Moho Forum

Regul8R wrote: you want the the animation done for you? sorry but its seems that some people want moho to do the work for them. .....fill in a set of parameters and click render......

making head-turns easier, if possible, i say yes. but we need to be ableto do them ourselves, without Auto head-turn script no5

this is animation, its meant to be difficult and time consuming.

Following your logic, I'ma walk 14 miles to work tomorrow instead of drive, because it's harder and it'll make me a better employee at the end of the day???...

There's nothing in my suggestions that take away work from the animator. Smartskin would let you define your character's muscular and squash/stretch look based on bone rotation and scaling.

We all know the advantages of head turning. I'm not sure how to best implement that? Maybe some kind of internal morphing engine or a "Face Lab" type environment where you can create a specific "3D head" object that can be mapped with a vector layer inside of Moho - that sounds pretty exciting.

Collisions I feel are a nice complement to the springy bones. Nobody is complaining about having their secondary animation work taken away by the dynamics system so why should there be complaints if (in my case) two cherries joined by their stems bounce off each other when moved around??

Animation is about time on two levels - the timing of the motion within the animation and the time it takes to create the animation. Obviously you want the work while creating your animations to be >easier< (not harder) and take the least amount of time possible so you can accomplish more.

I think discussions on how to implement certain features - like head (and full body) turning might be more helpful to LM than just saying what we want and don't want.

Nevercenter's Silo3D modeler is currently getting a LOT of raves because its toolset is lightweight and not bloated with a lot of different but similar tools AND it implements features not commonly found in other 3D modelers (the topology brush for example)

I feel Moho is similar because it's small and lightweight and does what other packages don't - like bone animation of vectors.

I believe if Moho did focus on a few specific toolsets to solve problems like head turning (and others), that would be even more unique features that keep it shining above the rest.

-Will

I had posted a suggestion some time back that might help with turning if implemented -not voting for it just adding it for consideration. I had suggested that an option to use the built in 3D objects to position vector layers might be useful. For example say I placed a 3D cube and could select a face on that cube then select a vector layer to have it lined up with the selected face position and angle on the cube. You could position and animate the cube turns and then use a feature like this to help line up your faces.

Be cool to use this to create buildings and other 3D-ish structures; place 3d blocks to form a rough house shape and click to align a vector layer to each side and draw on that.

Hi,

It's very tempting to add "unrelated features".
I like moho a lot and wouldn't want it changed too much.

I think zbrush is a good example.
Originally it was developed by one coder.
It does a very good job in bringing together
an integrated set of tools that sit somewhere between 2d
and 3d.
It's key feature is the z in zbrush in that it adds a third
"invisible" dimension to the pixels. Most of its tools are
based round that premise.

The package is now a lot more mainstream but the core
workflow has stayed the same, even though lots of people
were calling for a more "traditional" 3d style environment.

It would be nice if moho stuck to it's guns and maybe focused
on how to deliver this "qualtiy" content online.
If flash can't play it why isn't there a moho player out there
that can?

e1

I'm in favor of 3D features in moho.

I think the the only problem here is that people who don't want 3D features in moho think that people that do want those features want moho to eventuly become maya.
And that is not true at all, moho is almost perfect as it is.
the only two things I want to see inprove in moho right now are 3d bones and a better soundtrack manegment, and that's it.
That wouldn't change the way anyone uses moho.
If I wantted some complex 3d animation I'll go to maya and composite later with stuff done in moho, in fact I have never imported a 3d object into moho and I don't think I ever will.
But I can sure see my self using 3d bones on 2d animations.

...Totally agree with 00o00!!! We understand the Moho philosophy and we want that Moho be like is but without silly limitations!!! If one feature can be usefulll, why say it NOT?? I think that 3D bone feature and "advanced vector layers" for total 3D compatibility (I mean, for can bend and deform in the three axis 2D vector layers/shapes) with Z buffer for perfect depth solution, it'd be a very nice feature that open Moho to a new world of posibilities! I think that now is a GOOD moment for that and LM must consider that... CIAO!

I would like to have a feature that is in directly in Moho (I know you can import 3D modules...) where I can make a module that I can turn around in a full 360 degree turn but it still looks like 2D animation.

Spoooze