Misaki a écritHi, @proxyerror!
The example seems really common, but what do you mean by this? :
The second way is not always preferable because of the limitation when using weighted bones.
When I make the rig that you gave an example, I set the same weights on the edge (or the crossing point) of the two meshes.
In other words, do you mean that you want to use a "linking vertex” feature? (Like, if the target vertex is transformed or its weight is changed, the change will be reflected on the linked vertex.)
Hi Misaki!
Thanks for your reply!
By the limitation of using weighted bones I mean sometimes we wanted the mesh to be in a shape that is only achievable through manipulating the vertices directly in deforamtion. Or sometimes we don't want to use additional bones for controlling these meshes, we just want to use the mesh deformation keys alone.
And you summarize it quite well, that a "linking vertex" feature will help me make sure that the two image pieces are transforming synced while I manipulate the vertices.
What I was thinking about is something simpler I guess, like this following image shows, I usually rig the first full image of the helmet in one mesh. Then I just duplicate the mesh twice so that I have 3 identical mesh of a full helmet. Then I just change the image path of the 2 duplicated meshes to the image of front and back, so that they have exactly matching vertices /meshes.
In this way, when I manipulate the vertices of the front piece of the helmet, I can copy the mesh deformation key into the back piece and they can match as I wanted.
I just thought it would be so much easier to have a kind of constraint between these 2 meshes that when I deform one of them, the other will automatically deform in the same way without manually copy / paste keys.
That being said, I do believe a linking vertices feature will not only help in the case I just mentioned, but also help in more complex situations. So it would be very nice to have the feature in the future.
Thanks so much for your reply!
