I'm wondering if we're all looking for the perfect "works in all situations" solution rather than just getting something that can be useful. I know that Muvizu don't like compromises but we can take a method that is not perfect and could produce some odd results and just make the best of it. Trust us.

I am struggling to see the problem with having an attached item property to the hand with rotation and location controls. Look at the axe in the head for a reference - we want that but for hands and our own objects (and for head whilst you're at it !).

We would pose a character and stick something in their hand, or attach a handbag so they could walk with it. All the technology already seems to be there.

Yes you could put the handbag upside down so it looks wrong. Yes some animations would look wrong because the gravity was incorrect, but that's down to us to make sure it all works and we avoid such things. There are so many things you can do already to break the rules of the universe - you just have to make sure you don't.

I know it's not the perfect solution, but I think it'd be 80% there and we could do so much with it.

Please can we have that. Please......

Dreeko wrote:



I've thought about this size and weight slider a fair bit and I just can't see how it'd be a practical solution. The problem I see is with how would these properties affect things.

Ok, it's easy to imagine that a heavy object would mean the characters arms are not as high as they would be with a light object and that a larger object would cause the arms to move further away from the rest of the body to accommodate the larger size.

The weight aspect seems unneeded. If you had a super hero, you'd expect that even the heaviest of objects to be handled effortlessly and a wimp character to struggle with the lightest thing, so over all that'd be covered with the animations chosen for the situation the character is in. If you had to go through each object attach to the character and setup the weight of it for the right effect it might be a bit time consuming and easy to get the wrong results without realising.

There is a size slider already, we call it scale. The problem, I see anyway, is with the technology. How could the animation be changed, on the fly, to suit different sizes? If you have a really massive object (a 1980's mobile phone, for example) you'd still expect the character to place it at it's ear but the animation would need to be adjusted to allow the hand to be further away from the ear to allow space for the phone, which in turn means a different angle on the elbow joint and in turn a different angle on the shoulder joint and possibly a different angle on several other joints to make the holding action look right. A weird situation might be the character holding a large, heavy box over it's head, both hands would need to be used and you wouldn't be able to just have the arms go as low as the weight would suggest, due to the rest of the body below.

Ok, that's all a bit garbled but I think there is a more elegant solution to be found, that gives a simpler interface without causing to much extra things for users to do. I'm not against size or weight sliders if there's a practical plan on how it'd work, but it might be worth one of the animators or devs confirming if that sort of thing is possible with the technology we're using.

You're starting to go

MrDrWho13 wrote:



I would say that Jamie was extremely on topic!?

Head/eyes following an object , like a person walking by.
Head/eyes turning/moving to look at an object.

These feel move like direction than fiddling about dragging the spot around.

Head/eyes following an object , like a person walking by.
Head/eyes turning/moving to look at an object.

These feel move like direction than fiddling about dragging the spot around.