Quote - What sort of ideas do you have for a batch-handling process for this?  I tinkered with the beginnings of one with the 2008 .pyd version of TDMT, but took it no further than handling weld neighbors along with an actor.  I suspect my way of trying to approach it is/was/would be far more messy and awkward than it would need to be.

Batch handling seems like a logical next step, if development is to continue.  I know lkendall was hoping it would be added.

 
I'm not sure I can speak specifically to this, but I do have some general thoughts on additional / future enhancements...

Ray-Cast-Only option...

I think I might have changed my position on this (in combination with some of the other topics, below) - it might be useful to be able to disable the fall-through to close-vert weighting when the ray-cast fails.  This goes back to something I brought up the other day, about cross-group correlations (ie. head-neck or abdomen-hip, etc).  This would still use the current Hybrid code to determine which TriPolys to cast against - it just wouldn't fall through to the close-vert weighting code.

More flexible dot-checking...

We might want to change the dot-checking to use a passed in value (in both the Python and PYD), allowing us to tighten or loosen that check (see my previous post for additional angle info).

Additional Screening options for the Correlation process...

I think we had something like this in the older scripts, but it would be handy to be able to use a Sphere (or even a Box) prop to section off an Inclusion or Exclusion zone(s).  The most basic example being that you might want to run the ears (or general ear-area) as a separate pass, using different correlation methods or settings.  Or you might want to exclude some vertices near a group connection, or.. whatever.

Several additions to the Merge process...

I haven't had a chance to use the Merge script much yet but AFAIK, the current auto-merge ability is limited to "merge in values from new file, replacing any indices that might already exist in the existing file and inserting any new ones".  This works great if you're doing different elements in different passes (ie. the skin material in one pass, brows in another), but not so great for doing merges of files with any alternate correlation settings/methods on the same elements.  Instead of just overwriting existing vert weight data, it would be nice if there was some sort of test applied (or some group of tests, available).  For example:

• Use the weight values from each file to regenerate the (psuedo-)hitpoint and use the 'closest' one.
• Maybe an option to favor 3 weights over >3 weights (the idea being that 3 weights are more likely to have come from a more accurate ray-cast hit).
• Just to cover all bases, maybe an option to favor >3 weights over 3 (the idea being to keep you from puffing up over my wording in the previous suggestion :lol:).
• Don't overwrite any existing values, only insert new values.

...as mentioned before, the relative (ultimate) sucess of this process depends on the quality of the final data files used, so any additional screening and merging tools will go a long way to help refine those files.

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.