And the
poll results are... a 2-2 tie between
Choice B and
Choice C! Hmm, didn't see that one coming. Personally, I was rootin' for choice A. Would've saved me a lot of work :razz:
A big "Thank You!" to everybody who participated, and a special thanks to biozz and Maugryph for their comments!
As for which I'm actually going to go forward with, hmm I don't know. I actually like B the most, but C has some things going for it too. Now that I don't have to worry about introducing bias into the results, I can cover what the changes actually were:
(details covered in this scrap's description.)
A number of changes that were present in A, B, and C. The neck joints were moved to be parallel, bringing the head back. The back of the head was moved forward and edge loops ahead of the ears were combined, in effect shrinking the overall depth of the head. Most importantly, the eyebrows and cheeks were separated out from the temples and the ears which allows for greater flexibility in reshaping and positioning them. This also allowed me more space to pull back the far corners of the eyes and help keep the temples from bulging out the side of the eyes.
Differences between A, B, and C focused pretty much exclusively on the snout with C being the most different.
With the time set aside waiting for the poll to resolve, I developed a new teeth that would work for B or C. The biggest advancement in the downtime, however, was a Python script. I've mentioned it before, but Maya has MEL commands as well as Python-based PyMel. I decided to brush-up on my Python programming a bit and ended up creating a very important script. As you can see in the scrap above, all 3 have the same expressions. Now, because of the significant differences between them, simply applying the MEL scripts I used to save the facial expressions wasn't going to work. So, I came up with this Python script to read in the commands and transform their values based on a series of offsets created by comparing the default position values of the two face wire setups. There's more details in the scrap's description, but it basically lets me reuse my scripts to some degree, even with significant changes to the shape and topology!
It'll be a massive timesaver, make for better comparisons that will allow a greater range of experimentation, and I already am thinking of a number of other extended uses based around this concept! Stuff I've wanted to do for months, but haven't because of script compatibility are suddenly very doable!
As for the choice itself...
It's a tough choice. On the one hand, The higher-set muzzle of C is extremely common among many really well-made furry images. I had thought that this, admittedly crude, parallel would dominate the poll, but it only tied. On the other hand, there were only 4 votes and the curve-based implementation was clearly not a good idea.
I actually prefer B, not because it would be easier (it actually presents the same challenges as C, which are now basically nil because of my new Python script) but because all of my fox references seem to suggest the lower, smaller muzzle is the right direction.
...and I have
a whole lot of references at this point :mrgreen:
For my tastes the flatter higher muzzle feels too much like a dog, rather than a fox, but it's clearly the more popular design, hence the conundrum. Had I done things more like Maugryph's comment described, I think it may have beaten B.
But, on the back-paw, the thing I really dislike the most about C is not the muzzle, but the way the positioning of the muzzle affects the rest of the face. It makes the neck look really big, the head a bit too small, and the jaw ends up angling upwards when closing. The only way I've found to alleviate these problems has been to make the snout massive, which I just don't like at all. Also, I really don't like the new nose I did on C.
On the other back-paw (how many appendages am I up to, now?) choice C can, under the right circumstances, look superior to choice B even in my eyes. A lot of that has to do with camera settings and positioning, as described in this scrap:
I think the proper response to the tie is to experiment with both a bit further. With my delightful new script, that should be much easier. I want to give the higher-muzzle C a fair shake because I feel like it is so close to something that even I would like 100% of the time. Maybe somewhere in between B and C, or even a rethinking of how I reach the muzzle positioning, will click with me. Regardless of which one won the poll, I knew there was plenty more work to do on the snout. The tie doesn't make things easier in that respect, but I do feel a sense of relief knowing that I don't have to feel obligated towards one design or the other.