It’s been pretty quiet as of late on this front, but some news has recently surfaced. It seems Last week on the Metareality podcast Karl Stiefvater was a guest and gave some new info on the current status of the project.
You can tune in here at 34:00 to hear, or go for the summary below: http://metarealitypodcast.com/Metareality_Episodes/MetaReality061512.mp3
The key points:
- The proposal to have either the default avatar as the base shape or to have the 5 Standard Sizes as the base shape, has shifted. In Qarl’s own words: “Instead of having fixed set of sizes, encode the actual parameters into the mesh. then you can have any base, any avatar shape as your base.” So what this would mean is you could encode a Standard Size as a base shape, or the default, or any shape you want, as it will build a base shape on the fly from your included parameters. This is actually a brilliant proposal. Nobody will be tied down to any one (or 5 or 50 for that matter) base shape for their deformation.
- Vertex matching is of course an issue. It’s been suggested by many that the base avatar be changed or fixed, but it now seems the prevailing idea is in Qarl’s words: “vertex matching needs to be tweaked a little bit to take into account position and the normals when it chooses the matching spot.” I can’t say how much of a difference that will make, but I guess we will see.
Personally I’m still trying to work out the implications of being able to have any base shape for the deformer. It seems to me, If you made a mesh for a small avatar, and set the deformer to use a large Base shape, you would still have deformation issues. So:
- I’m not clear this removes the need to make multiple sizes
- I’m not clear it improves the quality of deformation.
- and what happens if you use a large base shape, and the wearer has a small shape?
- would you still need to supply multiple deformer versions with various base shapes?
Some exciting developments, and when I know more, you’ll know more. 🙂