[Released] Morph Character System (MCS) - Male and Female

I would think it's okay, or at least is acceptable for now, if the animations still work fine. It's not like this would be the first or only asset to have some kinks in it when it's released.

Now if there are legitimate issues with animating with the chest bones, then that's another story. But I haven't seen anything posted here that really describes that issue with enough detail that is actionable.

 

Expected, yes. Acceptable, maybe, for a new release. But with an issue like this, I don't expect the developer to come on and tell us it is like that in Daz so okay. I expect a....oh, yeah, thanks for the bug, we will fix it asap.

I guess I have been spoiled by some of the wonderful asset developers here.

 

If it's not a bug that causes major issues, then it's likely to not get fixed ASAP. Bug triage is a neverending battle most all software developers face constantly. They have to prioritize what bugs, if addressed, will help the most customers, not to mention balancing bug fixing with releasing additional features. (I work for a software company, so I know from interaction with my colleagues how real this battle is.)

@Teila, can you help with providing details on why this is a major issue? What trouble do the inverted chest bones cause in animation? How impactful is it to your workflow? How large of a customer base is this likely to affect (i.e., how many customers are actively wanting to animate breasts)?

 

@chiapet1021 - Isn't DAZ all about sizzle? I'm not using DAZ, but I've seen the ads. I'm pretty sure they'll want optimal breasts.

I expect the breast bone issue to get addressed along with the other stuff people have been mentioning here. And I imagine they're working on it. As you say, it's a product in the early stages of development.

 

Okay, good. However...doesn't give them a free pass. So poor Hermi is being picked on for not accepting this. I think we all have our limits. These were exported from Daz...so not exactly early stages and the problem existed there. This is a structural issue that was known when released.

You can accept this...yeah, I know. And that is fine. I have a tough time accepting assets that don't have documentation or where the developer doesn't help out, that is where I am more apt to call out a developer. Hermi has his own expectations. Rather than telling people that it is acceptable, maybe we should realize that we all have our idea of what is important. For you, sizzle. For Hermi, bobbling boobs. LOL

For me, the ability to make my own clothing with the best tools available, even if I am not going to sell through Daz.

Critical assessments by all of us, regardless of our pet peeve or our level of acceptance is crucial to making an asset the best ever. Thank goodness for folks like Hermi and the others who reported this issue here. I hope people continue. The sizzle is already there, now we need more substance.

Oh, and those links I sent above? I found those by googling. There was so little on the website, really very little, so I searched for more. No where did it say they were old or outdated. If pages no longer apply, they should be deleted. Mismatched information concerns me. Bad experiences with expensive Unity assets has made me skeptical. Sorry, but unfortunately, that is what happens.

Would have posted earlier but just got back from a vacation.

 

I totally agree that more is needed to make this system complete for most all potential customers here. That being said, I also believe in treating developers--and other people in general--with respect and understanding. Being vague, snarky, or passive aggressive about your criticisms is definitely not a good way to have your voice heard.

So while I fully support letting the developers here know what does and does not work for you (and I certainly intend to continue to do so), I also encourage you to express yourself in a way that entices them to actually honor your request. If someone asked you to fix something within your power for them, how much more or less likely are you to give them a hand, based on the delivery of their request?

 

@Teila iClone are going to release something like that as well, so the competition is there. Their chest bones are correctly placed, and they will include wrinkle normal maps that you can easily use on a model so that we can make real-life characters like in the Unity Blacksmith project.

 

You know me, I am not being passive aggressive, I am being honest. And I am certainly not being snarky. No, I am not a fan-girl, never used DAZ, have no history there, but I would like to see a good product out there. I absolutely respect the developer but I feel as though there are some communication issues here. The old web pages concern me. Obviously something was pulled or changed and not communicated thoroughly. Or maybe not. I have been through this before.

Honestly, insulting others who disagree is a great way to stop dialogue here, don't you think?

 

@Morph 3D Do you think you can include more nose morphs? Noses are such an important part of the face.
I would appreciate it very much if there would be ready-made nose morphs and not many sub-morphs (like "nostrils width"). Perhaps you could just include 10 different nose morphs to cover all possible real-life-nose forms?
I have not been able to create such a nose with the current morphs.

 

I do know you, and I'm not insulting you. I'm pointing out that your form of "honesty" is more negative than just that.

I also agree with you that communication and documentation is lacking here. That is definitely an area for the Morph3D folks to improve on. But I don't think it's cause to speculate that they are sweeping things under the rug or that they have some sort of mal-intent or that they don't care about the chest bone issue. Those are perceptions you have expressed in your recent responses.

 

+1 to this. I know the regular Daz has lots of options for ethnic faces, including full head and partial face morphs. I would love to see some of that replicated here.

 

This is getting way too personal for me. I am not a DAZ fangirl so really can't relate. I hope it all works out for you. Can we move on?

I am talking about perception, not making accusations. I think, sadly, the accusations are coming from you.

So..let us move on. This is getting sad.

 

Sorry Teila, "perceptions" is a more appropriate word. I edited my post. I did not mean to attack you. My intent was to drive awareness from more of the developer's perspective. I have to believe that they, like most developers on here, want to give the community a good product, one that will be beneficial to us and profitable for them.

So yes, let's move on. Thanks

 

Thanks, Chiapet.

Honestly, I think the awareness has to come from the developer himself, not from the users. Too often issues are clouded or even misunderstood because the discussion is between users, ones who have no problems and those who do.

Instead, the most successful and popular asset developers here are those who engage the community, handle issues honestly, admit problems and fix them, and who stay involved. That is is needed here, not you and I and others having to defend the developer. That is their job, not ours.

If I didn't care about the product, I would not be here trying to get more information and push the developers to give us information. I feel terrible I posted an old link but when I find something on google, I assume it is current. However, had the information been more forthcoming instead of vague, I would not have had to google old web pages.

 

Well it is the weekend. Let's give 'em until Monday to make all of these great ideas happen, sound good?

 

I have not been able to create such a nose with the current morphs.QUOTE]
Hey there @hermie, are you using the MCS Lite or MCS? Or in other words, do you find the nose morphs lacking in the full version or just the Lite?

Thanks!

 

Besides, Boston Unite just finished so they're just going to be getting back into the office.

Pretty excited to see the direction this goes.

I don't know who was complaining about communication, but their product just launched, and it seems fine to me. I guess maybe from the development of getting TO launching the product, there's been no communication, but that's not all that big a deal to me. Maybe I'm missing something though!

 

@Morph 3D I am still waiting for the product to come to a stable state before purchasing. The wrongly placed chest bones and the missing wrinkle maps are so important to me that the current products do not yet give me a value over a manually imported and ZBrush'ed DAZ model.

Does the full version give me access to real-life nose shapes?

I am looking forward to an updated version very much! Thank you for your efforts. I love it how you have included hair and clothes and how you are working on the LODs! This is really valuable.

 

@hermie, providing a video of how you see those bones as a bug would be extremely helpful. Those bones are placed and weighted very strategically and for our purposes they work wonderfully. Their placement was not a mistake on our part but intentional, we've an incredible modeling and rigging artist that created this rig over many months, it was QA'd and then released. There is no single way to make a rig, that's for certain, so perhaps you are wishing we had made it another way to suit your purposes? If you would provide us with more information as to how and why you think the rig should be constructed, we would be happy to take your opinion into consideration. We are planning to update the base mesh (remember Darwin?) and rig sometime down the road- your insights would be welcome. As things are now, you aren't giving us a lot to work with

Also, in regards to breast animations, you might also want to consider driving them with morphs. That's the way I'd go anyways.

Finally, for the general populous, I have taken some time to demonstrate (on a weekend mind you) what we think is properly rigged and skinned chest functionality that allows for animations of the chest. Check it out here.

*Animations being done in Maya on the MCS Female Lite FBX included in the Unity project i.e. demonstrating that this is the MCS Unity rig working as we intend it to.

 

@Morph 3D
I don't understand what you want to say.
In DAZ the bones are right, and exported to Unity the bones are wrong, but that still is alright?

It would be very nice if you would take your customers seriously. Most of us are rather experienced people who know what they are talking about.

 

I have to agree with @hermie here. It definitely appears that something gets fudged in the Unity import. While that may still be ok if we are using all Morph3D solutions for everything, it would be tons better if we had a standard skeleton in the end. Most of us will be using animations and other tools which work with our non-Morph3D characters as well. If the Unity skeletons chest bones are backwards (no matter how they might be in DAZ3D), it basically makes the model broke as far as integrating into a system that has a mix of models.

Since these models are being made for Unity, I'm really hoping you guys can find a solution to this problem. After all, we are going to be using these in Unity and not DAZ. So the skeleton being perfect in DAZ isn't really an answer. Unless you guys are suggesting that we have to get all of our animations and tools to work with the models from Morph3D. If that is the case, this definitely isn't a solution I'll be working with.

That being said, is there possibly something that we may be doing wrong during the import that is causing this? Maybe some confusion with the way we are importing? Maybe some settings we need to be changing or something else that may not be covered in documentation? Would definitely love it if that were the case.

 

I'm not sure how much the chest bone weirdness affects anything beyond bone-derived breast animations. The rig itself is compatible with Mecanim out-of-the-box, so conceivably, other animations (e.g., from MrNecturus or Mixamo) should work here. Those animations don't have breast-jiggling that I can remember.

 

@Morph 3D, I feel like you should do a male version of that video (a la young Arnold Schwarzenegger-style) just to be fair.

 

Please, carefully read my previous response regarding our rig. The bones are not backwards or wrong. They are placed exactly as we intended them and they function perfectly.

Again, here is the link to a video showing the rig in action, functioning perfectly.

@Shawn67 or @hermie, please show us what you consider to be a bug or how you would prefer the rig to function, as we've already demonstrated that the rig appears and functions exactly as we intended it to.

Thanks.

 

Probably (at least hopefully) none at all. But I guess my point is, that is something that could be improved to make it more compatible with standard Unity. Breast animations isn't a level of detail I'm going for in my development, but if something happened that I decided to add it down the road it would kind of suck to have chosen a character system that wouldn't work with standard tools developed and available on the asset store because the bones are backwards. It just seems odd that these are backwards if all other Unity characters have them pointed forward. Just throwing out opinion. Would be nice to have standardization somewhere..

But again, not a huge issue for me at this point. Was just saying I can understand the complaint and offering opinion.

 

Understood. I don't know if there is much of a standard for individual chest/breast bones in Unity Mecanim rigs just yet, is there? I don't think UMA has them, and the rigged models from Mixamo I've exported didn't have them either. Are there other skeletal rigs compatible with Unity that have these bones in them? More importantly, are there animations that leverage those bones? I think the only boob-jiggling I've seen in Unity involved adding a cloth component to the mesh and allowing in-game physics to do its thing.

 

Not sure @chiapet1021.. And I probably don't know enough about models to be in this conversation. Just seemed weird to me when I saw the screen shots that the bones were pointing backward instead of forward. I know there were devs in the UMA channel that worked through the jiggling stuff a while back and assumed there were scripts out there to make it work, but you know what they say about assuming.. lol

@Morph 3D - Sorry for the post after your response. You must have responded while I was typing that last post out.

 

Just to preface - I have never liked DAZ content. There are very few models that come out of it that can't be recognized right away as being a DAZ model. They all just look - off - to me. My sole opinion only.
It may due to the fact I have seen nearly the same content steaming out of the DAZ community for over 15 years and it may also be due to the history of DAZ content and what it was largely originally used for - before it somehow graduated to be something more than a female posing tool.
So this solution probably won't be something I consider in the future, especially with the odd decision to require use of yet another custom content development suite which seems like a decision to limit the user base into using proprietary tools to create custom content for my own characters. Really? - not a very considerate end user friendly decision.
And the defensiveness or naivete (no disrespect) of some of the responses is really off putting. Maybe it's me, or a cultural divide or something that I just don't get - but if my customers note a flaw in a tool I create and I said

I think that would really confuse/upset some people, and drive away customers.
Really? Morphs to control physically accurate secondary animation and overlap? That would be terrible, and take time away from more important things like the character and other functional systems.
Fat controllers are best controlled by the physics engine. So if I have a fat guy and he has a bunch of fat controller bones, I want to have the physics engine control this fat jiggle (breast control). Ultimate control would allow me to have the physics control the secondary motion and also be able to hand key any corrections I want to make after the physics calculation.
That's why the breast bones are not in the correct spot.
Additionally I'm guessing some people will want to parent things to these backwards bones. Having them backwards will just cause difficulty for the developers including inaccurate rotations to objects parented to them. Might even have to do an offset for them because they are oriented wrong.
Why are the breast bones backward when all the other bones are located in correct locations? Really good question that a lot of prospective customers are looking for a legitimate answer to.
Saying the bones are right and it was created that way on purpose says to all the devs looking at this tool for possible future purchase that they are wrong.
And beyond the fact several of the developers commenting in this thread have a lot of experience setting up modular character systems - there is president to the fact the breast bones are backwards. Google Unity breast bone setup or boob jiggle and you will see - this is the only system that has backwards oriented bones for breast manipulation. Why?

I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory to any body working on this system or anybody else.
The answer to this and other issues have not been answered, and when 10 or more developers are interested in a tool and ask for a change, instead of saying they are wrong - why not address the issue?

 

This all looks very promising. But does this video imply that we'll be able to morph these creations in-game through some sort of API or was this created by bringing in several characters and you are tweening them with Unity code that was written specifically to do it?

 

One thing that kind of irks me about DAZ3D is that there are inconsistency with the quality/styles of the different models... Maybe because there are older ones, and newer ones... or it looked like different artists. Which is the same issue with Unity Asset stores, obviously there are tons of them, but the models people release have different styles that don't work too well together, so.... it makes putting art assets together very difficult without using assets from one person, changing it yourself, or disregard art altogether and hire an artist.

It's been a while since I've been on the DAZ3D site, but do they list artists so you can filter things out? Assuming that it is different artists doing their own stuff.

 

I am not sure if they have a list of all artists, but each asset has the artist listed. The artist name is a clickable link and will show all assets by that artist. You can also enter an artist's name in the search box.

 

I am having the wrong chest bones as well. Does Morph 3D not have control over it? Can they not simply fix it? Shouldn't it be simple for them?

 

Right or wrong, they have addressed this.


I am having other more serious issues, but I will wait until the next update to see if they are fixed first.

 

Hey guys,

I'm not an artist by any means, so maybe you can help me out here. I see everyone talking about these chest bones being wrong and messing things up, and the Morph guys saying they are done that way on purpose. So I went and messed with them myself and as far as I can tell they WORK fine, but I'm guessing they are done "wrong" from a more advanced rigging perspective?

To give a quick example (and show how bad I am at this stuff) I used the provided asset and made sure it had a mecanim mapped avatar (I had to do some remapping on some nodes but appeared to go fine). And then I just used (this is not a plug on purpose, I just use a ton of plugins because again, I'm not good at this stuff) the dynamic bone plugin off the app store and assigned it to the pectoral chest bones. After that, I had configurable and animated chest bones on my characters.

I'm honestly not trying to fuel any kind of right and wrong argument here, I would just like to know in what way they have been done incorrectly so that I can have a better understanding of this stuff, because right now my best guess is that they are "wrong" versus a standard rig arrangement and the 3DMorph guys are saying they are "different on purpose." Is that a proper understanding or am I just missing the boat here?

 

After playing with things this weekend I would expect that runtime manipulation of morphs is absolutely something they intend to have but I don't think we have an example of how to get at it in the API yet. If you're more code inclined I'm pretty sure you can just see the calls they use i the editor window and work on using them at runtime, but I'm hoping they get exposed through the component so I can use them easily with UGUI. That's my biggest interest too at this point, and if you download the Sci-Fi demo off the Morph3D page it will show an example of using it in a runtime character creator type setting (which is exactly the thing I want to do), so I'm sure this is something that's built in there somewhere if your code-fu is strong enough to figure it out.

 

You can modify the blend shapes directly with your own code now. Just access the active skinnedmeshrenderer and set the blendshape you want to change to a new value.

You must also set the same blendshape to on all the active skinnedmesh renderers for clothes, shoes etc.

 

Folks,

To set Blendshapes programmatically (at runtime) use the M3DCharacterManager public method SetBlendshapeValue(string displayname, float val). Using this call will drive the blendshapes on the figure as well as all of the attached assets (clothing and hair).

First, let us apologize for not being as far along on the documentation as we'd like to be. In general when making changes to an MCS figure you're better off using the public methods on the M3DCharacterManager (as opposed to working directly with substructures). Blendshapes are great example of this, you can get a full list of blendshapes from the character managers and you can set values directly. If blendshape values are set directly the clothing and the bones are unaware of the of the blendshape changes which will result in the figure looking and behaving unexpectedly.

@KingLord & @LennartJohansen, great exhange, thanks.

 

Hello,

Imported the asset. Reimported as described in the readme. Dragged MCSFemaleLite into the scene and I see that M3D Character Manager (Script) is mostly disabled. Nothing works and it looks different compared to the official screenshots. Did I missed the part where it was written that this asset is only for Unity Pro?

 

@KingLord I can confirm. There is problem with pectoral bones. That affects animation.
You can easily check: Screenshots from DAZ and screenshots from Unity. Pectoral bones point in the opposite direction.
If you make realistic animations you will notice the problem.
I will wait be4 I purchase. Hope they fix it soon.

Kudos is good but fixes are better

 

Your inspector is set to "debug". Right click on the word debug and click on "normal".

 

Hi, hope everyone's doing well.

 

Excellent product, really eager to start using it. I may have overlooked some information somewhere so if I have, I apologize.
However, I have some issues with the MCS Male Lite. Seems I'm not the only one, but I'll restate the issues here.
Everything worked flawlessly inside the editor, downloaded from store, reimported as is good form with any package.
Once I attempted to build a standalone test build, everything went haywire.

First, there is the issue of the HairShaderGUI not being in an editor folder, simple enough to fix, I can only assume it's not supposed to go into the builds and is for the editor only anyway, this was probably just an oversight (please add a build&run task to your release workflow before publishing updates).

Secondly, there is the issue of the ExpandAlongNormals file, I'm not sure if this is supposed to exist, or if it's a test file, but it's been included in the package at the root directory, and as mentioned this among a few other things are making a bit of a mess of the project assets. This on it's own doesn't cause a problem yet, but it should be tucked away in it's appropriate place (and is it editor only?).

Lastly, for the moment, the biggest issue that prevents building is that there is an issue with the referencing to UnityEditor.dll, specifically the following:

Code (CSharp):

1. ArgumentException: The Assembly UnityEditor is referenced by M3D_DLL ('Assets/Plugins/M3D_DLL.dll'). But the dll is not allowed to be included or could not be found.
2. UnityEditor.AssemblyHelper.AddReferencedAssembliesRecurse (System.String assemblyPath, System.Collections.Generic.List`1 alreadyFoundAssemblies, System.String[] allAssemblyPaths, System.String[] foldersToSearch, System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary`2 cache, BuildTarget target) (at C:/buildslave/unity/build/Editor/Mono/AssemblyHelper.cs:156)
3. UnityEditor.AssemblyHelper.FindAssembliesReferencedBy (System.String[] paths, System.String[] foldersToSearch, BuildTarget target) (at C:/buildslave/unity/build/Editor/Mono/AssemblyHelper.cs:194)
4. UnityEditor.BuildPlayerWindow:BuildPlayerAndRun()
5.  
6. Error building Player: Extracting referenced dlls failed.
7.  

Note that I have not used any external hotfix updates, and I am running the latest Unity, 5.2.0f3 Personal edition.
I have tried setting the .NET framework from ".NET 2.0 Subset" to ".NET 2.0" with no difference, the problem remains. I have not seen a solution to this problem, or even a comment on the issue suggesting potential resolutions, so I'd like to just get confirmation on whether this is a problem that will be fixed in the next update, or if this is something that I can resolve now?

As a final note I just want to put my money behind me like the rest and suggest that the tools for creating content be free and openly available to everyone. Yes I understand it takes time and money to produce these tools, but the core of the product is MCS, and as such that is what Morph3D needs to capitalize on, the system engine, not the tools to make the engine useful with content.
This should be especially true of those NOT tied to the Unity environment but have amazing artistic talent. It would behoove Morph3D greatly to remove all barriers between the content creation tools and the community capable of ensuring this product reaches it's full potential.
Based on reading the devs, it sounds like there will be upto 5 tiers of tools. Those that are opensource and free, those closed source and free, those open source and paid, those closed source and paid, and then application services on web systems? Really?
So at the bare minimum from what the devs have indicated, we're talking about 4 DIFFERENT tools to work with MCS? That sounds like a bad design and implementation decision. If the tools are not INSIDE Unity, then it should be a single standalone tool, not 4 different implementations and architectures forcing us to go to the web to do a part of the process, then go back to the tools etc. This is a horrible idea, coming from a developer you're going to alienate the content creators, and they'll just throw their hands up at the whole system which in turn forces the hands of developers away from MCS. Even if it runs smooth (which that level of cross-application integration NEVER does), you'll still have people incredibly annoyed that they have to run a whole suite of tools and consume all your ram just starting up for the day's work, let alone when those 200k high LOD meshes and a dozen content packs start loading up. Just one of many issues to look forward to if the tools go down this path.

If I am to commit to this within my project though, as a developer (like many others here) I need to be convinced that I won't end up setting up to use MCS only to find that I'm limited and need to remove MCS in favor of another option. I believe the developers are committed and have a decent roadmap and will eventually get to a point if they have the backing to do so, but to that end I don't think many people are going to do much more than dabble and report problems until MCS tools are out, stable, and people are comfortable taking the step into using MCS mainstream without the fear of Morph3D flopping and walking away half way through a game development cycle.

I look forward to giving you my $100 when the system has shown it'll survive and the tools are available. Realistically, don't expect a large influx of revenue from MCS until those tools are out, it's just not going to sit right with devs right now. This is where I'd usually tell the company they have a long way to go, but really this product is quite decent already. They just need to put the polish on it, make it stable, review their structure and organization, implement proper release build processes for thorough testing, and get those tools (even alpha versions) into the hands of the community so we can start providing feedback on the tools (this would also mitigate some of the groaning right now related to there not being ANY path to create content).

 

Thank you.

 

When can we expect the next version? Will it include an update on the rigging problems and bone placements?

 

Another small note, and this may just be me overlooking something again, but it seems like the lHandAttachmentPointL and rHandAttachmentPointR are showing boxes at game-mode runtime. The specific toggle affecting this is the "Show In Editor". It seems to apply the box mesh when in game mode as well. Even if you break the prefab, uncheck the show in editor option on the attachment points, the game still resets it to ticked as soon as you run the game. So the only way to not have them show, is in editor when you untick the option. Otherwise it always shows regardless of the option setting.

 

I've been out of the loop, but it seems we finally have men and women as well as a new suit. Just wish we had some fantasy stuff and a way to mix and match outfits. Also, it would be nice to remove outfits when they're not needed since they use up precious memory. Gonna play with this tonight, but looks good so far.

EDIT: Seems to be quite a few problems, so I'll wait until the next update before I import into my project. I JUST got everything ironed out and working fine, and I don't need more problems. Looks great, though.

 

Another problem. This may be specifically in relation to combining with another unity package. Specifically, when trying to import the Movement Animset Pro package provided for animations, the Morph3D custom importer is causing problems. Specifically, it is causing problems with the material importing.

Here is a sample of one of the 30 errors I receive during import:

Code (CSharp):

1.  
2. 'Assets/MovementAnimsetPro/Models/Maskman/Materials/model_goodhands3:Cialo.mat' is not a valid asset file name.
3. UnityEditor.AssetDatabase:CreateAsset(Object, String)
4. MaterialImporter:OnAssignMaterialModel(Material, Renderer) (at Assets/Scripts/Editor/MaterialImporter.cs:69)
5. UnityEditor.AssetPostprocessingInternal:ProcessMeshAssignMaterial(Renderer, Material)
6.  

First, upon checking the error it opens me up to this line of code:

Code (CSharp):

1.  
2. AssetDatabase.CreateAsset(material, materialPath);
3.  

Specifically, if you look at materialPath it is created by:

Code (CSharp):

1.  
2. //FOR NON MORPH3D ASSETS
3. var materialPath = path +"/Materials/"+ material.name + ".mat";
4.  

Please note that the actual asset path is correct, until it reaches the filename which should be model_goodhands3_Cialo, not model_goodhands3:Cialo (note the replacement of the last _ with a

I can find no relationship to where the name would be getting switched, and as far as I can tell it appears like it may be falling back on the default importer because the material files are imported into the project.

It seems like this problem does not happen when importing the standard unity asset package, but I also notice none of the materials include underscores in the names. Please see if you can fix this, as right now I'm going to have to remove Morph3D until a number of these problems are resolved, and continue prototyping with a different character mesh, which will mean I will no longer be working with Morph3D and reporting these issues.

Another issue, it seems when you import the morph3d character the bones don't rig right with automapping and you can't change the avatar without having to create a whole new one manually (I think). When trying to apply changes to the existing avatar, it undoes all the changes when applying finishes which maps some stuff based on the hierarchy under the "G2FSimplifiedEyes" object, which has a small skeleton with hip, abdomen, and abdomen2, etc, but it is not a complete skeleton. The result of this is that animations do work, but there is a lot of errors in the bones due to things not being connected up the same hierarchy. Some bones get taken from inside G2FSimplifiedEyes like abdomen2, while the rest that don't exist like lShldr end up coming from the other hierarchy that starts with "hip" at the same level as "G2FSimplifiedEyes". Broken bone mapping makes things more difficult than it needs to be, considering this is designed for unity it should be respectful and automap correctly. Another fail in the auto mapping, is that it puts in one of the eyes correctly, but maps the lower jaw to the other eye, and the upper jaw to the lower jaw, pretty silly so clearly the bones are not quite connected the way Unity expects (which is able to auto map the rigging for pretty much every other model I've tried without a problem, so clearly this is a factor of the hierarchy in MCS).

 

I am having this same issue. I really want to be able to use MCS, but things like this are holding me back. I hope we get some feedback from Morph3D about this soon.

 

I was able to get animations working. I needed a new Avatar as suggested by Astaelan1 as I could not make changes to the existing one. On the new avatar I could remap the bones. I hope this can be corrected in the next release

 

Are you sure you don't have gizmos turned on at runtime? They should go away if you turn off gizmos.