some math and makes the model less editable so I tried a bone solution. Not sure why does not update properly.... | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 13:26 | comment | added | Mike Belanger | Oh really - interesting. Without looking at the rig I can't really help. Is that top controller meant to go up and down, and those IK-constrained hydraulic parts supposed to scissor-fold as it goes down? Might be something better done with drivers. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 13:20 | comment | added | J. Gomez | I have tried and, in fact, it looks even worse, with more components out of place. Not sure how do internally those options work, but they seem not to work for this. | |
| Sep 26, 2016 at 12:31 | history | answered | Mike Belanger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |