Decompiling models to modify flex limits.

[CAT PRIME]

I've decompiled the HWM Heavy model in the hopes of remapping it's flex limits to produce garrysmod like expressions. (Previously i had tried to dig around in SFM's files to find the code for flex controllers but found nothing, probably embedded in a DLL file.)

Is it as simple as editing the flexcontoller range numbers in the QC or do i have to import it into blender?

Also, i got a lot of "Failed to parse expression" errors in the file.

[Marco Skoll]

Originally posted by Mizar:

Is it as simple as editing the flexcontoller range numbers in the QC or do i have to import it into blender?

Unfortunately: Neither.

Many of the features in Valve's HWM models cannot be properly decompiled by tools currently available to the community. What you're wading into is an uncharted minefield where you'll have to manually reconstruct several controls, including some that are undocumented and/or unsupported by Blender.

There's a reason why even some of the community's most experienced modellers are often found wishlisting the idea of exaggerated face flexes, and why (almost) all of the "Enhanced" HWM models on the workshop are missing features from the official HWM models.

If you want to reconstruct it with just the controls supported by SMD and VTA, that's a relatively simple task (load it into Blender, multiply the flexes), but it will mean that several controls are missing when you reassemble the model.

[CAT PRIME]

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

Originally posted by Mizar:

Is it as simple as editing the flexcontoller range numbers in the QC or do i have to import it into blender?

Unfortunately: Neither.

Many of the features in Valve's HWM models cannot be properly decompiled by tools currently available to the community. What you're wading into is an uncharted minefield where you'll have to manually reconstruct several controls, including some that are undocumented and/or unsupported by Blender.

There's a reason why even some of the community's most experienced modellers are often found wishlisting the idea of exaggerated face flexes, and why (almost) all of the "Enhanced" HWM models on the workshop are missing features from the official HWM models.

If you want to reconstruct it with just the controls supported by SMD and VTA, that's a relatively simple task (load it into Blender, multiply the flexes), but it will mean that several controls are missing when you reassemble the model.

I did find some lua files in the sdk tools folder, but i'm not sure what these do exactly. I would think if they made a difference someone would have done it already.

I suppose someone could rig the faces like normal bones instead of flexes, i've seen a few models with these. Maybe using the regular game models.

[ZeqMacaw]

The "Failed to parse expression" lines are simply an indication that Crowbar does not know how to decompile those flex controllers, probably because they can only be used in a DMX file and would not work in a QC file.

[Pte Jack]

Zeq and I have discussed this a couple of times.

All the Flex controllers and the corrective shape import into the model when you import the VTA. These "Unable to parse" errors may be actual parameters for setting up Advanced Shapekeys (we really don't know they aren't parsable) in a DMX file. As Crowbar only extracts SMD and not DMX (hint hint - wink wink) files, the parameters are of no use to a model that is being imported to Blender anyway.

As for Derpy Flexes, you would have to import the model into a 3D Editor like blender, maya or 3DS Max and edit the shapekey/blendshapes to go the way you want. Export the new SMD/DMX files and pray the model compiles properly. You would also want to rename the model so that is becomes its own identity in SFM.

[CAT PRIME]

Alright, now that i know this is basically impossible, I'll move on to a different but probably equally far fetched idea.

[Pte Jack]

but it's not impossible... you just have to work to make it do it.

[CAT PRIME]

Originally posted by Pte Jack:

but it's not impossible... you just have to work to make it do it.

I know, i'm gonna try a different method.

[Marco Skoll]

Well, if what you want is the completely distorted expressions of Gmod (I don't personally like them, but hey), then chances are you probably won't get too teary-eyed over the advanced features you'd lose in a decompile.

It's stuff like the wrinkle maps (the model's textures actually change with the movement of the face. A raised eyebrow, for example, results in a creased brow) and corrective shapes (which are actually trying to avoid the torn vertices you can get from stacking flexes).

However, for the people who want to be able to have insane expressions and clever features in the same model, or just want to be able to move the flexes a little bit more*... implementing that is a pain in the jacksie.

* What I learnt when doing my first few face flex set-ups that I really do need to make the flexes about 50% bigger than I think I need them.

[Pte Jack]

Jacksies ... I'm offended LOL hahahahahahahaha

If you know of a different method of doing something like this, I'm all eyes. I want to read about it.

[CAT PRIME]

Originally posted by Pte Jack:

Jacksies ... I'm offended LOL hahahahahahahaha

If you know of a different method of doing something like this, I'm all eyes. I want to read about it.

Well i had the idea of removing the flexes and replacing them with bones.
I've seen a few models that use bones in the face instead of flexes, (I think the overwatch models do this actually) I'm not sure how difficult it would be to implement, but if it's possible, and done right, we could get some pretty absurd results.

[Pte Jack]

That's one way I guess.

[Marco Skoll]

Originally posted by Mizar:

Well i had the idea of removing the flexes and replacing them with bones.

Well, flex and bone animation aren't mutually exclusive.

Lots of games do use bone animation for faces, but flex animation does have considerable advantages in that role, in that the same flex key can move different vertices in different directions and doesn't need its weighting normalised between keys.

I wouldn't normally deliberately implement a face with both, but if you've already got (even only some of) one form, it's not worth deleting to implement the other. Keep both.

Originally posted by Pte Jack:

Jacksies ... I'm offended LOL hahahahahahahaha

(Adopts an even more exaggerated English accent than he already has). It's one's bottom, don't you know.

[Pte Jack]

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

(Adopts an even more exaggerated English accent than he already has). It's one's bottom, don't you know.

Butt, derrière, bum, and a few others that would be censored, but never Jacksies... lol

[CAT PRIME]

Ah, ♥♥♥♥, i forgot about bone weighting.

[Zappy]

Might I add that there are (outdated) HWM class model source files available with the Source SDK (but still HWM even though it's oudated, simply just missing some bodygroups and such)?