Você está na página 1de 6

How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...
How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...
How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...
How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...
How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...
How does it do that then? Advanced animation techniques for X-Plane object development.

A tutorial by Propsman

PART 1

Following the interest in my recent Land Rover model, it occurred to me that it might be a good subject for an animation tutorial. It has the advantage of being a relatively simple vehicle,
yet at the same time offering some interesting animation challenges.

What follows assumes a reasonable working knowledge of Blender, including a grasp of the basic techniques for using armatures in combination with Jonathan ‘Marginal’ Harris’s export
script to create animated. X-plane .obj files. The aim of this tutorial is to describe the methods I’ve used to create some interesting effects which go beyond the basic ‘waggling of the stick’.
I do not propose to attempt a step-by-step account of the entire project - it would take too long both for me to write and for you to read - instead I’m going to focus on the basic prin-
ciples involved and a few specific sections of the model which I think may be of particular interest.

Primary objectives of the project

There were two main objectives for making this model:

1. to attempt to simulate the vibration of the vehicle as experienced from the driver’s perspective. Although X-Plane appears to accurately simulate the motion of the vehicle itself, the
pilot’s point-of-view is always rigidly connected to it. In other words, it is assumed that the pilot/driver is always moving in perfect sympathy with the vehicle, which is usually not the case
in reality. The result is that the driver never gets the sense of bumping up and down in his seat when driving off-road. So objective number one was to fix that!

2. to model visually the fully-floating suspension of the real Land Rover. Landing gear in the sim essentially provides ‘independent suspension’. Each wheel is free to move up and down a
vertical axis independent of the motion of the other wheels. In the real Land Rover however, in common with many other vehicles, the wheels are arranged in pairs, each with a common
axle and differential. The result is that as the vehicle negotiates an uneven surface, each pair of wheels effectively rotates about the centre of it’s axle when viewed from behind. The visual
effect of this kind of suspension is quite different from that of X-Plane landing gear (figures 1.0 and 1.1).

figure 1.0 X-Plane landing gear motion figure 1.1 Land-Rover suspension

So, how do we do that?

To tackle the first problem, we need to find a way for the camera (the driver’s viewpoint) to move relative to the vehicle in response to the bumpiness of the ride. There are two alterna-
tives: either the camera must move relative to the .acf reference point, or else the vehicle must. The first option is closer to reality as it would directly emulate the driver’s motion in his
seat. However, moving the camera in X-Plane is a dark art, and not one I am practiced in. On the other hand, the second alternative, although less accurate technically-speaking, has the
potential to create a similar net effect: from the driver’s point of view the vehicle will bounce around, tricking his brain into thinking that he is.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, in all the illustrations in this tutorial the reference point of the .acf (in other words, the .acf ‘fuselage’) is considered to be static, not the ground surface. So all
motion is relative to the .acf structure. For example, in the sim, if the .acf passes over a six-inch-high bump, the wheels will rise by six inches to follow the bump, but perhaps only four inches of that
will be taken up by the tyres and suspension compressing. The rest will be absorbed by the .acf itself rising a further two inches. To avoid things getting too complicated, we’ll take the .acf sructure
as our fixed reference point and only concern ourselves with the four inches of relative movement. Make sure you have that straight in your head before proceeding!

Let’s break down our vehicle into three simple chunks for now: the chassis and bodywork (green in the illustrations), the wheels (blue), and the driver’s viewpoint (pink). What happens
as they go over a bump?

figure 1.2 figure 1.3 figure 1.4

Figure 1.2 shows our vehicle in it’s rest position. In figure 1.3 it is going over a longish bump. The springs have compressed to take the shock and the wheels have risen. But what about
our driver? He is not rigidly bolted to the chassis (hopefully) so his inertia will cause him to sink down in his seat as the shock is absorbed by the seat padding and his own, um, personal
padding (figure 1.4). In absolute terms, he will have actually risen in altitude, but remember we are measuring everything relative to the .acf structure. Imagine you’re the driver, you feel the
jolt as the wheels hit the bump and see the car bounce upwards around you as you sink down in the seat. This is of course a greatly simplified version of events, but it will do for the
purposes of this exercise.

And here is our problem - in X-Plane, the pilot is rigidly bolted to the chassis, so it is not possible to achieve figure 1.4! As mentioned earlier, moving the camera (the driver’s point of
view) isn’t an easy option, so we will have to move the chassis and body instead so that the driver thinks that he’s sunk down in his seat like he would have done in reality! In the previous
three figures, the grey .obj body was rigidly attached to the green .acf ‘fuselage’, as is normal for cockpit objects to be. In figure 1..5 however, the grey .obj body has been made free to
move independent of the .acf structure, and as the vehicle has hit the bump, we have sneakily moved it upwards a bit.

That, then, is what we’re going to do. We’re going to render the entire .acf - wheels and all - invisible by making
the paint.png file transparent. Then we are going to build the whole model in blender, and animate the chassis
and body work so that it moves as described above. In Plane Maker, we will set up the landing gear spring
constants so that the .acf suspension is a little bit more compliant than that of the original Land Rover. This will
increase the strut compression distance, which in turn will compensate visually for the apparent reduction in
suspension throw caused by animating the chassis upwards. This isn’t sound physics, but is an acceptable compro-
mise!

For the second issue - that of floating axles versus independent suspension we are going to build an animated
suspension and transmission which will be made to appear to move authentically, but will be independent of the
functional .acf landing gear. The only points in common between the .acf system and the .obj system will be the
instantaneous position of the four ground contact points and the r.p.m. of the wheels. Hopefully we will manage
to make it appear as if the purely cosmetic animated .obj running gear is actually functional.

figure 1.5 Here, instead of the driver moving downwards, the


bodywork has been moved upwards to create the same effect.

Three armatures

Once again using the invisible .acf structure as our reference point from which to animate the sub-objects (the chassis, wheels, pedals and so on) it is possible to group the animation into
three independent systems. By assiging a seperate armature to each of the three systems we make the process and less confusing more manageable. There will be a few animation tasks
which will need to be done directly in the .obj file, but those can be left to the very end, and needn’t worry us yet.

So first of all I’m going to frighten you with a picture of the three completed armatures, then we’ll strip away the confusing detail and look at the suspension first.

figure 1.6. The completed three armatures

A bit scary isn’t it? In actual fact, much of the apparent complexity of the armatures is a result of things like switches, windscreen wipers and details of that nature. For now we will ignore
the big armature which animates the body and cockpit and focus on the two smaller ones which handle the wheels and axles. I’ll mention at this point that the springs themselves - despite
being part of the suspension - are not connected to these armatures. Instead, they are animated by the ‘body’ armature. The reason for this is that out of necessity, their motion is very
much an approximation to the real thing, because they can only be connected to the axles OR the chassis - not both. The end which is not connected is not going to look very convincing
because it will be impossible to get it to track accurately. Therefore, it is better to make sure that the end which IS connected is the most visible one, which in this case is the chassis end.
The front mounting lugs of the front springs stick out quite conspicuously, whereas the U-bolts with which the springs are clamped to the axles lurk in the shadows underneath, far from
inquisitive eyes. So we will worry about them when we look at the body armature.

Figure 1.7 shows the chassis (for visual reference) and the wheels together with their corresponding armatures. We’ll focus on the back axle because it doesn’t have the added complexity
of the steering components. The two outermost bones drive the wheels round. They are parented to a pair of bones which rotate the back axle in opposing directions around the z-axis
in proportion to the amount of strut compression experienced by the two back wheels - in other words, they find the mean z-axis rotation and bring the back axle parallel to the ground
surface. However, the net upwards displacement of the back axle remains zero, so there are another pair of bones which rotate the back axle aound the x-axis, centred on the forward
mounting point of the springs. These work in the same direction, each causing the axle to move vertically by (approximately) one half of their respective wheel’s strut compression. So again,
this pair of bones is acting as an averaging mechanism. The two remaining bones are simply there to keep the (non-operational) prop-shaft pointing in the general direction of the transfer
box in the centre of the chassis.

wheel #2 wheel #0

wheel 2 x-axis rotation

axle z-axis rotation due to


spring 2 compression vertical axle motion due to spring 2 compression

axle z-axis rotation due to vertical axle motion due to spring 3 compression
spring 3 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 2 compression
prop shaft UJ x-axis rotation due to spring 3 compression

wheel 3 x-axis vrotation


Y
X

wheel #3
Z wheel #1

figure 1.7 The two axle armatures

Figure 1.8

Figure 1.8 is a different view of the same thing, this time with the bones labelled with their respective datarefs, and displayed in octohedron view. You will notice that there are only four
datarefs responsible for the motion of the entire back axle and wheels - so it starts to seem a bit less scary! In the next thrilling installment, we’ll take a closer look at the actual programming
of this part of the animation; the front axle and steering,; and then brace ourselves for tackling the body armature...

Você também pode gostar