I know, I'm obsessed. Who'da thunk it?
This is a rather specific request, and based on certain assumptions about how the jiggling boobs work. If I've mentally reverse-engineered it correctly, the boob jiggling is a simple physics model, based on (per boob) a solid rod[1], pivoted at one end on the "ribcage", with a mass at the other end, and a couple of spring-like entities[2] anchored to the mass and other parts of the ribcage.
The whole assembly then just jiggles based on the accelerations generated by the animation (is there gravity in there too?) and drags the "boob" part of the model around.
Based on my extensive observations (
) the mass and the stiffness of the springs appear to be constant - and thus large boobs don't seem heavy enough, and small ones do really strange things. I'm not sure whether the length of the rod is constant or not.
Assuming I got all that right (and I'm fully expecting "nope, that's not how it works" as a possible answer) would it be possible to base the values in the physics model on the body proportions?
As a first stab, I'd suggest something like mass based on X*Y*Z; rod length based on Y, and the stiffness of the springs based on Y*Z. (where X/Y/Z are the boob size values from the XML).
If I got my maths right, that should lead fairly inevitably to: small boobs don't jiggle much, big boobs bounce around a lot more, which seems right.
To really push the boat out, how about making the clothing "BoobHolder" value be floating point, and factor it into the spring stiffness such that 0=cotton vest, 1=solid steel corset and values in between provide variable support.
Does that make sense, or am I on drugs?
[1] stop giggling at the back.
[2] I have no clue what terminology is used in computer physics libraries - my sole experience of this stuff is high school/college level maths/physics classes (which were a while ago in my case) - so apologies if I'm not making total sense.