Fuse models should work fine, but I will confirm. I did not even think of them…
1 Like
Man. Can’t wait.
That would be amazing if it works with Fuse models. Even though Mixamo hasn’t updated Fuse since getting acquired by Adobe, Fuse still works, since it just generates FBX files with the standard Mecanim rig. And it’s staying free at least until they revisit Fuse development in the future (which per their community manager, won’t be at least until after 2017).
Getting custom content to work with Fuse mesh blendshapes when instantiated at runtime over the base body mesh is my main challenge. So if this tool can help solve that problem… 
1 Like
Fuse works so far. The base models are a lot more manageable than mcs’s.
Let me know if there is any content you want me to demonstrate.
Thanks for the info
2 Likes
Sweet! Here’s my wish list for functionality, no matter what the actual content is from Fuse:
- Wrap individual clothing (or armor or hair) pieces to a Fuse body mesh in the editor.
- Save wrapped clothing as prefabs for instantiation on a body at runtime.
- During runtime, instantiate wrapped clothing onto a body mesh instance and have it conform as blendshapes are applied. (This would happen when a character equips an item from their inventory, for example.)
- During runtime, destroy wrapped clothing that’s previously been applied. (For example, when you unequip an item, or switch to a different item.)
Using pooling is probably the most ideal situation, since instantiate and destroy are more computationally heavy, but I won’t ask for that sort of integration just yet. Please and thank you!
2 Likes
I decided to switch this to a UMA project.
2 Likes
I read your post on the MCS thread. I hope you’ll support Fuse (or other base meshes with blendshapes) as well. UMA has limitations in that the morphs are bone-based, so you don’t get the same customizability that blendshapes provide.
1 Like
I hope to provide the same features minus the mcs integration.
UMA support will greatly increase the flexibility of the skinning process due to the complexity of the UMA rig.
4 Likes
Would be a great addition to Uma!
Cool! If there’s anything we can do to help, let us know. Are you on the UMA slack?
1 Like
Are you dropping MCS then?
Yes, sorry.
We will need the official Artist Tools to make MCS content.
Thanks
Did these ever come out? Lack of content tools is what made me walk away from MCS. It is relatively easy to make content for UMA so it felt like moving backwards. Too bad because the potential was there.
1 Like
Agree. I went back to Fuse and was like “Oh yeah, this actually WORKS…” 
5 Likes
Not yet. The Morph3D community manager posted on their thread that an update will be forthcoming at GDC. No indication whether that meant the artist tools would be released to everyone one or be more closed initially.
I totally agree that there’s potential there, but even if/when those content tools become available, I don’t know that I’d jump in right away. The long history of little-to-no communication and lack of transparency will be tough to erase.
Fuse is nice in the meantime!
2 Likes
Fuse is nice! If only it had runtime customization.
2 Likes
The artist tools should be named “Morph3D Forever.”
3 Likes
Yup, and Mixamo/Adobe already said Fuse isn’t getting any love this year ( 
). But at least they were open about it–and the fact that Mixamo got acquired so the development teams could work on a new project for Adobe full-time.
Yes, and they are letting us use everything for free! I am pretty happy with my Adobe products honestly. We have two PS subscriptions and one Creative Cloud between the 3 of us. Well worth the cost. The girls get enough commissions to make pretty much pay for them.
3 Likes