Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66
  1. #41
    Hello angavrilov
    Great work!
    May be i can help you.
    Do you know about Spiro curves? For ex in Inkscape
    https://vimeo.com/41237505



  2. #42
    Originally Posted by brothermechanic View Post
    Hello angavrilov
    Great work!
    May be i can help you.
    Do you know about Spiro curves? For ex in Inkscape
    https://vimeo.com/41237505
    Spiro curves are really great but not really applicable to F-Curves in this case. For regular curves then you may have a better use case in which case you need to find a developer interested in porting the code from Inkscape.
    Charlie

    ArtRage for Art EnergyXT for Music Blender for 3D



  3. #43
    Made a new build based on 2.79 RC2. I also started on getting the changes reviewed for inclusion and made a couple of changes:

    • Following some received feedback, I replaced the smoothing checkbox with a dropdown and changed the way the setting is stored. My build contains some code to convert the old format on file load, but it won't be merged so official blender won't read this setting stored by previous builds.

    • Now Copy To Selected and Alt-click work with the new setting (and also the old display color dropdown) so it is possible to change it for all selected curves at once.



  4. #44
    Member Indy_logic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,010
    Originally Posted by angavrilov View Post
    Basically, in 2.4* f-curves simply had an extrapolation setting that could be constant, linear, or cycle. Then the cycle mode was changed into a modifier in order to add extra options to it; however this separation means that adding cycle aware handle smoothing requires hacks in the code. On the other hand restoring the simple infinite cycle setting allows nice code for smoothing, but results in either redundancy (both modifier with defaults and the 'new old' f-curve option do basically the same thing) or loss of additional options.

    So I wonder how many people actually use those advanced options as opposed to just the default modifier added by Shift-E => Make Cyclic.
    Oooooh. Now I understand. So then, no, I don't ever use the extra options for the cycle modifier. I usually just set it and forget it. Now with the handles being continuous, it's even more set it and forget it. I'm not saying the loop settings are useless but I just never use them.

    Also, If I was needing the cycle to last for a specific number of cycles I could just make it into an action and put it in the NLA editor and control the looping parameters there. This also allows you to control the other settings of the modifier which is to set the repeat to only happen before or after the cycle. Which doesn't even sound practical in the first place. But even still, the NLA gives you all these features as well.

    To be honest this isn't a very good strata of users to be making this decision. What, like 4 or 5 people consistently posting in here? We need a LOT more people to chime in here. I'd really love to know what the guys who worked on the open movies think of these features.

    COM'ON GUYS! WE NEED YOUR INPUT!



  5. #45
    It's probably so technical in here that most people don't understand what's it about...



  6. #46
    I'm not currently using this because I have this thing where I have to download the daily builds for whatever reason, and this particular thing isn't up with or in daily.
    I'm using the addon, so if anything significant has or will change between the results, I would be unaware. That being said:

    I don't really notice it at times but the default interpolations/timing seems to get really janky unexpectedly but the auto curve evaluation from this method really smooths it out and I just realized that the Clamping option (addon) both does the smoothing thing I like while also not overshooting things how the Auto Curve thing works.


    Last time when I tried the build version of this, I recall it only doing an automatic interpolation (overshoot) but I don't remember anything about there being an automatic "clamped" interpolation.

    If there wasn't one, I really believe it should be added. Honestly, I believe it's smooth enough to replace the default Auto-Clamp.



  7. #47
    This looks really promising, should allow for animating with much less tweaking of keyframes at those transitional poses. I also like how new keyframes don't alter the existing curves. I haven't done much testing in production, but this feels like one of those quality of life features you wonder how you could've lived without. Thank you for your work and I hope it gets accepted into 2.8.



  8. #48
    It's really late, but I finally updated the build on graphicall to 2.79 release. Also, now that the cyclic behavior (for now with old auto handles) is in master, I submitted the actual smoothing patch for review.

    I have also had an idea to display the main modes of keyframe interpolation and handle types in dopesheet. To make it simple, the types are currently represented by drawing lines inside the keyframe diamonds, and there is no option to turn it off yet:



    In order: Auto Clamped, Auto, Vector, Free/Aligned, Linear interpolation, Constant interpolation, other interpolation.

    The motivation is that with smoothing you can do a lot with just keyframing and setting handle types to match situation, and that can be done in dopesheet; but while you can set the type, you can't see it.



  9. #49
    Member Hadriscus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Massilia, France
    Posts
    1,326
    Excellent idea.



  10. #50
    That is a really cool idea. And it's better than color-coded diamonds, because most of the representations actually make sense intuitively, and colors can be changed in theme settings (thus some downloaded themes might create confusion).

    Can't wait for the smoothing patch to get in master, as well. I didn't even know the cyclic behavior was changed in master, I was using the smoothed f-curves build from august 20th up until I saw there's a newer version and came here to see the news. I'll start using the new build right away.

    Once again, thanks for all your efforts!



  11. #51
    Working nicely with cyclic curves is technically a separate feature that also works without new smoothing so I thought it's more convenient to get it reviewed and accepted first.



  12. #52
    Member Hadriscus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Massilia, France
    Posts
    1,326
    Color coding already stands for keyframe "type" anyway (breakdown, etc)



  13. #53
    Well, I just committed the main patch into master, so hopefully there are no undiscovered bugs.



  14. #54
    Originally Posted by angavrilov View Post
    Well, I just committed the main patch into master, so hopefully there are no undiscovered bugs.
    If there is any, in you we trust
    "Don't forget that blender is a community project, we develop blender together.
    If you feel things aren't as good as the should be, make it your goal to improve it." Sergof



  15. #55
    So lately I've been doing bouncing ball exercises on cgcookie to test out my handle smoothing build and I wonder if it is worth it to add some way to automatically make parabolic (i.e. constant acceleration) arcs with new smoothing (e.g. via a new handle type), or if that is something that only comes up frequently in bouncing ball exercises.

    Specifically, currently the Vector handle type is interpreted as a condition to force zero acceleration at the key, so alternating Auto Clamped and Vector keys produces some kind of arcs, but the object is not accelerating at the point of impact. Producing parabolic arcs requires either tweaking the handles in graph editor, or adding extra keys right next to the Vector impact.

    However, mathematically it is also possible to require constant acceleration (zero third derivative) at the end point; but at the moment there is no way to specify it. One way might be a new Bounce handle type that behaves the same as Vector except that new smoothing interprets it differently.



  16. #56
    Originally Posted by angavrilov View Post
    So lately I've been doing bouncing ball exercises on cgcookie to test out my handle smoothing build and I wonder if it is worth it to add some way to automatically make parabolic (i.e. constant acceleration) arcs with new smoothing (e.g. via a new handle type), or if that is something that only comes up frequently in bouncing ball exercises.

    Specifically, currently the Vector handle type is interpreted as a condition to force zero acceleration at the key, so alternating Auto Clamped and Vector keys produces some kind of arcs, but the object is not accelerating at the point of impact. Producing parabolic arcs requires either tweaking the handles in graph editor, or adding extra keys right next to the Vector impact.

    However, mathematically it is also possible to require constant acceleration (zero third derivative) at the end point; but at the moment there is no way to specify it. One way might be a new Bounce handle type that behaves the same as Vector except that new smoothing interprets it differently.
    One thing with your writing is that you are so technical (mathematical ). Please help the stupid artist/blender user to understand you. may be some drawing... anyway any improvement in the animation section is always welcome IHMO.
    "Don't forget that blender is a community project, we develop blender together.
    If you feel things aren't as good as the should be, make it your goal to improve it." Sergof



  17. #57
    The patch is in.

    "Implement a new automatic handle algorithm to produce smooth F-Curves."
    https://miikahweb.com/en/blender/git...77d67558293f08
    Win 7 - GTX 750TI



  18. #58
    Originally Posted by angavrilov View Post
    So lately I've been doing bouncing ball exercises on cgcookie to test out my handle smoothing build and I wonder if it is worth it to add some way to automatically make parabolic (i.e. constant acceleration) arcs with new smoothing (e.g. via a new handle type), or if that is something that only comes up frequently in bouncing ball exercises.

    Specifically, currently the Vector handle type is interpreted as a condition to force zero acceleration at the key, so alternating Auto Clamped and Vector keys produces some kind of arcs, but the object is not accelerating at the point of impact. Producing parabolic arcs requires either tweaking the handles in graph editor, or adding extra keys right next to the Vector impact.

    However, mathematically it is also possible to require constant acceleration (zero third derivative) at the end point; but at the moment there is no way to specify it. One way might be a new Bounce handle type that behaves the same as Vector except that new smoothing interprets it differently.
    First, congrats on master! I would really like to see new handle types like your bounce idea.



  19. #59
    Originally Posted by erickBlender View Post
    One thing with your writing is that you are so technical (mathematical ). Please help the stupid artist/blender user to understand you. may be some drawing... anyway any improvement in the animation section is always welcome IHMO.
    Well, the red arc here is what alternating auto clamp and vector does now (acceleration approaches zero near the bounce point and the curve is close to a straight line), while the green is a parabolic arc i.e. the physically correct motion of an object bouncing under influence of gravity or other constant acceleration source:



    So the question is whether this is useful enough to introduce a new handle type for creating the green arc automatically. Note that there already is a quadratic easing mode, but as far as I can see it absolutely requires one or the other of the keys to be horizontal, whereas this proposed new handle type would integrate with other bezier handle types like Vector does now.
    Last edited by angavrilov; 02-Nov-17 at 12:12.



  20. #60
    I got the latest build from https://builder.blender.org/download/ but the patch wasn't in there.
    Is it only for 2.8 or did I miss something?



Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •