Page 1 of 1

Flexible binding vs. Region binding

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am
by Hookflash
Sorry if this is a newbie question, but... well, I'm a newb. ;) Basically, I'm wondering why anyone would use "Flexible binding" as opposed to "Region binding" for bones. Are there cases where Flexible binding is better, and, if so, what are they? TIA

Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:41 pm
by spoooze!
I use region binding. I can't stand flexible. It distorts too much.
Spoooze :!:

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:13 am
by myles
Flexible binding was the forerunner to region binding, and I suspect it is partly kept for backwards compatibility. Version 5 is the first version with region binding, so maybe it will become the default in a future version.

However, flexible binding is great for more "rubbery" effects. You may not necessarily use it on a human-like character - it might be used, for example, for a tree moving in the wind.

The other thing to note is that using a hierarchy in the Layers panel means that flexible binding need not apply to a whole character or object. You might, for example, use region binding for everything but the arms of a character, and have the arms use flexible binding within their own sub-groups.

Think of it as an occasionally useful special effect rather than a complete alternative. :).

Regards, Myles.

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:41 am
by Hookflash
Cool, thanks for the replies, guys. I'm loving this whole Moho thing! It's 2d animation's best kept secret, imo. :)

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:20 am
by Rai López
Myles wrote:Flexible binding was the forerunner to region binding, and I suspect it is partly kept for backwards compatibility. Version 5 is the first version with region binding, so maybe it will become the default in a future version.
...Oh, my god! I LOVE Flexi-binding smoth/squishy results and I HOPE LM never (NEVER) abandon this feature in the future! All my work is based (and sure will be) on it, and I think this is one of the most atracive things that Moho can offer (to my at least), plus Flexible Binding is compatible too with Offet techinques and there is no reason to think that it's useless... Well, sorry but I'd only want to clarfy my poin of view about this issue... CIAO!

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:53 am
by Lost Marble
Myles is right that flexible binding was there first, so it has been kept in for compatibility. There are a couple other benefits too:

* Flexible binding is easier to set up. With region binding, you need to be more careful about setting up bone strengths. Flexible binding often works quite well without even knowing about bone strength, making it easier to jump in and get started.

* Flexible binding does have a more rubbery, squishy look. Depending on the style you're after, this can be a good thing or a bad thing. It won't go away because that look is certainly useful in some cases.

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:04 am
by Hookflash
One quick question that just popped into my head: How does bone strength apply to flexible binding? Aren't all points affected by a flexibly-bound bone (try saying that five times fast ;) ) no matter what?

Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:02 am
by myles
Hey, I wasn't suggesting flexible binding go away - it definitely has its uses. However, for the region-binding-plus-bone-offset style of character setup it would be easier if region binding was the default rather than flexible. Maybe a preference setting for "default binding type for new bone layers" ?
Hookflash wrote:One quick question that just popped into my head: How does bone strength apply to flexible binding? Aren't all points affected by a flexibly-bound bone (try saying that five times fast ;) ) no matter what?
No. Flexible binding is a little more complex - it's a bit like interacting fields (not exactly magnetic fields, but something like that).

Firstly, the bones closest to points affect them most - you can reduce the effect other bones have by introducing non-animating bones near the points you want to "stiffen".

Secondly, bone strength influences the effect different bones can have, so even if you have a nearby bone, a further-away bone can have a greater effect if it has a larger bone strength.

Well, that's how I understand it - possibly not completely correct, but hopefully it gives you a starting point.

Regards, Myles.

Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:28 am
by Hookflash
Thanks, myles. 8)