In-game turning 3rd person view. Animated or pivot spin?
zeep
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 3367Members
Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 3367Members
Comments
Why would a turning animation turn up awkward? It's just a 'going from state X to state X' pattern started in the beginning of a turn, just like walking.
If programmed correctly it should play a sequence <turning around> where the turning state of the player's input is connected to certain rules to not make the turn look awkward.
Is it only a slight change? Are they doing a 180 snap? Differentiating this is very hard.
Also, take a moment to observe how you turn. It's different depending on your direction of motion, and it's a very dynamic action in the legs, body, neck, etc. The complexities of having enough states to get a good animation coupled with determining pre-cognitively how much the player is going to turn makes life really tough instead of the simple forward/shuffle/stop of walking forwards and backwards. This is the same reason people don't animate side step shuffles and just act like you're walking left and right.
Having a moving/turning cycle for EVERY ANIMATION means you basically double the animation required. If not moreso. You can have standing to crouching 180, crouching to standing 180 (from front to back), standing 180, crouching 180, standing to jump 180, crouching to jump 180... etc.
You get the idea.
It becomes a nightmare and isn't really worth the time investment (more than doubling the work already needed? No thanks.)
This is coming from someone in the industry, who has had to watch time wasted to things that never come about.
Is it only a slight change? Are they doing a 180 snap? Differentiating this is very hard.
Also, take a moment to observe how you turn. It's different depending on your direction of motion, and it's a very dynamic action in the legs, body, neck, etc. The complexities of having enough states to get a good animation coupled with determining pre-cognitively how much the player is going to turn makes life really tough instead of the simple forward/shuffle/stop of walking forwards and backwards. This is the same reason people don't animate side step shuffles and just act like you're walking left and right.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tried it. I don't mind looking stupid for the sake of ART. As far as I can tell it would only take two animations. Any turn anchored to the ground is just a pivot on the ball of the opposing foot, so one animation for each leg (eg turn left, pivot on right foot). (Jump turns don't really need additional animations.) They probably have all the animations necessary for the torso already, even if they don't have the legs, since those are essential for any looking around.
Apologies if my limited knowledge of animation means I got something wrong.
Also:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Having a moving/turning cycle for EVERY ANIMATION means you basically double the animation required.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They have animation blending, which means that seperate parts of the model can be displaying seperate animations. Less animations and more flexibility. It was in a video blog a while ago, and looked very cool.