Erikari ：

Or if one could al least copy and paste the shape of a mesh it would be great. One could then just move all the meshes through weighted bones and that would be a nice compromise at least.

Actually, that's what I'm doing right now.

For example, I`m duplicating the F_Arm_Green master mesh to F_Arm_Scars_Dark, and put it in another slot (F_Arm_Scars). Then I create a linked mesh in that slot for the other scar Light variation.

What I get then is the compromise you mention: a mesh that has the same weighting configuration as the 'parent' body part, so it moves reasonably well unless at a given animation I've set heavy deformation in the original 'template' mesh. But of course, no animation keys are transferred over to the duplicated mesh. And you also need to remember to duplicate again these meshes when you reconfigure weights in the original ones.

Of course for this to work the scars layer needs to have exactly the same dimensions as the parent mesh. So even if the contents of F_Arm_Scars_Dark are only the scars and they could be cropped, you must instruct your artist to expand its layer dimensions to be like F_Arm_Green. That means you'll move a lot of transparent pixels and could possibly be not the best thing to do in mobile games, but it works well enough on desktops.

At any rate is a trick that I'd prefer not to use and have linked meshes instead of duplicated ones.

pag ：

Erikari ：

Remember that if you need you can always duplicate a mesh (not making it a linked mesh) and then change the path of the image. If you don't do direct mesh deformations but bind them to bones this trick keeps on working very nicely.

Exactly. I'm working with a highly customisable character right now and it has never been a problem working that way. I really don't understand the issue here and have never been limited in any way.

Don't key the meshes, use weighted bones

But there IS a limit. As Erikari mentions "If you don't do direct mesh deformation..."

That's the exact point of this thread: that we key mesh deformations and they don't get linked if you just duplicate to another slot.

Example: I make a nude model and then a TIGHT bodysuit with different stages of integrity (yes, I'm that guy making adult games... ^_^). The bodysuit parts have the same dimensions as their naked counterparts. And to worsen things even more, I have different colored skins for the nude model.

Therefore, the ideal way to do this would be to render both the naked body parts AND the bodysuit parts on top. And both of those sets should be synchronized, so if I adjust a nude mesh in the future (the curve of the butt for instance), that change gets also duplicated to all the bodysuit linked meshes in the other slot.

Now, I know you guys have a lot of work and I'm not demanding anything here, but please don't disregard this feature. It would be useful for a lot of people. Maybe not the majority, but a good deal for sure.

Thank you.

Just to clarify my stance: I'm not saying I'm not doing that already. I do! But only because I have no other choice.

Keep in mind that there are things that are not so easily adjusted just with bones. Some fine tuning is required for things like a... woman body.

Moreover, there are times when I pose a character in the first frame of an animation, and when I show it to my artist, he asks me to deform several meshes so the body curves are more realistic.

Just imagine trying to do that with just bones... it's just not possible.

So my workflow is indeed like you say, pag, but every time I deform an underlying body part I also need to reduplicate all clothes meshes to update their keys.

Far from efficient... ;-P

---

Ok, sorry for necroing this... but the fact that 2.5 years have passed and we still have this limitation is getting on my nerves.

I know you guys have a lot of work, and you're the developers and have the right to establish what your priorities are... but still, let me give you a graphical example.

This is one of my models for a new game...:

To not complicate the post too much, let's say the legs have three parts...: foot, shin, and thigh.

I'm using mix'n'match to separate the body by skin tones. This is the "fair" skin tone.

Then you can have a myriad of socks. I've just started to add them, so there's only three there, but I plan to have 5-8 types with multiple colors each.

Now... when I said in previous posts "I need skin-tight clothing follow exactly the body parts underneath", now you'll see with this model that I wasn't exaggerating, right? I mean, this is not your typical platformer character. This is going to be zoomed in to an absurd level and it really needs to look good.

So, when I started to use Spine three years ago, I thought... "Well, so let's use linked meshes and give the tight-fitting clothes the same mesh as the body part they're on..." And yes, that works well... until you need to put that clothing on another slot.

Then you only have the option to duplicate, losing any future adjustment you make on the master mesh.

"But why is that a big deal? Any decent animator will just use weighted bones, you stupid amateur, har har!"

Yeah, and that's what I'm doing now because I've learned a lot since I started this post.

But... you change the weights of the original mesh, and you need to recreate it on the duplicated slot master mesh. You add, move, delete a vertex...: same. Any little, tiny, minuscule change you make... no longer identical, so I'll have a thigh flexing X, and a sock flexing X minus 10.

And yes, you can re-dup, deleting the master mesh in the duped slot, and recreate AAAAALL the slaves and put them again in their skin placeholders.

Do that with 50 skins... I dare you.

So, what will I need to do from a realistic perspective? I either try not the change anything in those body parts for the 3-4 years of development this will take...

...or multiply those 50 types of socks by the 3 skintones we will have. That is, merging each sock type, color and skintone for that thigh, every possible combination... and do that for the other thigh and any other body part that could have skin and cloth at the same time, and needs to move the same exact way.

Now... seriously... just having 3 skins for the body and whatever skins for the clothes, and activate the body skin, then the clothing on top... wouldn't that be so much more easier?

In fact, that hell of unending combos would also translate into Unity when coding!

What is easier to code?

a) Activate fair skin; activate black high socks

...or b) Activate fair skin, search (somehow) which is the name for the skin that has the black high socks over the fair skin

So please, by the gods, recover this as a reasonable feature to research into.

I mean, if this makes my computer explode, so be it. It could be optional, you know. Put a checkbox or something on the Settings, but for the love of god, why is this impossible to do?

Anyway, thanks for reading yet another wall of frustrated text.

Thanks for replying, Nate. Much appreciated.

Nate ：

Once they are complete then we will do an update that focuses on quality of life/workflow improvements and that will include the one you are suggesting.

That's great! If that's the case, I'll use duped slots for clothing, in preparation for when it gets released.

Do you think it'll be ready by this year's fall? :bigeye:

Nate ：

I would be very sad if it was not!

I'm gonna look like a jerk for reminding you this, haha!

But yeah, I think it deserves a refresher. Is it still coming in 4.1?

It's the only thing I'm waiting for to finally upgrade to 4.x. :p

---

Hi again,

I know insisting won't make you work faster, but this was a genuine question. :rolleyes:

Do you think off-slot linked meshes be a thing in 4.1?

Also, I posted this question in the Unity sub-forum...: Duplicated slots for blending. What happens if I do this...?

...which adds another reason why this would be useful, IMO. If we have linked meshes from another slot, we could go mental with blend mode slots for tinting, regardless of the complexity of the master mesh.

That would be nice, don't you think?

Cheers!