It's hard to suggest solutions without understanding why you need to separate your skeleton and animations. If you could expand on that more, it might help.

Most timelines don't store references to objects in the skeleton. The only timeline that does is EventTimeline, the rest store only an index in the skeleton's bones array, slots array, path constraint array, etc. This means if you loaded a skeleton with no animations and another skeleton that is identical (really identical, that is important) except it has animations, you should be able to use the animations with the first skeleton. EventTimeline stores Event objects for each key, which each have a reference to an EventData in the SkeletonData. This means events triggered by an EventTimeline will be passed an Event with an EventData reference to the second skeleton.

FWIW, I would not bother with this until it was proven loading binary data is too slow. JSON is definitely the wrong choice when performance is a concern.

Nate yazdı

It's hard to suggest solutions without understanding why you need to separate your skeleton and animations. If you could expand on that more, it might help.

I'm interested in a similar case. In my case I'd like to download additional animations over the air which are not included in the app.

Nate yazdı

Most timelines don't store references to objects in the skeleton. The only timeline that does is EventTimeline, the rest store only an index in the skeleton's bones array, slots array, path constraint array, etc. This means if you loaded a skeleton with no animations and another skeleton that is identical (really identical, that is important) except it has animations, you should be able to use the animations with the first skeleton. EventTimeline stores Event objects for each key, which each have a reference to an EventData in the SkeletonData. This means events triggered by an EventTimeline will be passed an Event with an EventData reference to the second skeleton.

Is there a standard way to save/load animations without duplicating the skeleton data?

Thanks!

There is not, sorry. You have two hurdles:

1) Separating the animation data from the rest of the data. JSON processing is easy, so getting only the animation data is straightforward. For binary you'd likely write a tool based on SkeletonBinary, read and discard bytes until the animation section is reached, then read and copy out the bytes for the animations.

2) Loading only the animations, using an existing SkeletonData. You could modify SkeletonJson or SkeletonBinary for this. There is already a readAnimation function, it is just not exposed.

You'll have to take special care not to modify the skeleton, else loading the animations will fail spectacularly. Sending the whole skeleton would have to be significantly larger than sending only the additional animations, else this would not be worth the trouble. That is the case in most scenarios, since bandwidth is plentiful and skeleton data is small. Be sure to send your skeleton data as binary with compression (deflate is generally good enough).

Nate yazdı

There is not, sorry. You have two hurdles:

1) Separating the animation data from the rest of the data. JSON processing is easy, so getting only the animation data is straightforward. For binary you'd likely write a tool based on http://esotericsoftware.com/spine-api-reference#SkeletonBinary, read and discard bytes until the animation section is reached, then read and copy out the bytes for the animations.

2) Loading only the animations, using an existing http://esotericsoftware.com/spine-api-reference#SkeletonData. You could modify http://esotericsoftware.com/spine-api-reference#SkeletonJson or http://esotericsoftware.com/spine-api-reference#SkeletonBinary for this. There is already a readAnimation function, it is just not exposed.

I see. That would work. Thanks!

Nate yazdı

You'll have to take special care not to modify the skeleton, else loading the animations will fail spectacularly.

Understood.

Nate yazdı

Sending the whole skeleton would have to be significantly larger than sending only the additional animations, else this would not be worth the trouble. That is the case in most scenarios, since bandwidth is plentiful and skeleton data is small. Be sure to send your skeleton data as binary with compression (deflate is generally good enough).

In the scenario I am evaluating, it seems that the skeleton is 100 times larger than most animations. The data needs to be downloaded on mobile devices which puts bandwidth at a premium.

To be sure, are you looking at Spine binary data that has been deflate compressed?

Nate yazdı

To be sure, are you looking at Spine binary data that has been deflate compressed?

I'm not sure what you mean? Compressing the skel.bytes file reduces it by 30%.

The way I measured the animation size was to export once without animations (no_anims.skel.bytes) and once with animations (with_anims.skel.bytes). Then I compared the exported sizes and concluded a 100:1 ratio between the skeleton and animations.

I just wanted to make sure you had compared compressed .skel files. Comparing uncompressed .skel files may not show the same ratio. Also, 100x a small amount could still be a small amount. :nerd: Consider downloading an image could be a few hundred kilobytes and it's unlikely people would be looking for ways to reduce it. A megabyte or two is unlikely to be an issue, even on mobile. All that said, it could be you do have a huge amount of data and really would benefit from splitting the skeleton and animation. I just have to be skeptical by default because in most cases it's not needed.

Your guidance has been much appreciated!

In my specific scenario, I'm looking at supporting 1000s of animations, not all of which are needed at the same time or even by the same user. The binary skeleton file is over 15mb and the animations are under 100k, hence it seemed that splitting them would be beneficial. I'd also like to understand why the skeleton is so large in the first place, but I'm assuming for the moment that it needs to be that way.

By digging in to the suggested SkeletonBinary loading code, I should be able to build a custom workflow that will load, split and save out the animations and also ensure that the skeletons always match.

That is quite a big skeleton! It should be pretty apparent where the size goes just by scrolling through the JSON data. My guess would be that you have many weighted mesh attachments and each has many vertices. You can try using prune. Filter the tree to only show meshes, select all meshes, open the Weights view (alt+W), and click Prune. You'll then need to check that all your meshes still deform as you like. It will take some trial and error to come up with the largest prune percentage you can use without losing deform quality.