In which sense will it help me to do it better? Because I need to move the arm's mesh points in Spine anyway, right?
I demonstrated it briefly. Please take a look the video below:
VIDEO
Mesh and weights can be used to partially distort an image, but conversely they can also be used to partially fix an image. In the example above, the mesh of the right shoulder and the right arm is a child of the body2 bone. If you give the weight of the body2 bone to some of the vertices, the vertices will not move even if the right arm bone moves. Therefore, if you do this, there is no need to use a stepped curve to avoid showing the interpolation frame.
======
Do you know if there is a way to tell spine how to do the mix in order not to have weird interpolation between animations? (you can watch it in 1:19)
As Erika answered earlier, creating transition animations as you did in your video is a good solution if the rotation direction does not match the previous animation.
However, to put it more precisely, there are a lot of patterns of the cause for the problem of weird interpolation during mixing. You can set the mixing behavior a little more precisely at runtime. For example, if an attachment switches at a time when you do not want it to switch yet when the mix starts, you can fix this by setting the TrackEntry attachmentThreshold
======
Even having done a tutorial about a 3d effect face binding the bones and using weights, sometimes I feel more convenient to manually modify the mesh in the animation.
I think the reason why you feel that way is you are adding too many mesh vertices. When creating 3D effects with meshes and weights, it is common to set many vertices, especially for complex parts such as the face, but the number of vertices can be small if the part is not complex. There are many examples in blog posts and tips that show how to animate with very few vertices, so please check them.
