1
$\begingroup$

I would like to control the position of one bonetail (Bone.003) with two boneheads (Bone.007 & Bone.005). If I am not mistaken, this is possible trough parenting 003 & 007 and using the child of constraint for bone 005. enter image description here

My problem is, that during the animation, I would like to rotate Bone.001 around global Z while the head of Bone.001 stays fixed. Also Bone.003 should stay fixed at its tail. The motion should then look like this: enter image description here At the same time, it should be possible to control the position of the node between Bone.003, 005 & 007 through the motion of Bone.007 or Bone.005. So I would like the node only to be able to be moved by the children (Bone.007 & Bone.005) but not by the parent (Bone.003).

The bones marked in red should thus be movable "by hand" while they should stay fixed in place as pivot point if the Bone.003 moves: enter image description here

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ You said, "So I would like the node only to be able to be moved by the children but not by the parent (Bone.007)." I think you mean Bone.003. Can you confirm? $\endgroup$
    – Mr A
    Commented Dec 4, 2023 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ @MrA you are totally right, I've corrected the question :) $\endgroup$
    – Julian
    Commented Dec 4, 2023 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ I think the issue here is you want Bone.005 to be able to move the node (Bone.007 and Bone.003). At the same time, you want Bone.007 to be able to move the node (Bone.005 and Bone.003). You want a system that switches the parenting hierarchy based on which bone is being manipulated. I suggest to simplify the problem by introducing one bone that is responsible for moving the node. It will be the parent of Bone.005 and Bone.007, and the IK target for Bone.003. However, this would mean that you wouldn't animate Bone.005 and Bone.007 anymore. Empty.017 can fill that role. $\endgroup$
    – Mr A
    Commented Dec 4, 2023 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ yes this solved the issue, thanks a lot! (btw. I'm new to this forum ... do I have to mark it as solved?) $\endgroup$
    – Julian
    Commented Dec 8, 2023 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ You're welcome! I posted my comment as an answer. You can now accept it by clicking the check mark. For more information, you can check this page. $\endgroup$
    – Mr A
    Commented Dec 9, 2023 at 10:25

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I think the issue here is you want Bone.005 to be able to move the node (Bone.007 and Bone.003). At the same time, you want Bone.007 to be able to move the node (Bone.005 and Bone.003). You want a system that switches the parenting hierarchy based on which bone is being manipulated. I suggest to simplify the problem by introducing one bone that is responsible for moving the node. It will be the parent of Bone.005 and Bone.007, and the IK target for Bone.003. However, this would mean that you wouldn't animate Bone.005 nor Bone.007 anymore. Empty.017 can fill that role.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .