ANiceOakTree Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Ok, so me and imAarwyn are having a little disagreement on what looks better for longer and medium hairstyles. When she ports them, the bottom of hairs are attached to the body, and I add in vanilla physics to make them move around. Though this looks great for shorter hairs, we disagree on when this is better for the longer hairs. Your input would be appreciated. :smile: Vanity: Original/Physics, Idle posehttp://i.imgur.com/ZaHx3Vy.jpgMisery: Original/Physics, Idle posehttp://i.imgur.com/15LWv0P.jpgThorn Birds: Original/Physics, Idle posehttp://i.imgur.com/PO7uNYh.jpgAs you can see, in idle poses where the character moves their head the physics version tends to look better, but it clips more into the chest and sometimes neck. [gifs in comment] Obviously, neither is perfect, but which do you guys prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANiceOakTree Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 Vanity: Original/Physics, Idle movinghttp://i.imgur.com/jcWZOEq.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/5g71n6j.gifMisery: Original/Physics, Idle movinghttp://i.imgur.com/Zmzqiro.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/cUaZFqt.gifThorn Birds: Original/Physics, Idle movinghttp://i.imgur.com/vsGF2Z5.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/x5Mm1Sl.gifSorry the idle poses aren't exactly the same Vanity: Original/Physics, runninghttp://i.imgur.com/0oPE8az.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/zqAynqY.gifMisery: Original/Physics, runninghttp://i.imgur.com/KGy3FKv.gifhttp://i.imgur.com/HqmgsXd.gifThe large locks in the front with physics tend to act stiff, and bounce up when you cease running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citadel535 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Hmm revisiting this I think the physics adds movement which makes it look a bit more lively. However with idle stances it shakes unrealistically. Have you considered doing a per hair basis? I think if you compromised and did per hair including animation - Thorn Birds looks better with physics, vanity looks better imo with the original method, misery looks good with both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANiceOakTree Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 (edited) Yes, we are at least doing the short and up-dos with movement. Since I already added physics for a few long hairs I think we're adding in both versions for those, but for future long hairs I'm not sure and this is mostly what this post is concerning, plus what looks better in general. Edited March 24, 2016 by JTesmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealArideya Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Honestly and personal opinion of course, to me it looks better when the whole hair moves with vanilla physics. The hair distorts too much when some parts are glued to the body/neck. Also irl hair always moves even to the slightest movement of the body. So your version - JTesmer - looks much more realistic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karel2015 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 I can't decide tbh, I like the hair that moves but wish it had more fluid movement. If the movement could be improved, I would def go with the movements. If not then I wouldn't care either way both would be just as good to me :D because both have flaws and clipping, so unless one of them could change that I wouldn't vote either over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HinaNekoL Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Might be just me though I prefer how original look way more then vs how it looks with physics. Only hair I might like with physics in here is 'Thorn Birds'. It is pretty much only hairdo I see in here that doesn't look too off with physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANiceOakTree Posted March 24, 2016 Author Share Posted March 24, 2016 As of now, me and imAarwyn have pretty much come to the compromise that for future hairs if they're above the boobs in length they'll get physics, but if they're below they won't. I'm looking into cleaning up some of the past physics I've done on some of the longer ones, and trying to lessen the neck stretching with the ones that won't have physics. Thanks for everyone's input! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyW1384 Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 Physics for shorter hair, definitely. For longer, I'm undecided. The original does get that ugly tear/crease at about neck level when the character head turns. If that disjoint could be lengthened over a stretch of hair, so it wasn't so obvious, I'd say the original would be better for the longer hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootDirt Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 For someone that has layers of clothing and armor on like myself, physics on longer hair helps with taking photos because you can just wait a little for the hair to get in a good position and rise above the layers. That it will clip thru the char when running dosen’t matter then because is gets hidden in all the layers. Not having physics on the hair will make it harder to take good screens because the hair will distort in some poses or get hidden under the layers. Which in the end will make people chose another hairstyle when wearing a lot and taking screencaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts