Scaling armature from smaller size to scale 1 results in broken animations (IPO not updated?) and non-connected bones is pose is not rest one. #41699

New Issue

Joey Ferwerda · 2014-09-03T15:25:01+02:00

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 15:25:01 +02:00

System Information
Ubuntu 14.04 Gnome Edition on Intel HD 4000 and
Debian Sid (updated to latest packages) with Nvidia GTS 8600

Blender Version
Broken: All (Tested on 2.71 and 2.69)
Worked: Never

Short description of error
Somewhere between missing functionality and a Bug, it seems that if your armature is scaled to negative values (not tested with positive but should give the same result) and apply the scale in object mode (back to 1,1,1), the animation keyframes do not get scaled accordingly.
It seems the IPO information is not translated, and the functionality to convert that seems to be missing.

This has been a issue for quite a long time, exporting models to other formats (ie, game engines requiring scale 1 for things like parent relations), and multiple reports could be found on the Blenderartists forum (example of matching description is http://blenderartists.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-195566.html)

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Take any model with Armature and animations, scale in object mode (to get big visual results scale to 0.019 or something like that), apply the scale in object mode, play a animation in pose mode.

**System Information** Ubuntu 14.04 Gnome Edition on Intel HD 4000 and Debian Sid (updated to latest packages) with Nvidia GTS 8600 **Blender Version** Broken: All (Tested on 2.71 and 2.69) Worked: Never **Short description of error** Somewhere between missing functionality and a Bug, it seems that if your armature is scaled to negative values (not tested with positive but should give the same result) and apply the scale in object mode (back to 1,1,1), the animation keyframes do not get scaled accordingly. It seems the IPO information is not translated, and the functionality to convert that seems to be missing. This has been a issue for quite a long time, exporting models to other formats (ie, game engines requiring scale 1 for things like parent relations), and multiple reports could be found on the Blenderartists forum (example of matching description is http://blenderartists.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-195566.html) **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Take any model with Armature and animations, scale in object mode (to get big visual results scale to 0.019 or something like that), apply the scale in object mode, play a animation in pose mode.

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 15:25:01 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 15:25:01 +02:00

Added subscriber: @TheOnlyJoey

blender-admin commented

2014-09-03 15:25:01 +02:00

#41743 was marked as duplicate of this issue

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 15:43:06 +02:00

Someone on IRC pointed out that my description was not quite clear on the values.
I did not try with negative values, just with values below 1 (so 0.019)

Someone on IRC pointed out that my description was not quite clear on the values. I did not try with negative values, just with values below 1 (so 0.019)

Dalai Felinto commented

2014-09-03 16:01:05 +02:00

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Dalai Felinto commented

2014-09-03 16:01:05 +02:00

Please attach a simple file with the armature and sample animation. This is all time that can be spared from the developer that can look at it.

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 16:11:58 +02:00

http://www.pasteall.org/blend/31368 example blend
To reproduce a simple case:
First check the walk animation, then apply the scale of the armature in object mode, then play animation again.

http://www.pasteall.org/blend/31368 example blend To reproduce a simple case: First check the walk animation, then apply the scale of the armature in object mode, then play animation again.

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-03 17:00:24 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2014-09-03 17:00:24 +02:00

Bastien Montagne self-assigned this 2014-09-03 17:00:24 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-03 17:00:24 +02:00

Thanks for the report, but there is no bug here, this was never intended to work - when you apply transforms, you move them from object level to "data" level - animation remains on object level, so it is now applied over a new "data" base, you can't expect this to work.

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 17:18:35 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-03 17:18:35 +02:00

@mont29: I disagree about this not being a bug, although I can accept from a developers point of view that this is not intended to work originally. It is unexpected behaviour and I think this should be addressed.

This is a big problem though, since this basically produced garbage and the fastest way of achieving this is using a external modeller (export, import in other tool, scale, export, import back in blender), which is not ideal.
Some external (game) engines require the scale of your objects to be 1,1,1 upon import, or otherwise rescale or ignore your model, or in some cases use the scale for setting parent relations (which results in even more unexpected behaviour).

@mont29: I disagree about this not being a bug, although I can accept from a developers point of view that this is not intended to work originally. It is unexpected behaviour and I think this should be addressed. This is a big problem though, since this basically produced garbage and the fastest way of achieving this is using a external modeller (export, import in other tool, scale, export, import back in blender), which is not ideal. Some external (game) engines require the scale of your objects to be 1,1,1 upon import, or otherwise rescale or ignore your model, or in some cases use the scale for setting parent relations (which results in even more unexpected behaviour).

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 14:55:26 +02:00

Added subscriber: @PeteX-2

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 14:55:26 +02:00

◀ Merged tasks: #41743.

Pete Chown commented

2014-09-07 15:37:36 +02:00

@mont29 As you say, applying a transform pushes it down one level. However, even in the current implementation, I don't think it just pushes it from the object to the data layer. The scale of child objects seems to be changed, so they don't unexpectedly grow or shrink when the parent's scale is applied.

Bearing this in mind, isn't it most logical to say that applying a transform moves it from the object to everything that is one level below? It already pushes it from the object to the object's child objects and underlying data block. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that it should be pushed to the underlying animation strip as well?

It's also hard to think of a case where the current behaviour is helpful. (Note that if there are multiple copies of the armature, you can't apply the scale anyway. You couldn't have a problem where you apply the scale to one copy of an armature and break the other copies.) On the other hand, as @TheOnlyJoey pointed out, there are certainly uses for the other behaviour.

(Of course I respect your decision not to change this behaviour. In an open source project, the person who writes the code has to be the one who makes the decisions! And thank you for the time you have spent writing code, by the way.)

@mont29 As you say, applying a transform pushes it down one level. However, even in the current implementation, I don't think it *just* pushes it from the object to the data layer. The scale of child objects seems to be changed, so they don't unexpectedly grow or shrink when the parent's scale is applied. Bearing this in mind, isn't it most logical to say that applying a transform moves it from the object to everything that is one level below? It already pushes it from the object to the object's child objects and underlying data block. Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that it should be pushed to the underlying animation strip as well? It's also hard to think of a case where the current behaviour is helpful. (Note that if there are multiple copies of the armature, you can't apply the scale anyway. You couldn't have a problem where you apply the scale to one copy of an armature and break the other copies.) On the other hand, as @TheOnlyJoey pointed out, there are certainly uses for the other behaviour. (Of course I respect your decision not to change this behaviour. In an open source project, the person who writes the code has to be the one who makes the decisions! And thank you for the time you have spent writing code, by the way.)

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 18:02:29 +02:00

Changed status from 'Archived' to: 'Open'

Bastien Montagne reopened this issue

2014-09-07 18:02:29 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 18:02:29 +02:00

OK, so checked a bit more on this, and compared with what happens when applying scale to an object having children:

Static position of children is updated to keep same 'visual transform'
But with animation, fcurves are not updated, so result looks broken.

I maintain anim part is not a bug, at most a TODO/feature request, but rather hard to make it working ok in all cases imho.

Static issue regarding armatures however should be handled I think - applying transform on animated object is calling for issues, but doing so on non-animated one should work as expected.

Will try to handle this…

OK, so checked a bit more on this, and compared with what happens when applying scale to an object having children: * Static position of children is updated to keep same 'visual transform' * But with animation, fcurves are not updated, so result looks broken. I maintain anim part is not a bug, at most a TODO/feature request, but rather hard to make it working ok in all cases imho. Static issue regarding armatures however should be handled I think - applying transform on animated object is calling for issues, but doing so on non-animated one should work as expected. Will try to handle this…

Bastien Montagne changed title from ~~Scaling armature from smaller size to scale 1 results in broken animations (IPO not updated?)~~ to Scaling armature from smaller size to scale 1 results in broken animations (IPO not updated?) and non-connected bones is pose is not rest one.

2014-09-07 18:04:18 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 18:06:25 +02:00

Added subscriber: @JoshuaLeung

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-07 18:06:25 +02:00

Hrmm… further testing, in rest pose apply scale works perfect, it breaks only if you edit pose first… so not really sure whether we want to support that…

Let’s see whether Joshua has some advice here.

Hrmm… further testing, in rest pose apply scale works perfect, it breaks only if you edit pose first… so not really sure whether we want to support that… Let’s see whether Joshua has some advice here.

Joey Ferwerda commented

2014-09-07 22:42:32 +02:00

Good to see this has been reopened.

gaia (on irc) has created a python script which allowed for this functionality to work, with a option to set the scale of a skeleton and re-scaling a single or all actions with it.
If this would not work out as default functionality (which is fine), it would be nice to have a optional scale function.
The way fill's are handled (grid fill/beauty fill etc) is a good example of allowing for multiple 'default' functionality.

Good to see this has been reopened. gaia (on irc) has created a python script which allowed for this functionality to work, with a option to set the scale of a skeleton and re-scaling a single or all actions with it. If this would not work out as default functionality (which is fine), it would be nice to have a optional scale function. The way fill's are handled (grid fill/beauty fill etc) is a good example of allowing for multiple 'default' functionality.

Pete Chown commented

2014-09-07 23:05:41 +02:00

I was forgetting that there might be multiple actions associated with a particular armature. Would it be unexpected or undesirable if they all got scaled when the armature scale was applied? All child objects get their scale changed, and that seems like an analogous case.

In any case, I agree with @TheOnlyJoey; I don't really care about the default behaviour, as long as I have the option of scaling the animations.

(I suspect this may be a slight culture clash between people doing games and people doing pre-rendered animations. If you're doing an animation, it probably doesn't matter if objects are scaled. Game engines, for some reason, are incredibly picky about this sort of thing. You might ask why they don't just apply the scale when you import the object—I've certainly wondered that—but they never seem to. To avoid problems you always want to make the character as simple as possible, and applying the scale is part of that.)

I was forgetting that there might be multiple actions associated with a particular armature. Would it be unexpected or undesirable if they *all* got scaled when the armature scale was applied? All child objects get their scale changed, and that seems like an analogous case. In any case, I agree with @TheOnlyJoey; I don't really care about the default behaviour, as long as I have the *option* of scaling the animations. (I suspect this may be a slight culture clash between people doing games and people doing pre-rendered animations. If you're doing an animation, it probably doesn't matter if objects are scaled. Game engines, for some reason, are incredibly picky about this sort of thing. You might ask why they don't just apply the scale when you import the object—I've certainly wondered that—but they never seem to. To avoid problems you always want to make the character as simple as possible, and applying the scale is part of that.)

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-12 12:35:48 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Archived'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2014-09-12 12:35:48 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-09-12 12:35:48 +02:00

So, talked with Joshua on IRC, wa agreed that even though this would be great from a user PoV, there is no bug here, it's a mix of TODO and design task. Added a note in our TODO list.

Time to archive.

So, talked with Joshua on IRC, wa agreed that even though this would be great from a user PoV, there is no bug here, it's a mix of TODO and design task. Added a note in [our TODO list](http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:2.5/Source/Development/Todo/Animation#Armature). Time to archive.

Chris Lord commented

2020-06-30 02:42:26 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Cwiiis

Chris Lord commented

2020-06-30 02:42:26 +02:00

In #41699#255333, @TheOnlyJoey wrote:
Good to see this has been reopened.

gaia (on irc) has created a python script which allowed for this functionality to work, with a option to set the scale of a skeleton and re-scaling a single or all actions with it.
If this would not work out as default functionality (which is fine), it would be nice to have a optional scale function.
The way fill's are handled (grid fill/beauty fill etc) is a good example of allowing for multiple 'default' functionality.

Sorry to bump such an old topic, but I've hit this recently and much searching doesn't really provide an answer that works for me. I have an animated model with an armature at 0.01x scale and external requirements that the armature be untransformed, but I've not found a way in Blender to accomplish this without breaking the animations. It would appear Blender hasn't gained this ability in the interim, and the script mentioned in this comment is the most promising lead... Does anyone know where this script is, or know of another work-around to accomplish this?

> In #41699#255333, @TheOnlyJoey wrote: > Good to see this has been reopened. > > gaia (on irc) has created a python script which allowed for this functionality to work, with a option to set the scale of a skeleton and re-scaling a single or all actions with it. > If this would not work out as default functionality (which is fine), it would be nice to have a optional scale function. > The way fill's are handled (grid fill/beauty fill etc) is a good example of allowing for multiple 'default' functionality. Sorry to bump such an old topic, but I've hit this recently and much searching doesn't really provide an answer that works for me. I have an animated model with an armature at 0.01x scale and external requirements that the armature be untransformed, but I've not found a way in Blender to accomplish this without breaking the animations. It would appear Blender hasn't gained this ability in the interim, and the script mentioned in this comment is the most promising lead... Does anyone know where this script is, or know of another work-around to accomplish this?

Chris Lord commented

2020-06-30 09:59:36 +02:00

For anyone else that gets stuck on this, this very cheap add-on has the ability to apply scale to both the armature and actions of a model - https://blendermarket.com/products/godot

lil-rat commented

2024-04-15 11:53:34 +02:00

For anyone else that is stuck on this, you can go and scale the keyframes manually (keyframes of location + scale, not rotation.) from within the action-editor (scale the graphs on the Y axis) (else google "Fixing animation with scaled armature". eg. https://youtu.be/QuY2-M_mVsA)
Writing a plugin to automate these steps can also be done and is quite easy.

For anyone else that is stuck on this, you can go and scale the keyframes manually (keyframes of location + scale, not rotation.) from within the action-editor (scale the graphs on the Y axis) (else google "Fixing animation with scaled armature". eg. https://youtu.be/QuY2-M_mVsA) Writing a plugin to automate these steps can also be done and is quite easy.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Scaling armature from smaller size to scale 1 results in broken animations (IPO not updated?) and non-connected bones is pose is not rest one. #41699