I'd just like to talk a bit about something in .nifs. Attaching things to models. Shields, bows, guns, etc.

When I was first learning, I figured out mostly on my own, that I could parent a mesh to one of the bones in nifscope, thus making something move appropriately with the figure after a little adjustment.

This method worked fairly well until I ran into an archer. That was a bt more complex. there, I learned that seperate meshes could also be parented and rigged to the armature, giving them their own NiSkinInstance. Thusly allowing different parts of them to move independantly, to apply shaders to them, and most importantly (to me at least) without any farther adjustment required in nifscope. I found that things done in that way, can just be pasted into nifscope and they automatically go to the correct location, saving much time and frustration.


So I'm wondering, what are the benefits of the first method? is there any reason to do it? Why do some firaxis nifs use one method, and some another, when the second method seems clearly better in every way. am I missing something here?

Yes, its very confusing. Especially when you make units with BIP skeletons, Bip01 skeletons, and even BIP01 skeletons (check the Egyptian War Chariot spearman).

Sorry, I haven't a answer but I add some observations
Archer has got 2 meshes outside BIP node: left bow and knives.
Left bow is involved during rangedstrike sequence and it has a own animation. Would this anim doable if it was in the BIP tree node?
Knives are a single mesh splitted into right and left hand at the same time. Usually into BIP tree you assign 2 separate objects to rx and lx hand using 2 meshes instead of 1 to do so.

The archer has seperate bones for the knives, and for drawing the bow, I believe.

I wonder why there are so many different types of skeletons. bip/BIP/bip01 ?

The archer has seperate bones for the knives, and for drawing the bow, I believe.

I wonder why there are so many different types of skeletons. bip/BIP/bip01 ?

Because the lead art designer obviously failed engineering and rule number 2: Consistency in Design.

that seems a bit of an easy answer, but is it really that simple? Firaxis is a veteran game studio. they're professionals. I find it tricky to believe this kind of mistake would be made. Is there really no reason for it?

Has anyone tried a community effort to standardise the skeletons/animations to one bip standard?

That would be a long and complicated process, because you would also have to change all the references in the .kfs. That's why i keep an archive of every unit i have ever reboned. I have 20 units in my archive, from workers and jaguars to infantry and marines.

I would have to be inclined to agree with mechaerik. In Bts and its scenarios it seems that they are gravitating to using mostly just BIP skeletons (at least I havent messed with any that dont use BIP). Maybe they have learned that they need consistancy.

Maybe they have learned that they need consistancy.Or had a smaller team - I don't know if there's a fitting pattern, but they during the CivIV development, they probably split up the graphics team, so one group worked on ancient units, one on modern units and so forth - and each team was probably internally consistent. Then, for BtS, only one team worked on it, as expansion work is often done with a slimmer team.

Cheers, LT.