I’m actually wondering if there’s any good reason not to use a ikSCsolver on a leg, if you don’t gonna use the poleVector-constraint?
I’m actually just gonna set up a leg where I rotate the group if the ikHandle for the foot to get the kneeSpin. I’ve seen people set up that kind of leg by setting up a ikRPsolver, then create a poleVector, then grouping the poleVector to a group at the pivot of the foot-joint, and then rotate that group to get the kneeSpin.
I’ve attached a file with ikSCsolver’s, havent had any problems with that so far.
I can’t really see the need of a ikRPsolver with a poleVector for that use - or have I missed something?
That works fine but pole vectors are important to the rig for better control over the limb. Also you loose flexibility of the rig with out the pole vector and animation where knees need to lock in place or aim a certain way or you want to animate the overlap separate from the foot instead it twisting the same amount every time.
i’d say you are better off having the rp solver and setting it up as you mentioned with the rp parenting. you get your free sc-like pv animation but should you ever need to break it out, you have the ability to. don’t restrict yourself right out of the gate if you can help it…
[QUOTE=jeremyc;11217]i’d say you are better off having the rp solver and setting it up as you mentioned with the rp parenting. you get your free sc-like pv animation but should you ever need to break it out, you have the ability to. don’t restrict yourself right out of the gate if you can help it…[/QUOTE]
I agree with this to some degree but if you are really building a production rig for specific animation team and speed is an issue ( it always is ), keeping things tight and lean and to the minimum is a better way to go. When you start building rigs to accommodate every future need of you will quickly end up with bloated, and convoluted monster that’s confusing to animate and not as fast as it can be at playback.
Agree but is there really a noticeable performance cost between RP and SC chains?
A bloated rig is just as bad as a rig that is so lean that animators struggle to animate something other than just standing around.
You can create a pole vector and rig it to act just like a SC chain but it allows for more complex situations like knees or elbows on the ground or to help stabilize mocap data etc.
Balance is always needed and if the Animators are not used to using a feature that the TD knows will allow for faster work or simplify their job, then they should educate the team on the feature. If they still don’t want it then leave it out but I have not seen that happen much. Of course this only works if the TD understands the animation process and the animation team respects the TDs:)
It is true the performance cost between RP and SC is small, but it seems for this rig using RP is still unnecessary since pole-vector will be parented away and not really accessible to the user. So I think advice to keep there “just in case” is a bad advice.
You can waste a lot of effort doing thinks for “Just in case” situations.
If a tech artist is so convinced that his idea will help animation team then by all means add the tool and proselytize. But most experienced animators at this point know if they want pole-vector or not and how they like it.
My advice is if you do not need it then do not add it. This is a general point of view.
I can guarantee one thing, every animator prefers fast rig over slow one :).
