Home › Suggestions
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
Expanded sliders
Was playing around a bit and was messing with the sliders for breasts and such, and I was curious if it would be possible to add options to increase the slider scale so we could do truly hyper breasted characters, this goes for more than just the breasts, it'd be nice to see this for the sake of customization and creative freedom.
Comments
Even better if you reduce body scale to 0.5, though that'd obviously necessitate some trickery to make it actually viable in a scene:
One trick that can be done currently with breasts is maxing out the chest bone sliders...
...But that has the downside of making the whole area of the chest larger...
...As well as the tits not deforming quite so nicely when gravity is applied:
Definitely could use a bit more work, there. Not something I'd personally take advantage of, but more options is always better.
I'd also like to suggest the opposite, too; limiting sliders to very small numbers. Especially with the radius options on radial and capsule gradient masks, one is often required to manually input of the desired size numbers since they barely even register on the scale when you're doing detail work. Something like an option to limit the full slider's max to 0.1 would help there.
@Brownmane
Unfortunately, the algorithm we're using for calculating corrective shapes doesn't seem to work for scaled items. I don't know why that is. The algorithm is taken from blender's source code, and the math is a little bit over my head. I don't know how to fix it.
(You can see that in blender too if computing corrective shapes using the official corrective shape addon that they go crazy as soon as you start computing such shapes for bones that have been scaled.)
Limits for penetration are fine, a lot of hyper involves just showing off the genitals, not so much interacting with them, from what I can tell through my limited experience with the subject. So, being able to make things huge should still be an option, maybe slap a pop-up warning about how it isn't necessarily going to gel well with character interactions once a certain threshold is crossed, should be fine.
Didn't you have a plan for making custom corrective shapes possible at some point? Would be exactly what the doctor ordered for these situations; if players want to do crazy shit, let them do some of the gruntwork in making it function. Believe you me, where there's a will, there's a way; never underestimate just how far some are willing to go to get what they want.
And, should go without saying, this isn't a call to get right on it. Just a little something to make note of and keep in mind for when you do get to that particular bridge and actually need to cross it.
The problem isn't authoring (or generating) the desired target shape to use, but rather translating that shape into something that can be used with skinning. I.e., the shape being authored isn't the actual corrective shape key, but rather what the user would like the mesh to look like given a certain bone configuration. And that's where the problem lies - the corrective shape key itself will also be skinned (deformed by bones), and that needs to be taken into account when authoring the shape.
A "real" corrective shape key can be calculated from a desired target by using this algorithm I mentioned. It's an iterative algorithm that skins the model and then compares the deformed mesh to what it's supposed to look like (the user corrective shape key). Then it makes adjustments and re-does the skinning and compares again, until the shape matches the user authored shape key. This algorithm is quite advanced, and difficult to understand, and unfortunately it doesn't work if bones in the configuration have been scaled.
This is how a corrective shape key looks - it's very counter intuitive and would be difficult to author:
This shape would be much easier to author:
Than this:
Ah, I see. Now that I remember better, your idea was to let users author the shape they want and then run the algorithm, correct? But, the algorithm can't handle bone scaling. I can see why that would be an issue. I'm guessing your best bet is getting in contact with the algorithm's authors and seeing if they can shed some light on how it might be fixed.
That's exactly right.
Yeah, I suppose that would be the best thing. But my experience from these types of problems is that you're on your own. It's unlikely that we'd 1) find the person 2) get him to solve the problem. Doesn't hurt to try I guess, but I'm not counting on it working. I think the best course of action would be to read up on these things so I could solve it myself.