11-06-2021, 12:31 AM
Thanks so much jose, I appreciate all of the information and the patience you've shown explaining these concepts to me. It definitely helps me understand how the tool is designed to work. I don't think I'm explaining what my problem is properly though, and what I'm trying to do with the tool.
OK, this is where I think the misunderstanding is. This example with the capsule actually is what I'm trying to achieve. The capsule example is pretty extreme since it has that huge relative gap between vertices and that 90 degree deformation. Most models won't be as bad as this, and not every use case necessarily needs a smooth deformable softbody.
Say we use a regular Unity capsule mesh like your example. If we set the cluster radius correctly so that the top area connects together well and the bottom area connects together well, the top and bottom will not be connected to each other. You effectively get two separate softbodies flopping on the floor with triangles trailing between them. But if you set the Cluster Radius high enough to connect the top to the bottom, the entire top area and bottom area will be way over-connected.
What I want is to be able to connect the top and bottom parts somehow without overconnecting everything else. That's why I suggested maybe a new way of connecting particles (other than cluster radius) or maybe generating intermediary particles to get around that problem. I know that the end result wouldn't look good if we're deforming it as you showed in your helpful example. But wouldn't it still do a decent job of impact deformation like your barrel example? And wouldn't the particles still collide with other softbodies even if they aren't influencing vertices in the mesh?
I can always just go back to my artists and get them to subdivide the models we're planning to use with Obi Softbody so that the blueprints will generate and connect well, but if there's an alternative that would be a good step to skip.
(02-06-2021, 08:20 AM)josemendez Wrote: What's the point of adding and connecting more particles, if there's no vertices to be deformed by them? Take for instance Unity's built-in capsule shape:
If you wanted to bend it 90ยบ (I used Blender's deform modifier here) this is what you'd get:
Doesn't look good, does it?. No matter how many particles you add in the mid section of the capsule, the result will look terrible since the mesh doesn't have enough vertices in that region.
OK, this is where I think the misunderstanding is. This example with the capsule actually is what I'm trying to achieve. The capsule example is pretty extreme since it has that huge relative gap between vertices and that 90 degree deformation. Most models won't be as bad as this, and not every use case necessarily needs a smooth deformable softbody.
Say we use a regular Unity capsule mesh like your example. If we set the cluster radius correctly so that the top area connects together well and the bottom area connects together well, the top and bottom will not be connected to each other. You effectively get two separate softbodies flopping on the floor with triangles trailing between them. But if you set the Cluster Radius high enough to connect the top to the bottom, the entire top area and bottom area will be way over-connected.
What I want is to be able to connect the top and bottom parts somehow without overconnecting everything else. That's why I suggested maybe a new way of connecting particles (other than cluster radius) or maybe generating intermediary particles to get around that problem. I know that the end result wouldn't look good if we're deforming it as you showed in your helpful example. But wouldn't it still do a decent job of impact deformation like your barrel example? And wouldn't the particles still collide with other softbodies even if they aren't influencing vertices in the mesh?
(02-06-2021, 08:20 AM)josemendez Wrote: What's the point of adding and connecting more particles, if there's no vertices to be deformed by them?To come back to this point, maybe I'm misunderstanding the tool but doesn't Obi Softbody simulate collision and stuff too? The idea with adding those extra vertices isn't to improve the deformation (because obviously it won't, there are no more vertices to deform). It's to fill in the gaps so we have regularly spaced particles, both so we can connect the particles together easily so that other softbodies on the solver can collide/interact with it well. Is that the wrong way to do this?
I can always just go back to my artists and get them to subdivide the models we're planning to use with Obi Softbody so that the blueprints will generate and connect well, but if there's an alternative that would be a good step to skip.