Game Development Community

3D format with support for inverse kinematics?

by Mz · in Artist Corner · 04/25/2003 (8:13 am) · 7 replies

Does anybody know of a 3d format that supports inverse kinematics? Specifically I need a format with skeletal animation that saves joint constraints (rotation limits.)

I'd love to avoid mucking around with exporters to add this stuff in to some other format if at all possible.

About the author


#1
04/25/2003 (9:49 am)
I think you're pretty much stuck with modelling package native formats for this sort of data. Most "export formats" aren't designed with IK in mind.

So you can either try to natively support loading .max files :), or you could modify the exporter to dump the constraint information somewhere your engine can read it.
#2
04/25/2003 (11:23 am)
There is not such thing as "natively suport for .max files" they REQUIRE Max and all its plugins to load, because the .max file is nothing more than a stack of instructions on what was done. That is why you have to "flatten" meshes in Max to export them to other formats.

I posted another thread somewhere on the GG forums about the new Game Exporter API for Max that is what you should look into.
#3
04/25/2003 (12:10 pm)
Jarrod, man, it was a JOKE. Note the smiley. Jeez.

Is that Game Exporter API MAX specific? Doesn't do me much good if it only works with one modeller.
#4
04/25/2003 (8:02 pm)
I don't think most game engines actually use IK for animation. IK is expensive, and you are not assured of a common solution across all computers (in the case of multiplayer). What happens is IK is used for generating keyframes.
#5
04/26/2003 (5:46 am)
I'm not sure 'IK' would be used, but surely you'd use bones rather than keyframes if possible? And 'animation' is seldom a massive problem for multiplayer games, much more a client side thing i'd guess?
#6
04/26/2003 (8:53 am)
I can think of a couple of games that use inverse kinematics in realtime, and you can get a deterministic solution. That is what I want to do, Pat.
#7
04/26/2003 (9:53 am)
That would be very neat.