In my experience there is no right answer, it all depends. :(
Like you mentioned, for some grooming tools, real-world scale is preferred. But even that depends on whether the tools themselves where designed around it, which isn’t necessarily the case. Rendering typically assumes real-world scale, for things like subsurface scatter depth being in centimeters. Simulation varies greatly, to my great surprise. nCloth assumes 0.01x with a default gravity of 9.8 cm/s as opposed to m/s, Bullet assumes 1.0x and who knows what third-party solvers end up choosing.
For animation this problem is also ever present, in that translate versus rotate curves in the graph editor appear at wildly different scales. E.g. an arm rotated 20 degrees can cover the Y-axis of the editor, but then display that alongside hip translation and you’ll end up either zooming in or out like mad, obscuring the rotation.
So no matter how consistent you are, someone will end up suffering. It’s an unsolved problem.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Python Programming for Autodesk Maya" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to python_inside_m...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/python_inside_maya/e161eb64-eff6-4683-83e9-14c666e6aea3n%40googlegroups.com.
I model and perform all aspects at real world scale. I’d recommend it and though it appears Maya wants to be at 1:10 scale it’s misleading IMO. Maya doesn’t really care. If you are at 1:1 however scenes should be close to 0,0,0 as much as possible to avoid floating point miss calcs.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/python_inside_maya/CAFRtmOBFN%3DP9%3Di5q81n2qkxupwHcaYOPPX5hFUBQpSctq1x6kg%40mail.gmail.com.