Character Studio help needed

Sir_KnowS

Hello 'counters,
I need some help animating with Character Studio.
1) I just recently found out that you CAN'T asign a controller to a biped object. I can get around this by adding a controller to Biped SubAnims but it sucks having to go through the whole heirarchy. Is there a maxscript out there that would go through a biped and add a controller to all the subanims?

2) I have a biped with a tail. The tail was automatically linked to the spine; I want it linked to the pelvis. I've linked it to the pelvis but when I rotate the pelvis the tail doesn't move; it seems to be only moving with the biped. (Ofcourse the same thing happens when I attach it back to the spine.) How do I set it so that the tail will follow it's parent? Can I do that?

thank you

anton980

Just curious - why do you have to have a tail linked to a pelvis and not a spine?

oXYnary

A tail is really a continuation of your spine, not your pelvis. If you look at a links and schematic display versus bones, it can help understand whats happening. Which is its a multiple subobject chain of the spine. Its the same reason that the legs don't move when you rotate the spine.

SkullboX

Not true Oxynary, the tail should indeed be linked to the pelvis.

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/graphics/bio105/dbf%20skeleton%20600.jpg.

http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/images/education/horse_skeleton.gif

Of course joints in an actual human skeleton don't have a parent-child relationship like they do in 3D software, but the tail section of any skeleton is attached to the spine bone that is attached to the pelvis, certainly not to any corresponding bone that is part of the 'spine' hierarchy on a biped. The tail is part of a different hierarchial chain down from the Pelvis than the spinal column.

As for biped, the creators set limits and constaints to certain bones to make it easier and more intuitive to animate. I personally don't find it easy or intuitive and don't like it at all, but I guess plenty of people do. The cost of course is the lack of control over its hierarchy, so if you want a solid rig built to your needs, create one from scratch. This will also allow you to set default controllers so you won't end up having to assign any afterwards.

Good luck.

oXYnary

Actually no, Skullbox. The Sacrum is a modified/combined set of vertices through evolution. The illium and sacrum together make the pelvic girdle. They are however separate bones.

Your horse diagram if you looked at it from a top view would further prove this. In fact look at your diagram closely. It has pelvic vertebrae (and notice plural). The spine is separated into different groups depending on where its at.

Think of the pelvis on the character biped as more the illium when you are creating a tail.

But I disgress, I think it sounds like we arguing over semantics. Depends on if this character is a biped or quad.

Edit: I can see the confusion in what I wrote. I should have more explicit when I said pelvis. Again, because the pelvis really isnt one bone, but a set, and indeed some of it is vertebrae that have been fused. So in theory (if not practicle in 3d rigging), you would have it as a continuation of your spine, even more so if it a quadraped, or walks like a monkey.

See image.

SkullboX

Read my post again, particularly this: "The tail is part of a different hierarchial chain down from the Pelvis than the spinal column."

That means if you go down from the pelvis (as a root bone), whether you see this as one bone (and for animation, you do) or multiple, the spinal column and the tail will be part of two different branches in the hierarchy. The tail is linked to the pelvis, not to the spine objects on the biped. It is also irrelevant whether or not the character is a quad or a biped.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Gray242.png

oXYnary

Read mine also.

So in theory (if not practicle in 3d rigging),

In otherwords, Im not disagreeing with you. You speak of rigging, I speak of principle. I bow down to your superiour knowledge in rigging. However, you seemingly phrased your response as a biological response versus a rigging response in the first portion.

Though if it were more practicle, it should be rigged like a shoulder area in a quadraped. Which animation wise you are stating it isn't. Again, I don't know enough on this to disagree. Im simply stating how it works in real life.

My mistake is assuming rigging could be setup the same. Which I guess Im asking at this point. Why couldn't you? Or does it make the rig overly complex for character animation?

SkullboX

Animation wise, that indeed isn't the case.

Rigging the shoulder area of a quadruped is identical to that of rigging a human. Rigging the Pelvic region of a quadruped is exactly the same as rigging that of a human. The Pelvis is an inflexible piece and the individual pieces it consists of do not move:

Horse
Dog
Human

When you use the static pelvis as a root bone when rigging, you will end up with one chain that forms the spine column, and another that forms the tail. The spine is, give or take some natural anomalities, rigidly connected to the pelvis at the sacrum, and the pelvis itself is a rigid piece in all animations other than childbirth, which I doubt is very relevant.

oXYnary

Ok that makes sense. BTW, your sacrum isnt fused until around 32 years of life (but yes, for all intents and purposes it could be seen as one unit for animation).

Not sure on this part, but I think it can also slightly spread just a little during childbirth in younger mothers.