Midnight Prophets
Member
- Apr 2, 2024
- 126
- 321
- 149
3D Software Help and Assistance. Ask Away.
- Thread starter Lt. Aldo Raine
- Start date
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Hey guys, need help with rigging. I'm stuck at
You must be registered to see the links
where I can't parent mesh to bone with weights. I followed the tutorial to the letter but when I move the bone, the vertices around said bone doesn't follow. Thanks
In order to pose, you need to be in pose mode first. Did you do that?
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Yes, as the video then asks I have to move the bone where the vertices around the bone to follow. Nothing happens. Google suggests skeleton must be in rest mode. Done Alt+G then Alt+R, still nothing.
Should be, in Object mode, select the body, then the bones, then hit Ctrl+P to parent it, using Armature Deform with Automatic Weights.
After that, go to pose mode, and rotate the bones.
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Yup, as exactly shown in the video. I did follow step by step, still not working. Am trying to Edit mode then by Loose parts to see if it works but my blender crashes and stops working thereafter.
Edit won't show the bends, and usually better if it's all one part.
Shy of seeing the setup, I am not sure then. I won't be up much longer, but if you want to show me the file, I can take a look, see if I can see what is wrong.
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Apologies, buddy. But I've been googling where to navigate my blend files in order to upload them here to no avail, sadly.
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Tried that, went to Documents/placed it at Desktop. Blend file is not visible when uploading files, sadly.
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Finally made it work. The edit mode then CTRL+P>Loose by parts instead of whole mesh parented to skeleton made it possible
Edit: Time to learn animation. My goodness, the tutorials are 1 hour long
Last edited:
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Hey guys, I have not cleared my schedule as of yet rendering me no time to watch 1 hour long animation tutorials and spend time mimicking the tutorials. I can't, for the love of boobies find a tutorial concerning using premade animations (I downloaded one). In need of assistance. Thanks.
You could try dragging and dropping into the chat box here, or if that fails, might have to zip it, they have a few restrictions here. Glad to hear you got it working though.
I don't know of any for Blender, only Daz. You could try some of the shops, like RenderHub, or Gumroad, but I would not expect anything, Blender is generally too custom.
Vanaduke
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2017
- 851
- 3,234
- 361
Turns out I still have few mishaps. Can't somehow select these parts and after I parent-Armature deform with Automatic weights the model to skeleton, I have a yellow banner Weight error to which I was unable to take a screenshot of.
Because of the high poly hair, I reckon?
For the hair (I am guessing), you parent to the head bone, but instead of Armiture, it would be normal parent, keep transform. In Daz, you would parent it to the head, and for either the hair would need it's own bones, unless you plan to simulate it.
(DAZ Studio) Does anyone know how I can get mirror surfaces to transmit light? They'll show an image of what's reflected, but I'm talking about having thing project the rays of light they're receiving, much as they do in the real world. If the distinction isn't clear; I made a sample scene:
Where (A) is a light source, (B) is the corner mirror, (C) is the figure standing around the hall corner
As it is, the figure looks almost identical:
(To those thinking she's ever so slightly brighter - i did a test and that's almost all from having a surface closer to light - note when mirror shader is replaced with flat texture - it's comparable)
Seems like I must be missing something because the entire idea of raytracing graphics is predicting rays instead of just using computationally cheap tricks to simulate an image. Anyone know?
Where (A) is a light source, (B) is the corner mirror, (C) is the figure standing around the hall corner
As it is, the figure looks almost identical:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
(To those thinking she's ever so slightly brighter - i did a test and that's almost all from having a surface closer to light - note when mirror shader is replaced with flat texture - it's comparable)
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Feb 17, 2020
- 1,748
- 5,185
- 688
I certainly don't know, but your post has made me curious. If you could put that simple environment with the light source and the mirror prop (the female model is not necessary) all together in a scene subset and share it in another post, I'd gladly experiment with it.
Anyway, don't they use in photography and modeling reflectors with the idea you're explaining? And these do not have mirror-like surfaces.
Your second paragraph is EXACTLY how i came across this - i was making my own spotlights and searchlights which use parabolic reflectors for concentrating and focusing the light, and noticed they weren't behaving as I'd expect. There are a LOT of objects in our world which use light bouncing off mirrors and lenses, it'd be a shame if there was no way to implement this in daz.
L-shaped hallway is attached.
- Feb 17, 2020
- 1,748
- 5,185
- 688
I've done some tests, that I'm putting below. The main difference with yours is that I do notice a significant difference in my tests, regarding how much light gets reflected, between having the mirror-like surface (full metallicity) or a non mirror-like surface (metallicity disabled).
Let's start with your set as it is. Nothing has been relocated or changed in another way here. The only difference is that I'm using my own female figure.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Next, I replaced your mirror with a reflector prop from an old lighting suite. As you will see, it simply sucks at that task.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Then, I tweaked the properties of the reflector's surface with the hope of getting more light reflected onto the figure and the other passage. Mainly, top glossiness and reflectivity. It did very, very little.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
As a final modification to the reflector, I made the surface mirror-like (full metallicity). As you can see, this got the more light reflected. The result is pretty identical to your initial set. Compare this picture below to the first one as evidence.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
With that, I stopped experimenting with the reflective surface. Now it was time to see how the light emitter interacted with the mirror by moving it to different positions. For the next two renders, I hid my reflector and made your mirror visible again. In this first render, I brought the emitter very close to the mirror, as you can see. And yet, because of the placement and angle of the camera, we can't see the light source reflected in the mirror.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
At last, I continued moving the emitter and placed it at the very end of the other passage, facing the mirror. This time around, we can see the light reflected in the mirror.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
I hope that these tests may have been of any help to you. Based on these experiments, I don't see anything wrong. Everything has worked out as I would have expected. But I'm not an expert.
But IMO (i appreciate all your work dont get me wrong) - but this is missing the point - considering basic laws of optics, in this image:
In that configuration, If the figure was standinging say 8 feet from the mirror, we'd expect her to be receiving the same amount of light as if that corner where the mirror is was instead extended 8 feet. She clearly doesnt get this much light - furthermore the presence of the mirror does little to the original harsh shadows cast around the corner. Let me whip up a better scene and itll be easier to show what I'm talking about.
In that configuration, If the figure was standinging say 8 feet from the mirror, we'd expect her to be receiving the same amount of light as if that corner where the mirror is was instead extended 8 feet. She clearly doesnt get this much light - furthermore the presence of the mirror does little to the original harsh shadows cast around the corner. Let me whip up a better scene and itll be easier to show what I'm talking about.