Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

proposal for morph & interaction with skin #164

Closed
fabrobinet opened this issue Oct 21, 2013 · 15 comments
Closed

proposal for morph & interaction with skin #164

fabrobinet opened this issue Oct 21, 2013 · 15 comments

Comments

@fabrobinet
Copy link
Contributor

over to Tony

@ghost ghost assigned tparisi Oct 21, 2013
@tparisi
Copy link
Contributor

tparisi commented Oct 21, 2013

I'll start on this next week

@fabrobinet
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kmammou thanks Khaled, can you open a specific issue to track this ? Also we will make sure to integrate morph compression but to provide a better answer we need to implement/specify this first with raw data in glTF.

@kmammou
Copy link

kmammou commented Oct 22, 2013

done

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Oct 22, 2013

Closing as duplicate with #165. Thanks @kmammou

@pjcozzi pjcozzi closed this as completed Oct 22, 2013
@fabrobinet
Copy link
Contributor Author

No this is is not a duplicate :) this is to track the morph feature raw (i.e) the base proposal without compression. #165 is with compression.

@fabrobinet fabrobinet reopened this Oct 22, 2013
@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Oct 22, 2013

Ah, OK.

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 7, 2013

Any updates here? No rush, just trying to keep my implementation moving.

@fabrobinet
Copy link
Contributor Author

Tony's working on it, had some recent emails with him, I'll send them over to you.

@tparisi
Copy link
Contributor

tparisi commented Nov 7, 2013

Morph proposal imminent... meantime here is the recap of our conversation on the interaction between skins and morphs:

For simplicity, I suggest we keep "instanceSkin" for a skin applied to a mesh, and add an "instanceMorph" property at the same level (as property of the node). There can be interactions between a morph and skin applied to the same mesh, so we need to specify what that interaction is. In COLLADA the spec suggested that an implementation apply the morph transformation(s) first and then do the skinning. I recommend we specify the same semantics for glTF.

This is good for many animation scenarios, but some packages (like Poser) actually allow the order to be changed (e.g. skin first, then morph). I would like to add this capability after version 1.0. For ultimate flexibility, we could allow glTF to store an array of controller transformations on each node, perhaps with the order being implicit based on the order of the array, perhaps instead using some kind of ordinal. Other properties may also need to be supplied; this area is very TBD. We could do this in a backward-compatible way by simply adding a "controllers" or "animations" property to the node, that contains this information.

"instanceMorph" details coming soon (tomorrow hopefully)

@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 11, 2013

@tparisi do we have example JSON for instanceMorph yet?

@tparisi
Copy link
Contributor

tparisi commented Nov 11, 2013

no - later today.

@tparisi
Copy link
Contributor

tparisi commented Dec 20, 2013

Related to #210

@pjcozzi pjcozzi mentioned this issue Apr 30, 2014
8 tasks
@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Nov 25, 2014

@fabrobinet post 1.0?

@fabrobinet fabrobinet modified the milestones: post 1.0, Spec 1.0 Nov 25, 2014
@pjcozzi pjcozzi removed this from the post 1.0 milestone Aug 27, 2015
@emilian0
Copy link
Contributor

Is this a good example of a node instantiating a morph with skinning ?

"luckyNode": {
  "children": [],
  "morphs": ["myFirstMorph"] ,
  "skeletons": ["skeleton-root_1"],
  "skin": "skin_1"
}

I agree with Tony on that we can assume the morph to be applied first followed by the skinning.
I am not sure about the value of allowing these operations to be reordered.

@pjcozzi pjcozzi added the 2.0 label Jan 25, 2017
@lexaknyazev lexaknyazev mentioned this issue Feb 3, 2017
17 tasks
@pjcozzi
Copy link
Member

pjcozzi commented Jun 15, 2017

Updated in #826

@pjcozzi pjcozzi closed this as completed Jun 15, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants