Hooks are nice but......

The interface, modeling, 3d editing tools, import/export, feature requests, etc

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

Post Reply
macouno
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:37 am

Hooks are nice but......

Post by macouno » Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:39 pm

Ok just started testing out hooks and was looking for a specific result that would allow me to use 1 hook in stead of lots of bones.

Thing is... The fallof didn't get me the result I wanted...

perhaps it's a good idea to let the fallof behave exactly like that of the proportional edit tools... with the same settings... and have it display like them as well.

Here's a dodgy little image of what I got and wanted.. sorta.

Image


Also why is the fallof calculated around the "median point" of the assigned verticles and not around the empty that's the hook???

theeth
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:47 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by theeth » Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:46 pm

From the looks of it, I'd assume the current falloff uses the square root of the ratio of distances. What you want is more a squared ratio. Both have uses, so I guess a toggle or slider would be useful.

Martin
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon

macouno
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:37 am

Post by macouno » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:12 pm

Exactly.

The way I see it is that the hooks with fall off are a lot like proportional editing...

In the proportional edit there is already a chooser between "square root and square ratio" (if that is what it is). I'd say pasting in that bit of code and putting the proportional edit chooser next to the hooks ratio slider.... done.

I don't quite understand the current fall off slider as well... it looks like it uses grid points as a reference??? perhaps it should be a percentage of the distance to the furthest assigned verticle?

Actually there's more... How about an "add new" function in the "set active hook" folddown menu.

Monkeyboi
Posts: 251
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 1:24 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Post by Monkeyboi » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:19 pm

Or maybe you should be able to assign vertex groups and thereby use regular weight painting to control influence. That would be simpler in terms of reusing the tools that are already there, and also more powerful because you have direct control of what vertices you are controlling.

theeth
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:47 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by theeth » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:03 pm

Monkeyboi wrote:Or maybe you should be able to assign vertex groups and thereby use regular weight painting to control influence. That would be simpler in terms of reusing the tools that are already there, and also more powerful because you have direct control of what vertices you are controlling.
Yup, that was discussed before too and would be a good solution. However, some sort of automatic wieght assignation based on distance and a falloff formula would be needed so you don't always have to paint weight around.

Martin
Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
- John Lennon

macouno
Posts: 0
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 3:37 am

Post by macouno » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:38 pm

Yes and the current formula is nice but to get even close to what I want I have to make the "column" twice as long as I want, assign a hook to everything. Then remove the bottom half of the column cause the "point that affects the mesh" is in the middle and not at the bottom where I want it to be.

Hooks are great, but they need a bit of work.

Post Reply