-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
157 provide example for a human asset analog to vehicle example #158
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
157 provide example for a human asset analog to vehicle example #158
Conversation
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: ClemensLinnhoff <[email protected]>
I think we had some animations in there (running, jumping or similar). But they were not intended to be exported as part of this example. Feel free to remove them. |
@ClemensLinnhoff Is this PR ready for review? |
No, this is still a draft. This was just my initial upload and @ipg-sig might need to adapt the model to the new definitions. |
Otherwise it looks great. I like the example of the wrist band as an accessory. |
It may be the case that blender and/or the gltf exporter considers nodes which are linked to the armature as children. |
606b272
to
401dc2d
Compare
I checked the updated human example and the hierarchy is still flattened in Blender. But maybe this is a Blender bug? {
"mesh":0,
"name":"Accessorie",
"skin":0
},
{
"children":[
31
],
"name":"Grp_Accessories"
},
{
"mesh":1,
"name":"Human",
"skin":0
},
{
"children":[
33
],
"name":"Grp_Body"
},
{
"mesh":2,
"name":"Vest",
"skin":0
},
{
"children":[
35
],
"name":"Grp_Clothing"
},
|
On the other hand, I imported it to this editor: https://www.gltfeditor.com/ Here the structure looks correct: |
I also asked our 3D artist and he says it should not be possible to have empty nodes with children in an armature. The meshes should directly be part of it, at least in Blender. |
Okay we tried around a bit. So it does seem to work. But it is an import bug in Blender that flattens the hierarchy. Anyways this seems to be quite an exotic solution having empty nodes as part of an armature. |
@ClemensLinnhoff Thank you very much! I have tried different combinations in Blender, but it always ended in the flattened hierarchy after reimporting the exported files (all 3 file formats). To avoid it, we could also use the group names as an Prefix for the meshes, so we can get rid of the additional group nodes.
But I think this should be discussed in the group next week? |
Yes, this came also to my mind. Just have a prefix for the meshes instead of the empty nodes. |
We created an issue in the Blender project and already got an answer from another user and from a blender organization member who do not think this is a bug since the behavior of the mesh is still correct even if the hierarchy is flattened. The issue was already closed: So if Blender is not supporting this and will not support this, I think we should flatten the hierarchy in the definitions as well, as @ipg-sig proposed. |
Signed-off-by: Simone Graf <[email protected]>
401dc2d
to
c603d0c
Compare
Model and exported files re updated @ClemensLinnhoff . With OpenUSD the "Grp_Root" was always renamed to "root" after import, but I am not sure if this is another Blender OpenUSD Bug. FBX and GLTF work fine now. maybe someone can check it again with OpenUSD? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks very good, just one minor remark.
"buffers":[ | ||
{ | ||
"byteLength":1629064, | ||
"uri":"Human_Example.bin" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The file name is wrong here. This would be a simple fix, if you are sure you uploaded the correct files. Just want to make sure.
@ipg-sig feel free to add yourself as co-author the the metadata of the asset file :) |
I wasn't able to reproduce this behavior in Blender 4.1.1. |
I can somewhat reproduce it. After reimporting the pedestrian USD file, I get the following structure: |
But that seems to be a pedestrian issue, as it works for the example vehicle. This also explains, why it works in @LudwigFriedmann s example: |
The is a neutral bone in the example, that is not in the structure definition. Do we need the neutral bone? |
Sometimes the x-axis is pointing forwards, sometime backwards. Can we unify this? |
We could unify it, but we would lose the ability to mirror the animation properly. For example: If I have mirroring enabled and rotate the shoulder, one would rotate forwards and the other backwards. As it is now, it is also the standard rotation, if you symmetrize the bones. |
We tried this out, but this only worked in the shoulders. We also had a look at the Rigify default figure, there, also the orientations are the same for left an right. The z-axis is pointing forward in the arms and backwards in the legs, but same for left and right. |
Thats a little bit strange. It should work for all mirrored bones (full arms, legs and eyes). I noticed that the Upper_Arm is named incorrectly on the right side, therefore the mirroring doesn´t work as expected, but works on all other bones for me.
For the legs it is possible to keep them in the same orientation (same for the eyes). |
I also don't have a strong opinion. @MatthiasThDs do you have an opinion about this? |
Describe your changes
Add human model (without helper bones and with full hands (no fingers as bones))
Issue ticket number and link
Fixes #157
Mention a member
@ipg-sig
Checklist before requesting a review