Static Override - Replacing proxy of linked group #53787

Closed
opened 2018-01-15 10:08:33 +01:00 by Bastien Montagne · 9 comments

This task is about how to handle linked groups (typically, whole characters with meshes, armature, often other helper objects…) with static override, as a replacement of proxies. Current idea is briefly exposed below, any input on use cases/scenarii would be appreciated, main goal here is to ensure final design/system:

  • Allows everything that is currently possible with proxies (while hopefully being more robust).
  • Allows some key features missing from proxies currently (mostly aware of the multiple independent 'instances' of a same linked group).

2.7x proxies

In Blender 2.7x, when you link a group (and instantiate it in the scene), you can create a proxy of each of its grouped objects (usually, its armature). You can then edit that local proxy object, which will affect its 'copy' in all instances of the group (which means you cannot have several different animations for instances of a same linked group e.g., currently).

2.8 static overrides

Static overrides work in much less weird/hacky ways than proxies, which means that making a static override of the group ID alone will be useless currently. Further more, another goal of the new system is to allow several independent 'local instances' of a same linked data.

Idea is now to always make static overrides (and instantiations) of all objects of the group. This will easily allow for multiple copies of the group, and solve a whole lot of issues with double-parenting glitches. So to summarize, process would be:

  • Make override of group itself;
  • Make overrides of all objects and relink them in override of the group;
  • Instantiate all overrides of object in scene;
  • Parent all overrides of objects to empty, and remove group instantiation (dupligroup) from that empty.
  • Only tag for automatic override generation the 'selected' object (usually, the armature). That way we make auto-override process a bit lighter.
This task is about how to handle linked groups (typically, whole characters with meshes, armature, often other helper objects…) with static override, as a replacement of proxies. Current idea is briefly exposed below, any input on use cases/scenarii would be appreciated, main goal here is to ensure final design/system: * Allows everything that is currently possible with proxies (while hopefully being more robust). * Allows some key features missing from proxies currently (mostly aware of the multiple independent 'instances' of a same linked group). ## 2.7x proxies In Blender 2.7x, when you link a group (and instantiate it in the scene), you can create a proxy of each of its grouped objects (usually, its armature). You can then edit that local proxy object, which will affect its 'copy' in all instances of the group (which means you cannot have several different animations for instances of a same linked group e.g., currently). ## 2.8 static overrides Static overrides work in much less weird/hacky ways than proxies, which means that making a static override of the group ID alone will be useless currently. Further more, another goal of the new system is to allow several independent 'local instances' of a same linked data. Idea is now to always make static overrides (and instantiations) of all objects of the group. This will easily allow for multiple copies of the group, and solve a whole lot of issues with double-parenting glitches. So to summarize, process would be: - Make override of group itself; - Make overrides of all objects and relink them in override of the group; - Instantiate all overrides of object in scene; - Parent all overrides of objects to empty, and remove group instantiation (dupligroup) from that empty. - Only tag for automatic override generation the 'selected' object (usually, the armature). That way we make auto-override process a bit lighter.
Author
Owner

Added subscriber: @mont29

Added subscriber: @mont29

Added subscribers: @pablovazquez, @dfelinto

Added subscribers: @pablovazquez, @dfelinto

Added subscriber: @fsiddi

Added subscriber: @fsiddi
Member

Initial proposal is basically to override the group and some of its objects (typically, armature and objects using that armature).

'Using' as in children of? Using it in the Armature modifier? I mean to avoid bringing objects used by the armature for other purposes such as custom bone shapes for example.

> Initial proposal is basically to override the group and some of its objects (typically, armature and objects using that armature). 'Using' as in children of? Using it in the Armature modifier? I mean to avoid bringing objects used by the armature for other purposes such as custom bone shapes for example.
Author
Owner

I was thinking mainly about usage in Armature modifier yes, but ultimately all usages that are overridable should lead to overriding the user. Otherwise, you lose the connection between linked objects and local overrides, there is no ways to preserve those without making them all static overrides.

Things like custom bones shapes however (which are armature using other objects) would not be affected (and should most likely not be overridable in the first place, imho?).

I was thinking mainly about usage in Armature modifier yes, but ultimately all usages that are overridable should lead to overriding the user. Otherwise, you lose the connection between linked objects and local overrides, there is no ways to preserve those without making them all static overrides. Things like custom bones shapes however (which are armature using other objects) would not be affected (and should most likely not be overridable in the first place, imho?).
Member

In #53787#479305, @mont29 wrote:
Otherwise, you lose the connection between linked objects and local overrides, there is no ways to preserve those without making them all static overrides.

Good point. We have to work on how to communicate overrides clearly.

Things like custom bones shapes however (which are armature using other objects) would not be affected (and should most likely not be overridable in the first place, imho?).

Agreed! I can see the "would be nice..." but it adds complexity and if the system supports it can be added later.

> In #53787#479305, @mont29 wrote: > Otherwise, you lose the connection between linked objects and local overrides, there is no ways to preserve those without making them all static overrides. Good point. We have to work on how to communicate overrides clearly. > Things like custom bones shapes however (which are armature using other objects) would not be affected (and should most likely not be overridable in the first place, imho?). Agreed! I can see the "would be nice..." but it adds complexity and if the system supports it can be added later.
Bastien Montagne self-assigned this 2018-04-16 10:28:15 +02:00
Author
Owner

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung
Member

Some of the main problems with the old proxies for animators include:

  1. The single instance limit (noted above)
  2. The "protected layers" approach to determining what bones to keep in sync

The problem with #2 was that in order to keep the bones in sync (i.e. constraints, parent/appearance/name settings, etc.) you had to put them on "projected" layers. However, this had the side effect of making unkeyed (but tweaked) values go away on undo and file load. There may have also been other consequences, though I can't remember them off-hand.

Some of the main problems with the old proxies for animators include: 1) The single instance limit (noted above) 2) The "protected layers" approach to determining what bones to keep in sync The problem with #2 was that in order to keep the bones in sync (i.e. constraints, parent/appearance/name settings, etc.) you had to put them on "projected" layers. However, this had the side effect of making unkeyed (but tweaked) values go away on undo and file load. There may have also been other consequences, though I can't remember them off-hand.

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
4 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#53787
No description provided.