Game Development Community

MilkShape / ms2DTSExporter produce strange (unusable) results

by Jacob Smith · in Torque Game Engine · 06/17/2004 (5:27 am) · 10 replies

We're evaluating { MilkShape 3d + msBVHImporter + ms2dtsExporter } as possible tools to use in our art path. We're planning on using premade content - both models and BVH based motion capture files.

Note: The model files we are using are actually broken up into segments (instead of being a single mesh).

This is what occurs:

We import the model and the bones structure from the BVH file (without the animation)... We rig the bone structure to the model.

(See Rigged Model within MilkShape)

We import the animation from the BVH file (not importing the bone structure again). We add extra materials to specify the animation sequences (see next image to verify the syntax, etc).

(See Animated Model within MilkShape)

We use the DTS exporter to export to DTS. Next we use the 'ShowTool' to view the model... And this is where we find the strange results.

The tool automatically sets up a thread, but let me show the image where there is no thread first, so you can see the model in the show tool:

Model in ShowTool without a Thread

As you can see, the model looks fine, in this case.

However, when there is a thread (which is actually how it first appears in the ShowTool), it doesn't look right:

Model in ShowTool with a Thread

It's hard to tell without examining it from a few angles and in motion, but the feet of the model appear near the middle, the legs are higher than that, up to the dress, and then the model seems to be reflected downward (back across itself) with the chest apearing near the feet and the head at the bottom). The arms also appear more outward then they should (kind've like in the non-animated pos).

Version notes:

We've tried various versions of MilkShape:
1.6.6*
1.7.*

We're tried various version of the ms2dtsexporter:
Self built from the CVS repository
Version in binarty Torque download

Any help would be appreciated.

#1
06/17/2004 (5:34 am)
This may not be your problem, Jacob, but when you export the model are you still in animation mode? I'm asking because I had a model deform awkwardly when exporting in animation mode.

Matt
Primate Studios
#2
06/17/2004 (1:14 pm)
Hey Matt:

I tried it out to make sure... It doesn't seem to make a difference if I am in animation mode, am not in animation more, nor never was in animation mode.

- - -

An extra thought...

I also wonder if there is a chance that the original hierarchical nature of the model is causing this effect... (The issue does seem to be related to having multiple components to the model - is this a limitation of the exporter?).

Relating to this, one thing I tried was to regroup everything into a single (smoothing?) group to see if that made a difference, but not such luck.
#3
06/17/2004 (9:56 pm)
Quote:I also wonder if there is a chance that the original hierarchical nature of the model is causing this effect...

To answer myself - it's not the hierarchical (multi-mesh) model...

Tonight we rigged a single-mesh model and it appeared quite distorted in the show tool. :(
#4
06/19/2004 (12:47 am)
Hey Jacob, have you gotten any further with your problem? The only other thought that I would have is are you scaling the models at any point without scaling the rig?

Matt
#5
06/19/2004 (2:48 am)
Hey Matt,

I did scale the model initially before attaching the skeleton, but not after - so I wouldn't think that this would affect the process...

Does Milkshape keep track of a scaling for a mesh or does it apply the scale to the mesh such that the mesh is physically changed after scaling (and the scale is lost)?

--J
#6
06/20/2004 (10:12 am)
Hi Jacob, scaling the model prior to rigging it shouldn't cause that problem.

It might be an issue with the motion captured animation that you are using, but since everything plays alright in Milkshape I think it would be one of the less likely reasons. Maybe it is the exporter that you are using? The two versions that you stated in your initial post might not be the most up to date. Have you tried exporters from community members? Like the newest one released by Chris Robertson?

Matt
#7
06/20/2004 (3:24 pm)
Sweet - thanks for the link. (I had heard rumors of a new version, but was unable to find a link).

Ok, using this exporter produces a different, but still unexpected result: Now it acts as if the whole mesh is riddged to the same bone (joint) that the head is rigged to. (Thus, the character's body sways rigidly back and forth).

Fun, fun...

We're going to try a couple thins (including rigging to a different bvh skeleton / animation sample that we found elsewhere).

Thanks
--J
#8
06/20/2004 (4:07 pm)
Ok, we rigged to a new skelenton ... with the same results. The mesh acts as if it's rigged to a single joint, even though, in MilkShape 3D it animates as expected.

The only thing non-varied so far is the use of the BVH importer... Thus, my next question would be whether anyone has experience importing BVH motion capture files as sources of both skeletons and skeletal animation?
#9
06/22/2004 (2:31 pm)
I alerted Chris about these problems. He looked into the problem and made an update to his exporter. Now it exports our stuff nicely. =)

From the sounds of it, the BVH importer only sets up certain types of transforms (rotations) on each joint (probably depending on the data in the BVH file). The exporter was, originally, looking for more info (both rotations and translations).

Oddly, now we're dealing with another fun little issue where, when we add a new joint, all the joins in the skeleton rotate slightly... I have a strange feeling this may be related to the partial information on each joint (from the BVH importer)...

Always something more. ;)

Anyway, extremely big thanks to Chris - he had the thing fixed in a little over a quarter of a day after I emailed him! =)
#10
06/23/2004 (6:21 am)
Hey Jacob,

Great to hear that you got your (initial ;)) problem worked out! Yeah, Chris did an awesome job on the new milkshape exporter, great that he was able to help you. Hey, and thanks for posting the answer as well. :)

Matt