I need a bit of help...

3DAGE

HI :)

I think if you want it animated in Studio, you should use Studio to add the rigging,. Carrara doesn't export as DUF, although it imports them

It's not a direction I would go since Carrara has more features for animation,and effects,. also,. Modifiers like "point at" and the target helper objects would need to be recreated in DS using "Null" objects, and the Point at function in DS.

You could try exporting as FBX, and importing into DS,. and that should transfer the bones, but it's not a route I've travelled.

:)

static

3DAGE said:

HI :)

I think if you want it animated in Studio, you should use Studio to add the rigging,. Carrara doesn't export as DUF, although it imports them

It's not a direction I would go since Carrara has more features for animation,and effects,. also,. Modifiers like "point at" and the target helper objects would need to be recreated in DS using "Null" objects, and the Point at function in DS.

You could try exporting as FBX, and importing into DS,. and that should transfer the bones, but it's not a route I've travelled.

:)

I tried. It says Transform differences: non-uniform scale detected. Results will likely be different.
Then the staff loads about the size of Genesis' forearm.

I thought Carrara could be used to create Studio content. Nurtz. Is the process much different in Studio or can I pretty much follow these directions with some small changes?

3DAGE

Carrara can be used to create your own models which you can rig in DS, or poser,. to make into products,. but Carrara's rigging is different from Daz Studio's or Posers,.

The rigging process should follow the same principle steps in most applications,.

Get the figure in an isometric view,. draw the bones and attach them to the mesh,. set the joint limits, and weight mapping.

But the menu's and function, and perhaps the names of the tools to do it will be different in each application.
in Poser you'd use the Figure setup room,. I know DS has content creation tools (somewhere) but I've not used them.

perhaps the DS forum can help with rigging in DS.

If you want to do this in Studio,. there's no need to have carrara,. DS can open the Prop as an OBJ,. and then you can add rigging,.
but you cannot share that with others, since the model isn't your creation,

You could use Carrara to create a New model staff,. then export that as an OBJ, rig it in DS or Poser, and share or sell it.

static

3DAGE said:

Carrara can be used to create your own models which you can rig in DS, or poser,. to make into products,. but Carrara's rigging is different from Daz Studio's or Posers,.

The rigging process should follow the same principle steps in most applications,.

Get the figure in an isometric view,. draw the bones and attach them to the mesh,. set the joint limits, and weight mapping.

But the menu's and function, and perhaps the names of the tools to do it will be different in each application.
in Poser you'd use the Figure setup room,. I know DS has content creation tools (somewhere) but I've not used them.

perhaps the DS forum can help with rigging in DS.

If you want to do this in Studio,. there's no need to have carrara,. DS can open the Prop as an OBJ,. and then you can add rigging,.
but you cannot share that with others, since the model isn't your creation,

You could use Carrara to create a New model staff,. then export that as an OBJ, rig it in DS or Poser, and share or sell it.

Ok, well it still is good to know how to use it. I know I can't sell or distribute this staff, I am simply using it as a learning tool and to have the ability to modify content to my liking. As long as I don't sell the staff object itself or distribute it, I can still use it in my own artwork, right?

I can do primitives and I can put together different objects, but I couldn't figure out how to rig them properly. I guess I still don't know how, for Studio. Also, I still need to learn about shaders and how they work, and a few other finishing touch type things, before I think about selling anything I make.

I have the Studio CCT but I don't know anything about them. I don't even know how to access them. I always thought Carrara was where the big projects were built, where all the stuff you make in Bryce, Hexagon, and programs like that, were brought together, so to speak. Oh well, "live and learn", my pop always said.

I can still make use of Carrara, though. I will keep learning more about it since I've paid for it and all. No sense letting all this go to waste.

In the meantime, thank you for the information and all the time and effort you gave me today. It is much appreciated. I did learn from this, and more than just that I was using the wrong product. For now, I will try to get some Studio help for this, but it is nice to know that there are people like you who are willing to help us get better at what we want to do.

And that goes for all who responded to this thread, as well.

evilproducer

staticdrifter said:

3DAGE said:

Carrara can be used to create your own models which you can rig in DS, or poser,. to make into products,. but Carrara's rigging is different from Daz Studio's or Posers,.

The rigging process should follow the same principle steps in most applications,.

Get the figure in an isometric view,. draw the bones and attach them to the mesh,. set the joint limits, and weight mapping.

But the menu's and function, and perhaps the names of the tools to do it will be different in each application.
in Poser you'd use the Figure setup room,. I know DS has content creation tools (somewhere) but I've not used them.

perhaps the DS forum can help with rigging in DS.

If you want to do this in Studio,. there's no need to have carrara,. DS can open the Prop as an OBJ,. and then you can add rigging,.
but you cannot share that with others, since the model isn't your creation,

You could use Carrara to create a New model staff,. then export that as an OBJ, rig it in DS or Poser, and share or sell it.

Ok, well it still is good to know how to use it. I know I can't sell or distribute this staff, I am simply using it as a learning tool and to have the ability to modify content to my liking. As long as I don't sell the staff object itself or distribute it, I can still use it in my own artwork, right?

I can do primitives and I can put together different objects, but I couldn't figure out how to rig them properly. I guess I still don't know how, for Studio. Also, I still need to learn about shaders and how they work, and a few other finishing touch type things, before I think about selling anything I make.

I have the Studio CCT but I don't know anything about them. I don't even know how to access them. I always thought Carrara was where the big projects were built, where all the stuff you make in Bryce, Hexagon, and programs like that, were brought together, so to speak. Oh well, "live and learn", my pop always said.

I can still make use of Carrara, though. I will keep learning more about it since I've paid for it and all. No sense letting all this go to waste.

In the meantime, thank you for the information and all the time and effort you gave me today. It is much appreciated. I did learn from this, and more than just that I was using the wrong product. For now, I will try to get some Studio help for this, but it is nice to know that there are people like you who are willing to help us get better at what we want to do.

And that goes for all who responded to this thread, as well.

Don't get too discouraged about the rigging not transferring. Even if you had one of the big boy expensive apps such as Maya or C4D or Lightwave you wouldn't be able to transfer their rigging to Daz Studio or Poser either. The only reason DAZ Studio uses Poser rigging is that is how DAZ started- Making figures and content for Poser. Poser was in limbo a few years ago and DAZ needed to be able to have somewhere to use their figures or they'd go under. Thus Studio was born and the rest is history.

Now, all that being said, you can use Poser's or Studio's rigging tools to make compatible rigged figures and clothing for the Poserverse, but you can't build them from scratch. Poser and Studio really don't have modeling capabilities. For that, you need an application that can model, such as Hexagon or Carrara or even one of the high-end expensive apps. I mentioned above. There are also many other apps. that cost little or nothing to build your figure in.

BTW why would a staff need rigging? Does it have moving parts? If it's a static object, you could export it as a .obj format file which Studio and Poser should be able to open. If the scaling isn't right you should be able to increase or decrease it's size. Then it would be a simple matter of parenting to the figure's hand if someone is supposed to be wielding it.

Dartanbeck

Using the Morph method:
Open the staff in Daz Studio.
With the staff selected, choose: File > Send to Hexagon (Hexagon req'd)
Create one morph.
Choose: File > Send to Daz Studio
You will be faced with a very nice pop up window with choices on how you'd like to save your new morph.

Be absolutely certain to turn all morphs to "0" before sending to Hexagon or the result will be entirely undesirable.

I like to save a new version after each morph is created - just to have a few back-ups I can jump back to. You'd be amazing how handy these saves can be further down the road when an entirely new idea comes to mind.

static

Well, the staff in question, the Magus Staff, has these four chains attached on the sides of the headpiece. but if you hold the staff at any kind of an angle, the chains do not bend towards the ground. They remain in place, as if the gravity around them drew them towards the base of the staff.
I find this disconcerting. I want to be able to change the chains and the 'dangles' (the little decorative bits that hang from the end of the chains) to fit the pose. And I want to be able to change them in any given pose, without having to re-draw them every time I use it.

Under almost any given circumstance, the chains would, at the very least, whip around and point in any number of directions, as the wielder moves it. They would not always hang straight to the ground, but unless you were flying, superhero style, they would rarely, if ever, point straight down the staff.

So by adding rigging, you can get real-time effects.

evilproducer

staticdrifter said:

Well, the staff in question, the Magus Staff, has these four chains attached on the sides of the headpiece. but if you hold the staff at any kind of an angle, the chains do not bend towards the ground. They remain in place, as if the gravity around them drew them towards the base of the staff.
I find this disconcerting. I want to be able to change the chains and the 'dangles' (the little decorative bits that hang from the end of the chains) to fit the pose. And I want to be able to change them in any given pose, without having to re-draw them every time I use it.

Under almost any given circumstance, the chains would, at the very least, whip around and point in any number of directions, as the wielder moves it. They would not always hang straight to the ground, but unless you were flying, superhero style, they would rarely, if ever, point straight down the staff.

So by adding rigging, you can get real-time effects.

Gotcha! I just looked at the last page of the thread. Rigging would be the way to go!

static

Ok, thanks Dartanbeck, I will give that a try. Assuming I open a new file, and open only the staff, any existing operations would be zeroed, correct?

static

So, evilproducer, you're saying I will need Carrara, after all, for original works.That's good to know. But for existing components, I can rig them in Studio?

evilproducer

staticdrifter said:

So, evilproducer, you're saying I will need Carrara, after all, for original works.That's good to know. But for existing components, I can rig them in Studio?

Yeah, basically. If you want to build a model, you'll need a program that has a modeler. Poser and Studio do not. They do have rigging tools so that you can rig an imported file. If it's a model you already have that you want rigged such as the staff, then you don't need Carrara or any other program. If you want to design your own staff, then you'll need Carrara or Hexagon or some other software that can model and export the file in a readable format for Poser or Studio.

Personally I prefer to do it all in Carrara. I can use Poser style figures and rigging, but if I need a model I can also build one in Carrara. Not only that, there are things that Carrara can do besides build models that Poser and Studio cannot do. Terrains, atmospheres, volumetric clouds, etc. etc. The renderer seems simpler to set up and faster as well.

static

Dartanbeck said:

Using the Morph method:
Open the staff in Daz Studio.
With the staff selected, choose: File > Send to Hexagon (Hexagon req'd)
Create one morph.
Choose: File > Send to Daz Studio
You will be faced with a very nice pop up window with choices on how you'd like to save your new morph.

Be absolutely certain to turn all morphs to "0" before sending to Hexagon or the result will be entirely undesirable.

I like to save a new version after each morph is created - just to have a few back-ups I can jump back to. You'd be amazing how handy these saves can be further down the road when an entirely new idea comes to mind.

Ok, that's a new question... How do I create a Morph in Hexagon? I just realized that I haven't used this program in several years.

Dartanbeck

Exactly as simple as I describe in my previous post - except that in between sending the figure or prop to Hexagon and sending it back to Daz Studio, you push/pull some polygons around! ;-) That simple.

Real Quick:
The selection method for Polygons, Vertices, Lines, or the Universal Selector is in the upper left near a little ghost icon, if I remember right. That was the first bit that stumped me. Soft selection works great for figure morphs and general soft selections. lol See what I mean about my speech? Just off and weird!

Anyways,
Know that in Hexagon, you can have more than one object in there at the same time - which can be nice - or it can slow you down. What you have selected in Daz Studio when you go File > Send to Hexagon will pass to Hexagon - so make sure you only select what you want over there. I am no Hexagon buff... but I use this morph creation process all the time to add top level morph targets to figures that otherwise prevent me from doing it in Carrara. Daz Studio can save (or export to?) CR2 file, which is what a Poser Figure model is. That's how I make all sorts of magic happen in Carrara - Thank You Daz Studio/Hexagon content creation abilities! :)

static

evilproducer said:

staticdrifter said:

So, evilproducer, you're saying I will need Carrara, after all, for original works.That's good to know. But for existing components, I can rig them in Studio?

Yeah, basically. If you want to build a model, you'll need a program that has a modeler. Poser and Studio do not. They do have rigging tools so that you can rig an imported file. If it's a model you already have that you want rigged such as the staff, then you don't need Carrara or any other program. If you want to design your own staff, then you'll need Carrara or Hexagon or some other software that can model and export the file in a readable format for Poser or Studio.

Personally I prefer to do it all in Carrara. I can use Poser style figures and rigging, but if I need a model I can also build one in Carrara. Not only that, there are things that Carrara can do besides build models that Poser and Studio cannot do. Terrains, atmospheres, volumetric clouds, etc. etc. The renderer seems simpler to set up and faster as well.

So is there anything Studio can do that Carrara can not?
I am having trouble building a scene in Carrara. I have a hard time accessing my content, especially Poser content. and I find the camera/scene movement a bit daunting as well. I wonder if that's just because of inexperience, but the Studio interface seems much simpler to use.
If I can do everything in Carrara that I now do in Studio, I would be ecstatic. The only reason I have Poser is for some minimal Content. I use Studio for everything thus far. I, personally, considered Studio an evolution above Poser and switched entirely away from Poser years ago. Studio is just...better. As I mentioned earlier, I had the wrong impression of Carrara, and how to use it, but you saying, I wasn't quite that far off.
I just need to stick with one or the other, and most likely, Carrara, correct?

evilproducer

staticdrifter said:

evilproducer said:

staticdrifter said:

So, evilproducer, you're saying I will need Carrara, after all, for original works.That's good to know. But for existing components, I can rig them in Studio?

Yeah, basically. If you want to build a model, you'll need a program that has a modeler. Poser and Studio do not. They do have rigging tools so that you can rig an imported file. If it's a model you already have that you want rigged such as the staff, then you don't need Carrara or any other program. If you want to design your own staff, then you'll need Carrara or Hexagon or some other software that can model and export the file in a readable format for Poser or Studio.

Personally I prefer to do it all in Carrara. I can use Poser style figures and rigging, but if I need a model I can also build one in Carrara. Not only that, there are things that Carrara can do besides build models that Poser and Studio cannot do. Terrains, atmospheres, volumetric clouds, etc. etc. The renderer seems simpler to set up and faster as well.

So is there anything Studio can do that Carrara can not?
I am having trouble building a scene in Carrara. I have a hard time accessing my content, especially Poser content. and I find the camera/scene movement a bit daunting as well. I wonder if that's just because of inexperience, but the Studio interface seems much simpler to use.
If I can do everything in Carrara that I now do in Studio, I would be ecstatic. The only reason I have Poser is for some minimal Content. I use Studio for everything thus far. I, personally, considered Studio an evolution above Poser and switched entirely away from Poser years ago. Studio is just...better. As I mentioned earlier, I had the wrong impression of Carrara, and how to use it, but you saying, I wasn't quite that far off.
I just need to stick with one or the other, and most likely, Carrara, correct?

The one thing I know for sure that Poser and Studio do, that Carrara does not do is dynamic clothing. There are ways to run a dynamic clothes simulation in Poser or Studio and bake that into a series of animated morphs for use in Carrara. Unfortunately I'm not versed in how to do it, as I don't have Poser or Studio. Dartanbeck, 3Dage and Manstan have used the method if I recall and may be able to help with it if needed. Other than that, I can't think of anything else they do that Carrara can't.

If you start learning this stuff using Studio then any other software is going to seem clunky. The same would go for someone starting out using Carrara, Poser, C4D or Maya. It's what you're used to and where your comfort zone is.

JoeMamma2000

I don't understand why all this long, detailed discussion of doing this using the long, hard manual labor associated with bones....for something that bones aren't really designed for.

Ummmm....PHYSICS !!!!!!

http://youtu.be/TNt48mMMj_0

wetcircuit

JoeMamma2000 said:

PHYSICS !!!!!!

http://youtu.be/TNt48mMMj_0

I LIKE! :cheese:

evilproducer

JoeMamma2000 said:

I don't understand why all this long, detailed discussion of doing this using the long, hard manual labor associated with bones....for something that bones aren't really designed for.

Ummmm....PHYSICS !!!!!!

http://youtu.be/TNt48mMMj_0

Very nice video. You wouldn't happen to know if that was Bullet or Carrara's native physics engine? The regular engine works okay to a point, then I have stuff fly apart.

If staticdrifter wants to use physics for the dangling bits, there's going to be a bit work separating the bits from the main model or deleting them and building them from scratch.

Dartanbeck

JoeMamma2000 said:

I don't understand why all this long, detailed discussion of doing this using the long, hard manual labor associated with bones....for something that bones aren't really designed for.

Ummmm....PHYSICS !!!!!!

http://youtu.be/TNt48mMMj_0

Because he wants Daz Studio compatible results.

Edit:
Nice demonstration video, joe.

Dartanbeck

staticdrifter said:

evilproducer said:

staticdrifter said:

So, evilproducer, you're saying I will need Carrara, after all, for original works.That's good to know. But for existing components, I can rig them in Studio?

Yeah, basically. If you want to build a model, you'll need a program that has a modeler. Poser and Studio do not. They do have rigging tools so that you can rig an imported file. If it's a model you already have that you want rigged such as the staff, then you don't need Carrara or any other program. If you want to design your own staff, then you'll need Carrara or Hexagon or some other software that can model and export the file in a readable format for Poser or Studio.

Personally I prefer to do it all in Carrara. I can use Poser style figures and rigging, but if I need a model I can also build one in Carrara. Not only that, there are things that Carrara can do besides build models that Poser and Studio cannot do. Terrains, atmospheres, volumetric clouds, etc. etc. The renderer seems simpler to set up and faster as well.

So is there anything Studio can do that Carrara can not?
I am having trouble building a scene in Carrara. I have a hard time accessing my content, especially Poser content. and I find the camera/scene movement a bit daunting as well. I wonder if that's just because of inexperience, but the Studio interface seems much simpler to use.
If I can do everything in Carrara that I now do in Studio, I would be ecstatic. The only reason I have Poser is for some minimal Content. I use Studio for everything thus far. I, personally, considered Studio an evolution above Poser and switched entirely away from Poser years ago. Studio is just...better. As I mentioned earlier, I had the wrong impression of Carrara, and how to use it, but you saying, I wasn't quite that far off.
I just need to stick with one or the other, and most likely, Carrara, correct?Not so much. I feel that it's a good move to keep up a bit with all of the great tools for what they excel at.

For example, I have aniMate2 for Daz Studio, which is great for editing and creating new aniBlocks for use in Carrara.
The morph creation process that we talked about using the DS/Hex bridge is really good for making things that are compatible with Poser, DS and Carrara. Poser has that great walk designer and great Pose file creation. Very flexible option when saving PZ2's in Poser - and many other benefits. This doesn't mean that you'd need to keep up to date with the latest and greatest Poser, either. Poser 5 is still great for many things.

With experience, I have found Carrara to be the smooth, scene creation boulevard. Everything else seems limited in comparison now that I'm acquainted with this excellent suite. So I consider Daz Studio, Hexagon, Poser, Bryce, Project Dogwaffle, and many other great tools, a great selection of applications to helps solve the riddles that appear as your imagination unfolds and needs more than what any one app can provide the tools for.

Once you have any of these... keep them. They are really good at what they do best.

Right now you've asked a fairly straight-forward question at the beginning, and it's grown into one heck of a topic. If you watch joe's video (link above in his post), you can see some very natural movements. In most of my animations, most of that additional swing around and waiting for gravity to overcome opposing inertia is just more than what I'm looking for. So while many can argue that morphs take time to create, I can respond that practice removes a lot of that time - and it gives me the absolute control to what happens and when. So it really depends on the animation needs - set forth by you, the director.

My advice would be to try all of them at least once to see what is:
Comfortable for you to work with
Giving you the results that you are looking to get
Gives you the re-usability that you want for future assignments
Saves you the most time in the end - even if time is less of a consequence, efficiency usually helps with digestion! LOL
Okay... back to bed for Dartan.

3DAGE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=txAb6RzUDC8

no right or wrong way,. whatever works,.. works.

evilproducer

3DAGE said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=txAb6RzUDC8

no right or wrong way,. whatever works,.. works.

Agreed. That's what I love about Carrara. There are many options!

JoeMamma2000

3DAGE said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=txAb6RzUDC8

no right or wrong way,. whatever works,.. works.

Not sure I'd agree...

For example, let's say you had a wonderful and very expensive tool box with every tool you could want for woodworking. And you have a piece of wood, and you want to make a 1/8" hole in it.

So you look in your toolbox and you find a 1/8" flat blade screwdriver, and decide you can manually twist the blade into the wood and, after a long while end up with something that's kind of a hole but rather messy and chunky.

Then you find a hammer and a 1/4" diameter nail, and decide you can pound the nail, make a hole, and then pull the nail out. You'll end up with a much larger hole, and it might take a while, and the hole won't be straight.

Then you find a 1/8" manual hand drill, and decide you can drill the hole by hand and it will be nice and clean and the right size, but might take a while.

Then you find an electric drill and a 1/8" bit, and drill a perfect 1/8" hole in 6.3 seconds.

The point being, you've got a wonderful tool box filled with excellent tools, but a skilled woodworker would probably want to pick the most efficient tool in his toolbox that will give the best result.

Is there a right way and a wrong way? It depends.

3DAGE

In your example of someone with no idea of what tool to use for a specific purpose,.
seeking advice or guidance from others who had knowledge of the tools would be the best idea,.
and that's what the original poster did here,.

They asked which tool to use,... rather than hacking away mindlessly.

If you're actually trying to say that there's only one correct way to animate a rigid mesh object,. and that way is always physics,. never bones or any other method.

that's not correct.

You also stated that :

.for something that bones aren’t really designed for.

Can you clarify what you mean ,. and perhaps explain the purpose of bones,.
eg: what ARE they designed for ?,. and HOW are they used in 3D. ?

Also, since you have time,.. perhaps you could write up a couple of simple step so that the OP can see how simple the process of using Physics on the Magus staff object is,. in comparison to other methods.

Finally,. If my 3D program doesn't have physics,. does that mean I can't animate the staff objects bit's ?

JoeMamma2000

3DAGE said:

If you're actually trying to say that there's only one correct way to animate a rigid mesh object,. and that way is always physics,. never bones or any other method. that's not correct.

I sense you're getting a bit testy...was there something incorrect about my analogy?

I thought it was very clear. There are many tools available, and while you can get a result with all of them, it's probably a good idea to determine the BEST method to use for any particular job. When you say "Whatever works...works" it sounds like you're implying all methods are good enough and worthy of use. Do you honestly believe that? If so, I disagree. No reason to get testy about it though.

Can you clarify what you mean ,. and perhaps explain the purpose of bones,.
eg: what ARE they designed for ?,. and HOW are they used in 3D. ?

I assumed everyone here was familiar with the basic purpose of bones. If not, here's my take...

They were originally developed in 3D apps to simulate, well, bones. Human bones. And human bones provide the rigid structure that "pulls" the character's flesh as the character moves. CG bones mimic that by having a "range of influence". So when the forearm bones moves it doesn't pull the skin of your hip with it. And the smooth transition of each bone's influence on the soft human tissue (for example as you bend your elbow) is simulated by the bone "falloff" influence. And usually bones are equipped with an Inverse Kinematics functionality to simulate a human's ability to, for example, move your hand to pick up a glass of cola and have all connecting bones follow along automatically.

So the main purpose of bones is for simulating characters which have bones. Does that mean you can't use bones to animate something which, in the real world, operates solely under the laws of gravity and collisions rather the influence of bones? Of course not. Just like you can use a 1/8 inch flat blade screwdriver to drill a hole in a piece of wood. :)

Headwax

Both Video's are great nice work Joe and Andy,
3dage, yours is giving me a bit of religious experience.
I have to admit I would use boring old morphs because I am lazy as..

BTW 3dage I sent you a PM (unrelated to this topic) apparently the PM's aren't giving notification sometimes.

cheers from oz :)

Garstor

JoeMamma2000 said:

For example, let's say you had a wonderful and very expensive tool box with every tool you could want for woodworking. And you have a piece of wood, and you want to make a 1/8" hole in it.

Or, as one of my database guru heroes liked to say: "You don't use a chunk of stone to pound a wood screw into a piece of fine furniture."

evilproducer

Using a rig and using physics are both valid and they both have their limitations. All tools aside, using a rig for this purpose is not analogous to using a screw driver to gouge a hole through a board.

One of many issues the OP would have with using physics to move the dangling parts of the staff, is that the mesh would need to be broken apart, which if my experience is valid can collapse the shading domains and UVs. Aside from breaking apart the mesh, there will be physics sim, after physics sim, after physics sim to try and get the settings correct. Lot's of time to set up before you can even get a working sim.

There are advantages to using physics of course. If you're animating, the movement would be more dynamic.

There are issues with using a rig as well. You'd need to make sure the rig had sufficient bones to allow proper bending. The joints would need to be placed to correspond with the links. Then there's painting the influences. So there's time there as well.

The advantages are that you would have more control over the way the danging bits are positioned. This could be a strong point if you're primarily working on still shots. Of course, there are things to help with an animation such as IK, target helpers, tweener functions, etc.

The biggest factor to consider is the level of experience of the user. Joe, may be very fluent in the vertex room, so breaking the model apart may not be a big issue, or he has heaps of experience using the physics engine and knows how to set it up fast. So Joe may opt for physics.

I can set up a rig pretty fast and weight paint, plus I've done a pretty nice animation of a handcuff popping open and the cuff swinging on its rigged chain. For me, it wasn't that hard using a combination of IK and oscillating tweeners. So for me, rigging may work better.

The biggest thing to consider is the scene, what the artist hopes to accomplish, and the most efficient way to get there. That means it's pretty much up to the artist. There is more than one way to get to your goal, and just because Joe uses one way and Andy uses another doesn't invalidate either method.

Headwax

Garstor said:

JoeMamma2000 said:

For example, let's say you had a wonderful and very expensive tool box with every tool you could want for woodworking. And you have a piece of wood, and you want to make a 1/8" hole in it.

Or, as one of my database guru heroes liked to say: "You don't use a chunk of stone to pound a wood screw into a piece of fine furniture."

heh, that's very funny, that's something I am always doing, but I usually miss the screw and hit my finger

evilproducer

head wax said:

Garstor said:

JoeMamma2000 said:

For example, let's say you had a wonderful and very expensive tool box with every tool you could want for woodworking. And you have a piece of wood, and you want to make a 1/8" hole in it.

Or, as one of my database guru heroes liked to say: "You don't use a chunk of stone to pound a wood screw into a piece of fine furniture."

heh, that's very funny, that's something I am always doing, but I usually miss the screw and hit my finger

Chunk of stone? Bah! Of course that's wrong! You'll have much better luck with a concrete brick as the surface is more even. Personally I prefer to get away from stone-like substances entirely and use my Kung-Fu mojo to pound it in the palm of my hand.

HINT: Don't use your forehead. Luckily I had no ill after effects! Luckily I had no ill after effects! Luckily I had no ill after effects! Luckily I had no ill after effects! What bird? Did you say something? Snuffleupagus!