constraint updating in 4 and 4_2 2005-01-17 - By kim aldis
Back
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: owner-xsi@(protected)
> [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of Brad Friedman
> Sent: 16 January 2005 03:56
> To: XSI@(protected)
> Subject: constraint updating in 4 and 4_2
>
I've searched the history of this mailing list and found a
> lot of talk here and there about various versions of XSI past, having
> flakey constraint updating in various ways.
That's not strictly speaking correct. Most of the discussion has been about
cycle dependancy, a condition that arises when two objects are each
dependant upon each other. There's no such thing as a correct result under
these circumstances. Xsi constraints generally behave well but they do
sometimes ally you to construct illegal conditions. Use the cycledependany
function to check for this.
Your condition doesn't contain cycle dependancies but it does behave as
indicated in the documentation. Simplifying your condition for clarity,
create only 2 position constraints on the null, one to each cube. Now, it's
easy to assume that a blend factor of 0.5 on each would result in the null
positioning midway between the two cubes. This is not the case. The blend is
a progressive blend applied on each constraint in order. So, you'd need a
blend factor of 1 on the first, 0.5 on the second. (progressively 0.33 on a
third, etc ... (1/n on the nth) ).
Check out the docs under Animation->Animating constraints->Blending
constraints.
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
