User posts goeck
17 September 2015 08:44
Awesome, I will give it a test drive as soon as possible.
Thanks so much for the tremendous support you deliver through this forum!
Thanks so much for the tremendous support you deliver through this forum!
16 September 2015 12:29
I agree, using the bone API will help a lot here.
When will the beta version be available for download?
When will the beta version be available for download?
16 September 2015 10:30
Evgeny,
thanks so much for investigating this issue. The solution you gave was perfectly right.
I applied the scale and also rotation in blender, reexported and the model just looked and worked fine in the webplayer.![]( "smiling-open-mouth")
Only issue left is, I need to rotate a segment that is constrained by
from within an javascript event handler.
I tried with removing the constraints at the beginning of the event handler code, applying a rotation and reconstraining the object again. This leads to no solution…
thanks so much for investigating this issue. The solution you gave was perfectly right.
I applied the scale and also rotation in blender, reexported and the model just looked and worked fine in the webplayer.
Only issue left is, I need to rotate a segment that is constrained by
append_stiff_trans_rot()
I tried with removing the constraints at the beginning of the event handler code, applying a rotation and reconstraining the object again. This leads to no solution…
14 September 2015 12:12
I've just sent you a mail containing a link where you can download the files. Blend files and the webinterface files.
thanks so much
thanks so much
14 September 2015 11:26
Could I please mail or PM the file to you? The models contain intellectual property which is not public domain.
In the meantime I discovered a major difference between the two models is, the one had an armature and vertex groups attached to the armature. The other had no vertex groups but simply objects parented to bones, so I introduced the vertex groups which makes the bin file bigger but had no positive effect on the contraining.
In the meantime I discovered a major difference between the two models is, the one had an armature and vertex groups attached to the armature. The other had no vertex groups but simply objects parented to bones, so I introduced the vertex groups which makes the bin file bigger but had no positive effect on the contraining.
14 September 2015 11:07
Is it possible to deny exporting certain vertices within a mesh?
To me this could be interesting with high resolution models, where you could easily export models with reduced features by not-exporting high-number-of-polygon parts of the mesh, not resolution though.
To me this could be interesting with high resolution models, where you could easily export models with reduced features by not-exporting high-number-of-polygon parts of the mesh, not resolution though.
14 September 2015 09:19
I just found out, loading the first json file as second file again and thus using the same model twice doesn't show the strange behaviour. I am appending the second model to the first model, but loading the same json file this time.
So there must be something about the model. Something with the centers?
So there must be something about the model. Something with the centers?
14 September 2015 08:55
Well, I use translational offset in both cases. I have a function, that determines this offset and uses the resulting vector during appending. This has been debugged and seems to work fine.
Could there be any issue with the model, in terms of Do I have to prepare the model in any way for successfully using this function?
function appendObjects(child, target, DoF, delta){
var tmp1 = m_trans.get_translation(child);
var tmp2 = m_trans.get_translation(target);
if(!delta){
delta = m_vec3.create();
m_vec3.sub(tmp1, tmp2, delta);
}
if(DoF == "rot")
m_cons.append_stiff_trans_rot(child, target, delta);
else
m_cons.append_copy_trans(child, target, delta);
Could there be any issue with the model, in terms of Do I have to prepare the model in any way for successfully using this function?
11 September 2015 16:24
I have two json files loaded dynamically, each containing a number of objects parented to an armature.
Manipulating and add constraints the objects of the firstly loaded json file work fine.
The objects from the secondly loaded file can be moved around by API calls and constrained successfully by
against each other.
But when I use
(which I need to use to append objects to other objects of this file) the objects get snug to some center point of this group of objects. There's no way for me to get around this ![]( "loudly-crying")
It seems that all objects are dynamic and parented in the same way to a single bone of their armature.
Before real armature API handling comes down the road I need a way to work around this, Please?
Manipulating and add constraints the objects of the firstly loaded json file work fine.
The objects from the secondly loaded file can be moved around by API calls and constrained successfully by
append_copy_trans()
But when I use
append_stiff_trans_rot()
It seems that all objects are dynamic and parented in the same way to a single bone of their armature.
Before real armature API handling comes down the road I need a way to work around this, Please?
07 September 2015 16:09
Methematically this is everything that needs to be done, I was just wondering whether there is a readymade function for this already in the API. I don't see rotate_point_pivot() somewhere documented in v15.08.