PDA

View Full Version : My IK/Control Object Technique: Good or Just Stupid?

Cinematography
10-06-2003, 11:03 AM
I’m creating a skeleton for my character, and instead of leaving the bone effectors for the arms and legs inside of the skeleton roots, I am dragging and dropping them out. Why? - So that my effectors can stay locked in place, which will in turn give me full freedom to translate the skeleton root in anyway I please without having to worry about locking the effector [or doing too much thinking]. For a basic setup, I'll use two control objects. One for the root, and one for the effector. Is this a good technique, or is there a more professional way to do this?
seb4d
10-06-2003, 02:04 PM
Hi !
I don't really understand why you change the effectors' hierarchy position ?

Personnally I create a null and constrain the effector to this null, so that it stays locked in place.

Could you explain more what advantages there are with your technique please ?
ggg
10-06-2003, 09:00 PM
yes, nulls
Cinematography
10-06-2003, 10:26 PM
seb4d,
Personnally I create a null and constrain the effector to this null, so that it stays locked in place.
But how do you contrain the effector to a null? When I try to create a child/parent relationship between the effector and an implicit or a null object, it never 'locks' the way I want it to. The effector does not move when I move the control object. I want to have the freedom to move the root without having to worry about updating or moving my effector back in place, and this is what my technique gives me. Or am I just doing something wrong? I'm very new to Softimage XSI, by the way, and this is my first attempt at doing a character rig.

Thank you, and ggg for the response.


*edited to add more details*
ggg
10-06-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Cinematography

But how do you contrain the effector to a null? When I try to create a child/parent relationship between the effector and an implicit or a null object, it never 'locks' the way I want it to.
that's why seb4d is saying constrain, not parent, to implict or null.

I mentioned nulls (or implicts) as its generally better to move control objects around in your hierachy not actual rig parts like the effector(although certainly do so *if* it benfits your base rig and all future needs of it, noting local versus global keying and ik/fk blending and other things that may or may not be issues or benefits in your setup or use).
This way you can have many control setups for various needs and experiments, and one base rig for the pipeline.
(groups of controls turned on off with scripts on the constraints, or mixed with other control setups)
Cinematography
10-06-2003, 11:57 PM
ggg
"that's why seb4d is saying constrain, not parent, to implict or null."
Ah-Ha! :cool: Now its working. I just gave myself a crash course lesson on constraints. The bones work wonderfully now. Thank you, and seb4d very much for kicking me into the right direction. I really appreciate it.

Quick Bonus Question:
If I wanted to switch from IK to FK, all I would have to do is "mute" the constraint, right? There should be a way to do that. I'll go check.
ggg
10-07-2003, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Cinematography

If I wanted to switch from IK to FK, all I would have to do is "mute" the constraint, right? There should be a way to do that. I'll go check.
yes and blend too, therefore put in mixer too, (can't do *this* with parenting)
Cinematography
10-07-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by ggg
yes and blend too, therefore put in mixer too, (can't do *this* with parenting)
Blending... Mixing...
XSI is absolute CRAZINESS!
:applause:

Thanks again.
CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 06:00 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.