Question: Is it possible to make armature1 affect armature2 (parent or track) but if armature2 is rotated or moved the armature1 reacts?
That could simplify mechanical models.
Nice day.
Tomaz
You can parent one Armature to another or to a bone in another. In 2.4 you can use Driven Keyed IPO’s between armatures.
%<
Doesn’t work with ipo driver.
At least not that simple.
LP Tomaz
http://blender.isoserv.com/uploads/Driven Arm.blend
If that’s doesn’t help then you should take the time to explain.
%<
let me draw this:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
0 0
a1 a2
if you move a1, a2 will move
AND
if you move a2, a1 will move
I Hope I explained now.
LP Tomaz
Hehe… you don’t have anything in your profile about where you’re from so I don’t know if english is your mother tonge or not. If english is difficult for you then post in your own language and I’ll try to translate.
Anyhow, armatures have 2 ways to ‘move’. They move like other objects from one place to another, and they move their bones. I tried to do both in the example. When you say 1 moves and then 2 will also move it’s confusing because it doesn’t explain what ‘move’ means. A Copy Rotation constraint on each will make one rotate when you rotate the other. Parenting both to an Empty will move both and rotate both if you move or rotate the empty. Maybe you can explain in Blender terms what 1 does and what 2 should do and then what 2 does and what 1 should do, and whether you are only thinking about the armature Object or are you talking about armature Actions (bone IPO’s (because armatures look kinda silly if they move around without moving their bones).
%<
I’m trying to say to you that Copy Rotation constraint works only if one object is “parent” to another speaking in constraint terms. But if you rotate (in this particular example) the “child” the “parent” doesn’t rotate at all.
If you make obj. a1 target of Copy Rotation constraint of obj. a2 AND
obj. a2 target of Copy Rotation constraint of obj. a1 and influence in both constraints is 1 or 0.5 or anything else => you can’t rotate a1 nor a2.
It is not necessary to use armature. Any object will suffice. But I don’t want to use empty (or any other object) that is parent of both objects since there is no direct interaction between objects.
I hope you understood me now.
If not I can send you .blend file with example.
But if you still think it is possible to do it PLEASE send me a .blend file of your solution (nothing else but two objects that interacts one to another).
LP Tomaz
p.s.: I’m from Slovenia but I speak english good.
Why not add a third armature that would be a control armature and then parent the other armatures to the third one… this way you move one and the other moves… and at the same time… you can also move the child armatures independantly if needed.
[edit]
The third armature could be any object… just parent them using modifiers or whatever…
I don’t understand what you are trying to show in that file but I would apreciate if you can change that file http://blender.isoserv.com/uploads/preset.blend the way you think it will work.
LP Tomaz
I figure it out http://blender.isoserv.com/uploads/preset1.blend.
The point is to use dRotZ.
THX anyway.
LP Tomaz
The point is to use dRotZ.
You can use any IPO (even something like the Energy IPO of a Lamp) to be the DRIVEN movement, and then you can choose from the dropdown in the N tab what transform and axis the DRIVER will use.
I don’t understand what you are trying to show in that file
This:
But if you still think it is possible to do it PLEASE send me a .blend file of your solution (nothing else but two objects that interacts one to another).
%<