For best optimization with the "Set Master Pose Component" node, Is it better to create a simpler skeleton for accessories or just re-use the character skeleton?

[Zarrar2802]

I have a character:

I want to create accessories for my character:

A whole skeleton just for a mustache seems excessive, no?

Would it be better to create a duplicate of this skeleton with only the required bones? Pelvis to head? But if I want to use this, I’d be importing a separate skeleton into the project, instead of just being able to assign my character’s skeleton asset to it, correct?

Are the gains from not having useless bones worth having one more separate skeleton asset?

And how many separate skeletons can we practically have before this separate skeleton method is not worth it anymore?

[Zarrar2802]

bump?

[Staruwos2 (Staruwos)]

For rigid items like a mustache, glasses, a hat, or a shoulder pad, you shouldn’t even use a SkeletalMesh. The most performant and simplest method is to use a StaticMesh attached to a Socket.
Then, SkeletalMesh is the method you’d use for things that do need to bend with the character, like a shirt, pants, or a cape.

[Zarrar2802]

I understand that for static items, but mustaches are not static items in my project. They follow facial morphs during facial animation

What I wanted to know is, since I do have to use skeletons, which method would be more performant?

[Staruwos2 (Staruwos)]

What you can do is to have a SkeletalMesh for the mustache that shares the main character’s skeleton, but doesn’t copy the whole thing.

1. In your 3D App:

   • Rig (skin) your mustache mesh to a single bone: the head bone from your character’s skeleton.

   • Create your morph targets.

   • Export.

2. In Unreal Engine:

   • Import the mustache FBX. When the FBX Import Options appear:

   • Skeleton: Assign your main character’s existing USkeleton asset.

   • Import Morph Targets: Make sure this is checked.

You will now have a SK_Mustache asset that is compatible with your character’s skeleton and contains your morphs.

[Zarrar2802]

Yes, that’s the method I outlined in my original question, however,

I had made an incorrect assumption that assigning the character skeleton to an asset with a different (but compatible) skeleton would replace that skeleton and we’d still be stuck with the small asset having a full skeleton either way.

Apparently that is not the case: The asset retains its own skeletal hierarchy so no extra bones are added from the character skeleton, while still referencing the character skeleton.

So I guess the answer to my question is, it is more performant to create a simpler skeleton.