How make stl files poseable with Blender

[philipy]

I recently discovered how to import stl's from the net ( or wherever) and alter them to be poseable in Blender. Since there was a some interest in how to do it, I've put together these notes, which will hopefully explain everything. If something doesn't work properly, please let me know.

This screenshot shows the original figure on the right and a 'posed' standing version on the left.

Screenshot 2024-03-14 09.32.59.png (318.95 KiB) Viewed 280 times

PDF download link:

Bonify a Figure in Blender v3.pdf

(420.35 KiB) Downloaded 7 times

[SimonWood]

Thanks Philip these look like great instructions, when I have a moment I will definitely work through, it'll be so useful if I can learn how to do this!

[-steves-]

Again, same from me, thank you. They look very complete and I will find the time to have a good read through and try and ammend the figure I have in mind.

[philipy]

Thanks guys - good luck!

Actually I've just noticed a small omission which may be obvious anyway, but just in case it isn't, please note that the first bone that you create is the collar bone and it needs to be extruded from its origin at the back of the neck, to the top of the shoulder. After that, the instruction to extrude the second bone down to the elbow is correct.
There were also a few typo's so I've updated my pdf to V2 and you might want to download again if you've got the first one.

FWIW, I've just printed my first figure and it has printed exactly as I had posed it, which is something of a relief.

I just wish I could find out how to scale things to precise dims inside Blender so that it comes out at the right size and I don't have to muck about trying to guess how much reduction is needed in the slicer.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

Thanks for writing this up, very useful. I think watching the YT video will help people understand the general idea.

One issue is your paragraph;
"Now we have to add an “Armature”, with a single bone. So Click the “ADD” button ( to the left of
the OBJECT button we just used), and then scroll down to “Armature” and select “Single bone”."

This implies a sub menu with 'single bone', but the armature option doesn't have any sub menus. Just adding an amature does seems to work. This seems the same on both veresions 2.9 and 4.

I did manage to work through and change a figure (it also works with .obj files too), so finally something constructive out of Blender here.

I greatly admire people that have the patience to learn Blender. I've found it to be the most unintuitive, obtuse and overly complicated bit of software I've ever tried in any field.

[philipy]

Hi Paul,
I'm not sure why you don't see the "single bone" option. This is what I have, which is also what the video shows.

Screenshot 2024-03-15 20.08.53.png (192.95 KiB) Viewed 221 times

Glad it is usefu,l either way.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

As I said, I don't see that sub menu (both in 2.9.2 & 4.0.2) on the default installation.

arm.jpg (37.81 KiB) Viewed 211 times

[drewzero1]

As I said, I don't see that sub menu (both in 2.9.2 & 4.0.2) on the default installation.

At first I didn't have it either, but I did some searching and it seems the submenu is added by enabling an add-on called 'Rigging:Rigify'. See here: https://blender.stackexchange.com/quest ... ns-missing
Tl,dr: Edit > Preferences > Add-ons, search for 'rigify' and check the box.

I ended up just clicking 'Armature' and it seems to have started adding a bone that way, though it was so small I didn't see it right away. (Luckily the guide mentioned that possibility, saving me some confused flailing )

I'll have to do more playing around with it when I have more time to make a full skeleton and a model that needs it... I tried with just one arm and it made my figure flop around hilariously at the waist! The complexity of Blender tends to put me off, and I've had several failed attempts to do anything in it, though I did use it to illustrate the instructions for Thornas somehow. Thanks for the guide, Philip! It was enough handholding to get me through the process and much easier to follow than a video.

[philipy]

At first I didn't have it either, but I did some searching and it seems the submenu is added by enabling an add-on called 'Rigging:Rigify'. See here: https://blender.stackexchange.com/quest ... ns-missing
Tl,dr: Edit > Preferences > Add-ons, search for 'rigify' and check the box.

Sorry all, now that Drew has mentioned it, I've remembered that I did have that problem initially myself. Like Drew, I went googling and found the Rigify suggestion, which worked and I then forgot all about it, since once its there its there.
I'll do a v3 update.
Edited to say it's now updated - see link in original post this thread.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

it seems the submenu is added by enabling an add-on called 'Rigging:Rigify'.

Thanks I thought it would be something like that. I did see "Rigging:Rigify" somewhere on the GUI in the YT video, but it means nothing unless you know what it means. There's no clue in the name.

The complexity of Blender tends to put me off, and I've had several failed attempts to do anything in it,

Agreed, I'm used to powerful software with lots of options; Da Vinci Resolve, Fusion 360, Photoshop, DAWs and lots of advanced colour management packages, but Blender takes the prize for most unintuitive complexity.
A fine example beyond the required add-on here is the use of the grab command; press the g key and move the mouse. Outside of computer games I can't recall any program controlling a function via the mouse without needing a mouse button pressed at the same time.

It's always the price you pay with open source software, no overall consistency or planned development.

Thanks again to Phil for explaining this functionality in an understandable way.

[philipy]

A fine example beyond the required add-on here is the use of the grab command; press the g key and move the mouse. Outside of computer games I can't recall any program controlling a function via the mouse without needing a mouse button pressed at the same time.

It's always the price you pay with open source software, no overall consistency or planned development.

Plus, I think, Blender is more aligned with the game producers and cartoon type creations and what we want it for is much more to do with 'real' 3d models.

Mind you, I find Fusion 360 ( and anything else that comes from the Autocad stable) at least as impenetrable as Blender - I know others don't agree with me.

[Paul_in_Ricky]

Blender is more aligned with the game producers and cartoon type creations and what we want it for is much more to do with 'real' 3d models.
Mind you, I find Fusion 360 ( and anything else that comes from the Autocad stable) at least as impenetrable as Blender

It's art vs science or organic vs inorganic
Fusion (and other true CAD packages) create defined accurate definitions of objects. Blender creates impressions of subjects.
Yes, either can be bent to do things they weren't intended for.

That's why Blender is better tool for dealing with figures and CAD is best for defining static objects.

[FWLR]

All beyond me this...

Great thread and 's though..