Cineversity

I am having an issue with the pose morph tag.
I added the Pose tag, selected point mode, added “pose 1” then deformed the object. I then wanted to add directly to Pose 1, not the base pose so I held CTRL and clicked “Add Pose” to create Pose 2. I then added to the deformation. Everything seems to work as intended but when I select animate to control the poses it seems to combine pose 1 with pose 2 at 100% strength. See example file. Both morphs at 100% should stop before the object plane not making contact. I know to fix it’s a simple adjustment of the sliders in this basic animation, but it has been a time consuming issue with more complex animations.

I basically want the pose morphs totally independent of each other. If I set pose 1 to 100% it looks exactly as the deformation, but when I set pose 2 to 100% it looks as if pose 1 is adding to the deformation.

Is it possible to stop the blending? In the past I have simply adjusted the poses’ strength up and down to achieve the desired result but it would be easier if the deformation behaved exactly as intended.

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Hi Devoted,

Would you mind to attach the scene file you have mentioned.

All the best

Sassi

Ok, so the issue here is in the mixing.

Posemorph defaults to relative mixing, which adds the deformations from morphs together.
So when you duplicate pose.0 and then adjust pose.1 you duplicate the deformation that needs to occur.

If you want to to create a blend then you need to change the “edit” mode from “selected” to “in place”
This means that while you edit pose.2 you can see the deformation from pose.1 applied.
When you switch the edit mode back to “selected” you will see that pose.1 looks correct, but pose.2 looks incorrect, that is because you only changed the points based on them being deformed by pose.0, not by the base morph.

I highly recommend watching the posemorph series, as much of this material is covered.

CTRL vs Shift (click)

I think there is the problem, but I would like to see the file first. :o)

I uploaded file to original post. Thank you

Thank you Devoted,

Please check the attached file if that is the way it should work.

Thanks a lot.

All the best

Sassi

So basically Pose 1 “relative” Pose 2 “Absolute” Pose 3 “Absolute” etc….
Works exactly how I expect it. Cant thank you enough.

Perfect, and thank you Devoted for the detailed initial post, which was really helpful.

The fix of the situation, not really the suggested way (but more often then not needed during work perhaps):

To add the second post, I pressed the Shift key, which leaves the pose.1 active and in that way you can work on the additional feature (or deformations)

Then I dial all (in edit mode) back to zero, and set the Pose.2 with its additional information to Absolute. I haven’t found that in the manual, so please check it carefully if that works for you as well.

The CTRL click duplicated the Pose.1 and if both sliders are set to 100%, while in relative, they add to each other. If set to 0% and then to absolute, it will not add the previous on top of that.

As Patrick mentioned, if you like to “add” just the missing parts, the difference, then the “Edit> In Place” is the way to go.

You create just a new pose, not CTRL no Shift click)

Then you switch to “Edit> In Place”, which allows you to use the sliders of the other poses to dial in.

From this state of the deformation, you add the needed deformation. Which means, you stay in relative and the added change will always be only as much as the amount you added during that specific deformation process.

I found that both methods have their place and need. The first one has the advantage that the one set to Absolute contains the “final” position of all previously adjusted and the additional tweaks. Which means, if set to 100%, the other slider can be set to 0%, if you like to go from there, with new deformation poses. No interference with the previous ones then. The “Edit> In Place” is less stubborn and allows a more harmonic mix of all sliders at any time. Two set ups - with similar main situations, but different ways to achieve them. Certainly project and artist dependent.

All the best

Sassi

Thank you for the alternative examples. I will experiment with each and see what works best for what I’m creating. Thank you very much, have a great day!

You’re welcome, Devoted. Have a great day as well! :o)

Hi there, I am having a similar issue - but it seems to stem from something slightly different. I have two simple models that I would like to have morphing from one to another. They have the same number of vertices and when I slide the strength of the morph target animate function, the interpolations works as expected. However when I try to keyframe the strength slider,it just sticks to the last-entered percentage.

The f-curves window shows a numerical change happening, but the geometry stays fixed.

Any idea what I might be doing wrong? I’ve never done this procedure before, and am cobbling my approach to it from a few different tutorials, so i expect i am just overlooking something fairly obvious.

Hi Ngilliss,

I have the same problem with the file. However, if I select everything, copy it, and then past it in a fresh new scene, It works for me.

I have also tried, in the scene file that you supplied, to set up a User-Data slider to connect this with the Strength slider [XPresso- Set Driver/Set Driven]: But even this new User-Data Slider wouldn’t accept my Keyframes to be evaluated. R15

The file must have a problem, so it is a case for the support.
http://www.maxon.net/support/support-questions.html

Two things I like to mention, the Bottle could be changed with the Spherize Deformer as well, but perhaps that was just an example. Secondly, the Strength slider is just one option if you have only one Target, the slider beneath this could be used in the same way—if 0% to 100% is the target.

Please contact the Support, if you like to investigate this further.

All the best

Sassi

Thanks, so much Dr. Sassi! This is good trick I’ll keep in mind for the future, and yes these objects are more experimental than deliberate.

You’re welcome NGilliss!

In the past 18 years I have produced a good five digit number of C4D files. So far I remember—only three of them had such a problem. It is very rare and I’m not even certain what created the problem in the first place. I highly recommend to a) have the back up option on, and check those files— and b) check your hard-drives! It might be a first sign of something… Just make certain that you do not lose data!

Have a good one

Sassi