I think it comes down to heavy rigs being very inflexible, and so the animation feels stiff. I have to admit that as impressive as the rigs are for some of these shows, I usually hate the animations that come from them. I don't know that it has to be like that. 3D rigs can be very complex and still feel simple to use and create dynamic animations. Of course, that's largely because 3D rigs don't have to fight to look 3D. But they do have to fight for squash/stretch and smears, etc. I still think Moho needs to mimic 3D software MORE to achieve this.
They need to just drop ALL current point to bone binding methods in favor of weight painting all points, because that would accomplish what all the other methods do without all the limitations, and create natural deformations.
They need to make IK much more robust. The ability to actually specify WHICH bones are IK, and create 3 or 4 bone IK arcs, etc. The ability to make separate IK and FK "invisible" limbs, and then blend the actual limb in-between them, etc.
They need to stop only using bones for smart actions in favor of an array of GUI elements we can choose from, like sliders and spline shape grab handles that are more intuitive, like how with 3D rigs the animators actually never touch the bones, but use the GUI elements instead.
They need to make smart bones that CAN manipulate things not only based on rotation, but relative position and scale, because that would be a perfect way to add foreshortening to a rig.
They need to expand blend shapes to work between layers, perhaps using nodes, so we can use them to patch lines on all sorts of shapes. (Okay, that one is from Toon Boom).
And another Toon Boom competing challenge: find a way to quickly and intuitively erase a part of the rig, and replace it with a one off, drawn part for only a frame, etc.
Any way to make scripting simplified and built-in to the app itself. And better plugin support, so 3rd parties can fill in the gaps in better ways.
I know that Mike Clifton has a lot on his plate, and that he really hasn't had much of a chance to release any big changes to Moho yet. But it's THESE types of changes that would really make Moho stand out as a unique and valuable product in the 2D character animation software world.
jayfaker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 26, 2025 6:17 pm
I think it comes down to heavy rigs being very inflexible, and so the animation feels stiff. I have to admit that as impressive as the rigs are for some of these shows, I usually hate the animations that come from them. I don't know that it has to be like that. 3D rigs can be very complex and still feel simple to use and create dynamic animations. Of course, that's largely because 3D rigs don't have to fight to look 3D. But they do have to fight for squash/stretch and smears, etc. I still think Moho needs to mimic 3D software MORE to achieve this.
They need to just drop ALL current point to bone binding methods in favor of weight painting all points, because that would accomplish what all the other methods do without all the limitations, and create natural deformations.
They need to make IK much more robust. The ability to actually specify WHICH bones are IK, and create 3 or 4 bone IK arcs, etc. The ability to make separate IK and FK "invisible" limbs, and then blend the actual limb in-between them, etc.
They need to stop only using bones for smart actions in favor of an array of GUI elements we can choose from, like sliders and spline shape grab handles that are more intuitive, like how with 3D rigs the animators actually never touch the bones, but use the GUI elements instead.
They need to make smart bones that CAN manipulate things not only based on rotation, but relative position and scale, because that would be a perfect way to add foreshortening to a rig.
They need to expand blend shapes to work between layers, perhaps using nodes, so we can use them to patch lines on all sorts of shapes. (Okay, that one is from Toon Boom).
And another Toon Boom competing challenge: find a way to quickly and intuitively erase a part of the rig, and replace it with a one off, drawn part for only a frame, etc.
Any way to make scripting simplified and built-in to the app itself. And better plugin support, so 3rd parties can fill in the gaps in better ways.
I know that Mike Clifton has a lot on his plate, and that he really hasn't had much of a chance to release any big changes to Moho yet. But it's THESE types of changes that would really make Moho stand out as a unique and valuable product in the 2D character animation software world.
Sorry for the wishlist.
I partially agree with your viewpoint. Or, you may think that 'the animation looks stiff' because the 'motion pattern' of that animation was not well done, and the most important reason is not the structure of the model, but the professional level of the animator.
And 'Moho is not 3D', Moho's vector model only has two axes (x, y), which mainly creates a sense of space and object perspective through the illusion created by contours and lines in the animation. If the Moho model has a third axis (z), it will only lead Moho down the old path of 3D software - so why don't I use more sophisticated and older 3D software?
So Moho's wish list should lean towards enhancing the responsiveness of vector model operations and quickly displaying more details, rather than making it more like a 3D software or frame by frame animation software.
I never said Moho needs to work on the z axis. In fact, it’s better if it doesn’t. But it DOES need a strong method to handle foreshortening, which I think could be achieved by using the scale of smart bones to mimic moving on the z axis. You shorten the length of a bone and the shapes of the knees or elbows change to look like they are being viewed from the front, etc.
All the 3D app tools I brought up have nothing to do with being 3D, but are standard tools the 3D industry uses to create rigs that give animators what they want and need to create dynamic animations. Why not translate those tools to a 2D setting?
And yes there are some different needs for a 2D app, which is why I suggested borrowing some ideas from Toon Boom as well.
But you have to understand that Mike Clifton started Moho with the idea: what if a 2D animation app were more like a 3D app. That’s what makes Moho different from Toon Boom and Animate and TV Paint and all the many others.
And if that is still the goal, why not take the idea to its logical conclusion and use industry-standard 3D methods where it makes sense?
I get that it may not still be the goal, but for me I hope it still is to some degree. I am not great at drawing. If I was, I could just use Toon Boom or Animate. But I have been hiring illustrators who can draw and creating rigs from their work that I can use to animate. That’s why I choose to use Moho. It allows me to separate the drawing process from the animation process, in the same way 3D separates the modeling process from the animation process.
Sorry, I’m pretty long winded. This is just a topic I care a lot about. I’m in the middle of a project that would really benefit from these ideas. But of course I have to use the tools that are available right now!
jayfaker wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 3:50 pm
I never said Moho needs to work on the z axis. In fact, it’s better if it doesn’t. But it DOES need a strong method to handle foreshortening, which I think could be achieved by using the scale of smart bones to mimic moving on the z axis. You shorten the length of a bone and the shapes of the knees or elbows change to look like they are being viewed from the front, etc.
All the 3D app tools I brought up have nothing to do with being 3D, but are standard tools the 3D industry uses to create rigs that give animators what they want and need to create dynamic animations. Why not translate those tools to a 2D setting?
And yes there are some different needs for a 2D app, which is why I suggested borrowing some ideas from Toon Boom as well.
But you have to understand that Mike Clifton started Moho with the idea: what if a 2D animation app were more like a 3D app. That’s what makes Moho different from Toon Boom and Animate and TV Paint and all the many others.
And if that is still the goal, why not take the idea to its logical conclusion and use industry-standard 3D methods where it makes sense?
I get that it may not still be the goal, but for me I hope it still is to some degree. I am not great at drawing. If I was, I could just use Toon Boom or Animate. But I have been hiring illustrators who can draw and creating rigs from their work that I can use to animate. That’s why I choose to use Moho. It allows me to separate the drawing process from the animation process, in the same way 3D separates the modeling process from the animation process.
Sorry, I’m pretty long winded. This is just a topic I care a lot about. I’m in the middle of a project that would really benefit from these ideas. But of course I have to use the tools that are available right now!
I have some ideas about [body perspective] that may be helpful to you, the link is as follows:
I understand what you said, moho is a magic tool for people who can't draw to make animations.
Then, you should find some people with simple and effective modeling ideas to make moho models, rather than those terrible [particularly complex models]. What brings you pain in animation is not the software function, but the modeling idea. If you use an unoptimized model to create animation, it will be very painful.
Thanks for linking these videos. I've seen your work on Facebook and Instagram, and it's super cool how you are able to push the software to do those things. I didn't know you had a channel full of tutorials, though. I'll definitely watch them.
I do think that the Moho team can still make Moho function like you've shown, but more intuitively, and more powerfully, with a lot of the same things I've already said. Like you said in one of your videos, I don't think a rig will ever be able to solve all possible solutions like a 3D one, but I do think it can solve a lot of them faster and better than they do now, and in a way that works in a pipeline setting.
Anyway. I'll probably end up watching all of these and getting back to you on this. Thanks!
Jim
I partially agree with your viewpoint. Or, you may think that 'the animation looks stiff' because the 'motion pattern' of that animation was not well done, and the most important reason is not the structure of the model, but the professional level of the animator.