PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on this type of finger-rig ?


Leffler
05-31-2009, 10:05 PM
Hey!

Animating fingers has allways been the pain for me. Always something Iīve done right at the end of every animation.

So Iīve tested a new way of rigging them, which I like alot from the small tests Iīve made.

Here is a video of it:
http://www.ottoleffler.com/fingerRig.mov

Good things:
# Easy posing
# Few controlls to animate
# If needed, lots of controll is possible with the "secondary" controlls
# Pretty logical movement. Push forward and it bends/curls forward, to the side and finger spreads.
# Easy to setup, just some connections and set driven keys

Possibly bad things:
# Ctrlers can be hard to select
(A possible fix to that would be a camera that allways looks at the hand)

So what do you think? Worth developing more... or something to give to the dogs :D

//Otto

(Note that the weighting and deformations are not final, focus on the idea)

vvkonline
05-31-2009, 10:32 PM
Animating fingers has allways been the pain for me. Always something Iīve done right at the end of every animation.


agree, and I think you are on the right track, I'm thinking about something similar, but i think it would be something where the single control is on the tip of the finger.

theflash
05-31-2009, 11:56 PM
In the end animators always want to use fk controls or individual finger bend to get overlap and for subtle variation. I think what you have is pretty good, what I like better than channel value dials is that you just select one object and move interactively. however, I have one problem with it, it's a little annoying to remember if translate X is bend or translate Y. What each x, y, z movement represent. There will be times when I would want to use channel box instead of moving interactively and at that time it will become annoying. I will have to try each channel to see what they are doing.

edit:
You can use aliasAttr to rename your standard attribute using an alias name. This will solve the above problem for me.

Leffler
06-01-2009, 07:31 AM
In the end animators always want to use fk controls or individual finger bend to get overlap and for subtle variation. I think what you have is pretty good, what I like better than channel value dials is that you just select one object and move interactively. however, I have one problem with it, it's a little annoying to remember if translate X is bend or translate Y. What each x, y, z movement represent. There will be times when I would want to use channel box instead of moving interactively and at that time it will become annoying. I will have to try each channel to see what they are doing.

edit:
You can use aliasAttr to rename your standard attribute using an alias name. This will solve the above problem for me.

Well, for getting overlap is exatly why I added these secondary controlls. Now itīs easy to pose fast and then those controllers kan be used for overlap.

I donīt know if it that hard to learn about what does what, wouldnīt it be more confusing if the attributed was aliased to Curl and that was translateX? :) Also, Translate Y doesnīt do anything, itīs locked and not in the channelbox

Maybe a good thing would be to add nonkeyable "explanations" in the channelBox that tells that TX = Curl and TZ = Spread.

// Otto

PEN
06-01-2009, 01:43 PM
My setup is just about identical to your except that I have a pose storage system that has scrubable poses. This allows animators to same of poses on the fly so they can block in animations quickly and then use the controls for fine tuning. All the poses are saved down to the network so they are shared with all the animators.

Leffler
06-01-2009, 03:17 PM
Thatīs a great thing Paul, thanks for sharing that!

//Otto

theflash
06-02-2009, 01:08 AM
I donīt know if it that hard to learn about what does what, wouldnīt it be more confusing if the attributed was aliased to Curl and that was translateX? :) Also, Translate Y doesnīt do anything, itīs locked and not in the channelbox
// Otto

It may seem minor, but when I am fine tuning I will use channelbox. And it's easier if I know what's what. It's annoying to change value and then undo to find out it was wrong. It's just a good thing to have less things to remember. That's all. It's not a big deal, but such small things make my experience of animating happy :)

Good setup nonetheless :thumbsup:

Leffler
06-02-2009, 07:00 AM
It may seem minor, but when I am fine tuning I will use channelbox. And it's easier if I know what's what. It's annoying to change value and then undo to find out it was wrong. It's just a good thing to have less things to remember. That's all. It's not a big deal, but such small things make my experience of animating happy :)


Okey, nothing wrong with that of course :) Everyone has different method, the result is the important

Could add some custom channelbox attributes to the setup too, so the animator can choose what to use.

/Otto

PEN
06-03-2009, 01:00 PM
The thing you need to remember with rigging is that you need to rig for the animators that you are currently working with. Problem there is if you ask 10 animators how they would like they rig you are likely to get 10 answers all conflicting. Damn animators, rigging would be so much easier without them;)

Boucha
06-06-2009, 02:24 AM
I totally agree with PEN.
The finger rig that you have demonstrated is interesting and easy to work with. What I suggest is that, you should put some layering to the controller with master attribute controller with quick set driven key poses (Curl, Spread, etc).
I have seen a similar kind of finger setup on Big Buck Bunny Rig demo as well as in this link... (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=154&t=646518&highlight=light+house)

CGTalk Moderation
06-06-2009, 02:24 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.