Thanks a lot! I will look into all suggestions offered. Cheers
people! (It's Friday! :-) ...
cue Rebeca Black... * duck*)
On 13/12/2013 4:38 PM, Eric Thivierge
wrote:
look
at the 2 point constraints for this type of stuff. It gives you
co
look at the 2 point constraints for this type of stuff. It gives you
control of what axis points down the joint and also to set an object as
an up vector to stabilize them. Might get rid of the need for the 2
constraints.
If you're sticking with the 2 constraints, you'd set the first
constrai
desk.com
Subject: Re: Problems with weighted constraints
Okay. I wasn't aware of this. How would you do this in a setting where you want
the object constrained 80-20, for example? You don't want the constraint to be
100, because it means the object would move all the way with it with
Okay, I just read a bit about Rigid vs Soft coupling. That clears
that up.
The thing is that all my constrained objects are using Rigid
coupling, so in theory, this should not be the source of the
problem. Right?
Sergio M.
On 13/12/2013 4:32 PM, Sergio M
21 PM
To: xsi
Subject: Re: Problems with weighted constraints
>>>offset1 and offset2, then its constrained to both, with a 0.5 weight on each
>>>constraint.
Soft constraints are layered, meaning that the order the constraints are
applied is important. The last applied constra
Okay. I wasn't aware of this. How would you do this in a setting
where you want the object constrained 80-20, for example? You don't
want the constraint to be 100, because it means the object would
move all the way with it with the constraining object, and you want
it to
>>>offset1 and offset2, then its constrained to both, with a 0.5 weight on
each constraint.
Soft constraints are layered, meaning that the order the constraints are
applied is important. The last applied constraint trumps the previous
one. So if you want to blend a 50/50 amount you have to leav
7 matches
Mail list logo
