Thanks for the info.
I've uploaded a Toolset to Nukepedia with a basic pool table setup
(thanks Jack for helping set this up):
http://www.nukepedia.com/gizmos/toolsets/j_mullet-pooltable/
Quite fun to play with
On 22/08/12 5:31 AM, Jack Binks wrote:
I suspect it's to do with the constraint auto calced center being
incorrect vs that used by the solver down the stream (doesn't
necessarily know some of the aspects the solver does). So it's likely
a bug somewhere - I'll need to have a more in depth look when I get a
chance, but fortunately there's a usable workaround.
In terms of a display, it's a good idea (thanks Ivan), particularly if
I can't figure the issue out. In the meantime, it's mainly of issue
with constraints, and switching on the troubleshooting overlay will
show you their origin position. You can then alter the CoM and see the
constraint origin moving, so it can be positioned as required.
Cheers
Jack
On 20 August 2012 08:05, Frank Rueter <[email protected]> wrote:
indeed. Though I'm not sure if this is correct behaviour to begin with. If
there is a constraint the CoM shouldn't necessarily change the pivot,
right?! Just the way energy the object moves and receives/distributes
energy, right?!
On 20/08/12 6:51 PM, Marten Blumen wrote:
That's a good idea. right now its a total guess until you run the
simulation.
On 20 August 2012 18:31, Ivan Busquets <[email protected]> wrote:
A little late to the party, but just wanted to add my thanks to Jack for
sharing this.
This is a really awesome addition to J_Ops, and it has a great performance
too!
As an idea, and seeing how some of the above problems came from the
auto-calculated center of mass, maybe you could add a visual representation
(like a non-interactive viewer handle) of where the CoM is when it's not
overridden by the user?
That way it would at least be easier to detect the cases where it's off.
Cheers,
Ivan
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Frank Rueter <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi Jack,
thanks, but that was still giving odd results. I have adjusted the CoM a
bit more (linked to an axis for better control and that seems to give the
expected result):
set cut_paste_input [stack 0]
version 6.3 v8
push $cut_paste_input
Cube {
cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2}
translate {0 -0.5 0}
rotate {35.26261719 0 0}
pivot {0 0.5 0}
name torso1
selected true
xpos 21
ypos -130
}
J_MulletBody {
bodydamping {0.09 0.09}
bodycenterofmass {{parent.Axis1.translate x1 0} {parent.Axis1.translate
x1 -0.1679999977} {parent.Axis1.translate x1 -0.1099999994}}
bodycenterofmassoverride true
labelset true
name J_MulletBody6
label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]"
selected true
xpos 21
ypos -72
}
J_MulletConstraint {
conbodycount One
conbodypreview true
labelset true
name J_MulletConstraint1
label "\[value this.contype]"
selected true
xpos 21
ypos -22
}
J_MulletSolver {
name J_MulletSolver1
selected true
xpos 21
ypos 45
}
Axis2 {
inputs 0
translate {0 -0.4 -0.29}
name Axis1
selected true
xpos 197
ypos -99
}
On 17/08/12 7:34 PM, Jack Binks wrote:
Hey Gents,
Will have to investigate further, but I think what you're seeing is
related to the auto calculated center of mass. Does the below
amendment make it more what you expect (body has CoM overriden)?
set cut_paste_input [stack 0]
version 6.3 v1
push $cut_paste_input
Cube {
cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2}
translate {0 -0.5 0}
rotate {35.26261719 0 0}
pivot {0 0.5 0}
name torso1
selected true
xpos -224
ypos -283
}
J_MulletBody {
bodydamping {0.09 0.09}
bodycenterofmass {0.15 -0.5 -0.4}
bodycenterofmassoverride true
labelset true
name J_MulletBody6
label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]"
selected true
xpos -224
ypos -225
}
J_MulletConstraint {
conbodycount One
conbodypreview true
labelset true
name J_MulletConstraint1
label "\[value this.contype]"
selected true
xpos -224
ypos -175
}
J_MulletSolver {
name J_MulletSolver1
selected true
xpos -224
ypos -108
}
Cheers
Jack
On 16 August 2012 23:41, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote:
that's what I got- I couldn't solve it properly before the deadline. It
appeared to be some combination of the initial object position and the
constraint axis.
luckily this fit my shot. karabiners can shift within the bolt hanger
when
attached to the rock wall- it added to the realism!
On 17 August 2012 10:18, Frank Rueter <[email protected]> wrote:
I just had a play with this sort of simple constraint as well and am
not
getting the exected result (the box is not swinging around the
constraint
point.
Am I doing something wrong?
Cube {
cube {-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2}
translate {0 -0.5 0}
rotate {35.26261719 0 0}
pivot {0 0.5 0}
name torso1
selected true
xpos -464
ypos -197
}
J_MulletBody {
bodydamping {0.09 0.09}
labelset true
name J_MulletBody6
label "\[value this.bodytype]-\[value this.coltype]"
selected true
xpos -464
ypos -139
}
J_MulletConstraint {
conbodycount One
conbodypreview true
labelset true
name J_MulletConstraint1
label "\[value this.contype]"
selected true
xpos -464
ypos -89
}
J_MulletSolver {
name J_MulletSolver1
selected true
xpos -464
ypos -22
}
On 17/08/12 9:03 AM, Marten Blumen wrote:
Cool - I had about 12-16 of them swinging on a wall. modeled and
painted,
6 hero ones and the rest in the distance.
I had to bodgy the whole thing, didn't have time to learn it and the
looming shot deadline.
Would really like to have a RBD rope, split into segments, pullling at
them to make them move.
On 17 August 2012 08:52, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
Cracking, thanks Marten, will have a play!
On 16 Aug 2012, at 19:48, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote:
Yeah - its an awesome bit of kit to have in the Nuke toolbox. Concept
attached.
The shot was a bit dead so I wanted to add sun glints off karabiners
swinging on the wall. I could have animated it by hand but no need
now!
Super simple / amazing to be able to do it in Nuke.
On 17 August 2012 06:35, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds great + completely understand.
Still, first production use I know of :)
Cheers
Jack
On 16 August 2012 18:35, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote:
Would love to but can't yet. I'll make a test shot when I get the
chance.
On 17 August 2012 05:10, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
Cool stuff Marten, would love to check it out if you can share?
Cheers
Jack
On 15 August 2012 21:55, Marten Blumen <[email protected]> wrote:
Awesome Jack.
Already used it to finish a shot - simulating rock climbing
karabiners
hanging on a rock face - just the extra zing the shot needed!
On 10 August 2012 19:55, Jack Binks <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey All,
Just to let you know I've popped a 2.0 build of J_Ops for Nuke
6.3
up
on Nukepedia, adding a rigid body physics toolkit for Nuke's 3D
system, as well as a range of tweaks, improvements and fixes to
the
existing tools.
Check out the dev blog for more info:
http://major-kong.blogspot.com/
Enjoy!
Jack
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected],
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected],
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected],
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected],
http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
<KarabinerTest.nk>
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________
Nuke-users mailing list
[email protected], http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/
http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
