Okay I'm nearing completion on the entire Frank assembly for VP, but I've run into a bit of dilemma. Frank looks fine in the desktop test table that shoop put together, I took the time to rotate the test table and it made me realize that in the FS version Frank will appear much more top view'ish. Previous FS version that just made use of ramp images, this wasn't an issue but with a real model it wants to show it more from the top view, I personally don't like it looking this way all that much, I'd like to see him leaned back a bit.
There's a few things I can do to compensate for this but I'm not sure which is the best option to make things more convenient all round.
-Instead of stacking the mesh's in an order so that when imported they all sit on top of each other, like the head sits on top of the body which sits inside the jacket etc all at a VP Z height of 0, I export each item so that it's pivot point center will allow a rotation in VP to be leaned back. This pertains specifically to the head since if you tilt the head back without the pivot in the right height position it will throw off his looking left and right rotation (X axis). The downside of this is that it would be a pain to adjust all the Z heights of the objects to get them in the right position as well as a separate script would probably need to be made to compensate for the new positioning coordinates for the animation.
-The alternative would be to just make another export of the models, which are all tilted back for FS, this would mean you wouldn't have to mess with the Z height to get everything lined up, however it would probably still mean the script would need to be adjusted for animating the head in this new position....I'm not sure since I don't do much for coding. The other draw back of this is that a separate set of mesh/objs would need to be exported, though that's not the end of the world really. I think with this method there's a chance the scripting might not need to be changed between desktop and FS versions though I'm not entirely sure.
I'm sort of leaning towards the second method because I think it would probably be easier for who ever is scripting it to work with