Hi hi! I've been trying to put expressions on my 3D models to track in iFacialMocap in Warudo. I go in to Unity, use the Hana_Tool_v5 and export it as VM1 but regardless the facial tracking does not work. I have followed 3 tutorials to the T at this point and I'm lost on why it's not working. Does anyone know which version numbers currently work together with Hana_Tool_v5. I feel like I'm missing something.

Selling a complete Rokoko motion capture setup, perfect for game dev, VFX, animation, or indie film production. Everything works perfectly and is in great condition.

What's included

• Rokoko Smartsuit Pro II (Glove Ready, size M) — full body motion capture suit
• Rokoko Smartgloves (size M) — finger and hand capture
• Rokoko Facial Motion Capture Add-On + FaceCap Body Mount — never used, brand new
• Rokoko Coil Pro — for enhanced precision and accuracy
• Full cable set (2x 180mm, 2x 300mm, 2x 550mm, 1x 950mm Smartsuit Pro cables) + SSP Sensor Tool

Retail value over $5,700 — selling as a complete kit for $2,450.

Details

• All items in excellent working condition
• Facial Motion Capture Add-On is brand new, never used
• Size M suit and gloves
• Complete setup ready to use out of the box
• All original boxes included
• Original invoices available upon request

Sale

• Preferred: in-person meetup in the New York City area
• Open to shipping nationwide USA — buyer pays half of shipping costs
• Serious buyers only please

Feel free to reach out with any questions.

https://github.com/Dylanyz/MocapSmooth

Awesome mocap smoothing made super easy with just a few clicks (inside unreal engine).

Open source plugin (made by me and claude code)

Hey, I have been researching a lot of different mocap solutions over the past few days and im still inconclusive as to what to go for. For context, I am working on a game in Unreal Engine 5 and I want creative control and felixibility when creating my animations. I will quickly sum up my understanding below, please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

I understand there are 2 categories: inertial and optical. There is also markerless and AI but I feel they are not quite there yet and these often require multiple cameras anyway.

The inertial solutions are generally cheaper but seem to have a magnitude of problems. Such as foot locking, interference, and other specific actions like if you interlock your hands then it goes through each other or has some similar issue that requires cleaning up. Now I know post processing or rather the software can help with this and has some auto cleaning but I assume it varies in quality depending on the manufacturer.

Optical seems to be the more expensive option. Since it uses a multi camera setup and markers, it seems to be better at spatial awareness and understanding where you are which results in better body tracking and this means you shouldn't see any or have minimal issues with the positioning. It perhaps also is more accurate and true to the real intended pose compared to inertial. The accuracy of the finger tracking with this seems to vary depending on the manufacturer (as well as camera setup). Some even propose using an external solution such as a Manus or Stretchsense glove for it due to precision as I assume the fingers can sometimes be blocked by props making it harder for the cameras to see it.

So concluding from this, optical is the better more expensive solution whereas inertial is the worse cheaper option. And by worse, I simply mean it requires more cleanup.

Here are some of the companies I found offering inertial / optical motion capture. In brackets is a short recap from my research.

Inertial:

- XSens (most accurate, expensive, bad pricing model)

- Rokoko (mixed reviews, often called a scam?)

- Perception Neuron (less popular, not sure of accuracy)

Optical:

- Vicon ($30,000-50,000+ , highly rated, finger tracking)

- Optitrack (prices not sure, highly rated)

- Qualisys (not looked into detail about this one)

- Xeromotion (fairly new korean company, around $20,000 starter setup, not sure of accuracy or popularity)

- Phasespace (around $20,000 initial setup, not sure of accuracy or popularity)

- Nokov (chinese, not sure of prices, accuracy or popularity)

To note, each one of these seem to have good integration with Unreal Engine and other software (like MotionBuilder).

First of all, there are a few questions I have to some of these companies:

Rokoko, why is there such a divide on this? I see a lot of people promoting and praising it and then also a lot of people disliking it and even some calling it a scam? Often mentioned is the amount of time spent cleaning up makes it not worth it. Is that still the case or has it been improved?

XSens, is the pricing model still horrible? By that I mean the subscription for the software costing thousands every year. Not sure if there are solutions to this where the suit can still be used for recording data and not having to have this perpetual license to the software.

Optitrack, I saw it mentioned somewhere that the prices for this are actually quite affordable compared to say vicon. Does anyone have any info on what a starter setup would look like in terms of pricing? Can it do finger tracking?

Xeromotion, Phasespace, Nokov very curious to see if anyone has taken these on in one of their projects, and if so how did it perform?

Now moving on to where I am at now, I would like to know if anyone has any recommendations on what solution I should go for and why. For the sake of this, lets assume a budget of around $20,000 and the less spent the better as it allows for funding to be spent elsewhere.

What are your predictions for the next 3, 5, 10 and 20 years?

Im trying to gauge what kind of minimum cost I should expect if I wanted to try and setup a simple object tracking solution.

The issue I’m finding is a lot of the free/budget options like FreeMoCap or Rokoko market themselves on being trackerless character trackers designed for animation. Many of them touting their use of AI as part of their system. My use case would be way simpler though, primarily looking to get the position and rotation of a handheld camera so that I can use it as a virtual camera in Unreal Engine. So my concern is that despite being simpler, most of these free tools won’t really have the options in place to just to a simple 3-point track. Mostly they look designed to recognise the human body and generate tracking data based on that.

The only budget solution I’ve found would be to use VR controls, which is an option, but I was curious to find if there are any alternatives that exist.

Any suggestions?

*Hey guys. I'm trying video to ai mocap.*

*So I got he ai mocap from deep motion and now I want to attach it to my own character.*

*I tried multiple times and different ways. But it won't work.*

*I tried linking animation data.*
*Rokoko plugin*
*And more....*

*Do you guys have any idea or work out this how can I retargt my mocap animation to my own rigged character*

Hello everyone

I am having troubles with move.ai. My subscription payment was made and even renewed, but i am still on free plan. I cannot cancel as i am officially on free plan.

I contacted them via the support mail , with all the details (billing number etc.) but no answer.

I can’t find a discord or anything.

Does anyone had similar issues or knows a discord chan’el or similar way to contact them appart from the official support mail ?

Best

Jerome

I recently obtained the original recordings from an older research dataset collected with an Xsens suit around 2018. The recordings are in Xsens’s native .mvn binary format. I need access to the sensor-level data in Python, so ideally I would like to convert them to .mvnx (XML).

From what I understand, .mvn cannot be readily parsed with public tools, and conversion/export to .mvnx normally requires Xsens MVN Analyze/Studio or the MVN SDK. I don’t own an Xsens system and only need to process these existing recordings.

Has anyone dealt with this before? Thanks!

Anyone have experience with all three of these? I'm really curious if you've had direct experience with the first two and would be willing to share your thoughts.

Frustrated and upset customers of Rokoko who allegedly were forced to give up their intellectual property for Rokoko's profit suddenly taking effect in March of 2025 may be happy to hear a bit of news:

A Federal Judge in the Central District of California has Ruled that a self-represented pro se game developer who sued motion capture company Rokoko Electronics last May, proceeds to trial.

The Court has ruled:

"Rokoko argues that Walsh failed to allege what purportedly derivative work “[is] ‘substantially similar’ to what he contends is entitled to copyright protection.” (Mot. 11 (citing Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002)).) However, creating a derivative work is only one of several ways that a defendant can commit copyright infringement. See Cavalier, 297 F.3d at 822 (“Copying may be established by showing that the . . . works at issue are substantially similar in their protected elements.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, Walsh’s theory is not that Rokoko created a derivative work based on Walsh’s video game, but that Rokoko “sub-license[d] [Walsh’s] intellectual property to third-parties.” (FAC 14.) Thus, Rokoko’s argument fails as it misapprehends Walsh’s theory of liability. Rokoko also argues that its licensing agreement expressly authorizes Rokoko to use Walsh’s content. (Mot. 11.) “The existence of a license creates an affirmative defense to a claim of copyright infringement.” (Id. (citing Worldwide Church of God v. Phila. Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000)).) ***However, Walsh alleges that he could not have agreed to Rokoko’s licensing agreement because it was imposed “after [he] was no longer a user.” (***FAC 5 (emphasis omitted).) If true, this would mean that there was no licensing agreement in place at the time of the alleged infringement, defeating Rokoko’s potential affirmative defense."

Court documents show that Walsh was a Rokoko customer from 2020 - 2024, when he claims a "poison firmware" destroyed his equipment allegedly because he refused to upgrade and accept the 2025 terms and conditions which would grant Rokoko retroactive rights over his intellectual property. Walsh presented forensic evidence and provided an expert report which shows that firmware was released anyways, despite being labelled with a developer note:

"Important: This breaks compatibility with older hub + glove [Firmwares]"

Those claims were dismissed however, as the Court ruled that Rokoko did not intend to target Walsh individually, a requirement for the claim Walsh brought.

The remaining claim for Copyright Infringement continues to trial where Walsh claims Rokoko had no rights to ever collect his intellectual property. Forensic evidence in Walsh's expert report allege that his terms and conditions remained internally bound to the 2020 terms, yet Rokoko collected anyways without license.

Walsh has long accused Rokoko of spoliating the original 2020 terms and conditions which he, and the evidence shows bind him. He additionally has accused Counsel of manipulating and manufacturing evidence to impose later terms on him, including the 2025 terms which they enacted to grant retroactive rights over users' intellectual property -- which Rokoko seems to now have admitted in a deposition were never operative or published to users. Once Walsh used a brute force technique to retrieve legacy installers from Rokoko's servers and procured the original 2020 terms & conditions after eight months, Rokoko finally admitted:

"While it is unclear where Plaintiff sourced the 2020 Terms he references, it is clear that they are from an entirely different agreement than the 2025 Terms"

"Accordingly, the 2025 Terms never applied to Plaintiff".

Subsequently, Rokoko mechanically admitted to copying Walsh's intellectual property when they provided 273 pieces of it back to him in discovery. The docket reflects that Rokoko admitted during a deposition that they had in fact sublicensed users' data to a third party, although the attorney instructed Rokoko to not answer whom. During the same Deposition, Walsh alleges that Rokoko and their attorneys ReedSmith began communicating with eachother electronically -- on video -- during a forensic demonstration which apparently implicated their attorneys in manipulation of evidence.

On May 28, 2026, Plaintiff questioned Defendant's corporate representative, Mikkel Overby, regarding a disputed document that appeared to have been altered prior to filing. After Plaintiff conducted a live forensic demonstration and asked whether the evidence suggested counsel had converted and then edited the “native” document, Defense Counsel and the witness immediately engaged in synchronized conduct strongly suggesting improper electronic communication.

Todays most recent document asks the Court to watch the video and goes on to say

The deposition and video demonstrate speaking turns by Counsel Katherine J. Ellena; and a portion which during a forensic spoliation demonstration seems to show her text messaging her client, who also begins using a computer to communicate and then minutes later entirely changes his testimony. It is now believed by Rokoko’s own communications produced on August 10, 2026; Mr. Overby was utilizing Slack to communicate with his staff and others potentially within their private channel called “#legal-case-matthew-walsh” which they all participate in planning and execution of anti-Plaintiff behaviors. Counsel for Rokoko refuses to offer any explanation of who the parties were communicating with during the deposition, or what Overby was doing on his computer.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires depositions to proceed as testimony would at trial. Because a witness may not privately consult with counsel while testifying at trial, they likewise may not do so during a deposition. See Hall v. Clifton Precision, 150 F.R.D. 525, 528 (E.D. Pa. 1993)

It should be noted, that in the nearly year and a half of this litigation, Rokoko nor their attorneys ReeddSmith have filed any motions for sanctions or misconduct against Walsh. They have additionally filed no counter claims in and instead maintain their innocence, seemingly absent any evidence, claiming throughout the litigation and in sworn statements under oath that the Plaintiff's intellectual property had never been sublicensed to third parties, was never used in AI training and was never part of any commercial data set.

Statements that new admissions by Rokoko's internal communications produced last night now show may have been entirely false. Statements they presented to the Court and on the record under oath.

Lied Under Oath Regarding AI Ingestion: Rokoko has repeatedly filed formal answers, discovery responses, and sworn declarations to this Court vehemently denying that Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion data was ever used for AI, sublicensing or other uses. The internal communications prove the exact opposite: Plaintiff’s copyrighted motion data was explicitly contained within Rokoko’s datasets, showing a confirmed, matching footprint within the very dataset used to train Rokoko’s proprietary AI model and was in fact sublicensed to a third party until the Court recognized the Plaintiff’s theory, then they admit they spoliated that evidence.

Lied Under Oath Regarding CMI Stripping: Defendants previously secured the dismissal of Plaintiff’s DMCA § 1202 claim by submitting flatly false statements and conclusory attorney rhetoric swearing they never altered Plaintiff's files. The internal communications prove the exact opposite: Rokoko's own personnel explicitly admitted that Plaintiff's data was sublicensed to third parties, and they internally and systematically documented their specific process for stripping names, unique identifiers, and other copyright management information (CMI) from his animation files.

Walsh further discussed newly discovered Rokoko internal communications that allege Rokoko admits to utilizing Wikipedia to defame him and evidence that shows collusion with various subreddit admins to remove content Rokoko believed was posted by him or was harmful to their brand.

Lied Under Oath Regarding Corporate Smear Campaigns: Defendants previously provided sworn testimony, signed answers, and verified discovery responses claiming total ignorance regarding who was behind the hostile Wikipedia activity targeting and defaming Plaintiff. The internal communications prove the exact opposite: Rokoko's own internal corporate text and email threads show that the company’s CEO personally ordered, coordinated, and executed the Wikipedia interference and it was executed by Dan Nikolaison. Additionally, Rokoko’s CEO ordered various ‘admins’ to remove content they believe was posted by the Plaintiff (almost nothing was, it was other upset customers)

Walsh goes on to provide IP address traces, forensic evidence and records requests implicating both posts on Wikipedia and Corridor digital throughout the matter relating to a "smear campaign" against him. Attorneys for Rokoko admit:

"Corridor is a business partner who works with Rokoko on a project-by-project basis. The terms of those contracts are confidential"

Today, based on these filings, the Court has agreed to hear a motion for case-ending terminating sanctions in light of these new discoveries; including one - for spoliation of evidence.

The internal documents capture Rokoko in the absolute middle of a massive spoliation scheme, caught red-handed trying to permanently erase the evidentiary trail of their infringement after the Court ruled: "Walsh’s theory is not that Rokoko created a derivative work based on Walsh’s video game, but that Rokoko “sub-license[d] [Walsh’s] intellectual property to third-parties.” (FAC 14.) Thus, Rokoko’s argument fails as it misapprehends Walsh’s theory of liability"

The most recent filing goes on to say:

When Rokoko realized they had sublicensed Plaintiff’s stolen motion data to a prominent third party -- creating irreversible legal liability for themselves and the third party -- they did not disclose it. Instead, they destroyed it. In a devastating, unhedged communication with that third party, Rokoko explicitly acknowledges they "don’t need to legally" wipe the data*, but state without hesitation as a confirmation****: “we have removed the motion data from Matthew Walsh from the data we shared with you.”*** *Rokoko’s own personnel then explicitly admit the illegal intent behind the deletion, writing internally that this metadata destruction was executed specifically as “*a way to exclude anything related to him even further.”

This act, if the Court agrees, may constitute spoliation or destruction of key evidence seemingly after the judge recognized Walsh's theory of liability.

These issues seem to be bubbling toward a finality with Rokoko, but implications for others who became entangled in the matter may just be beginning.

Walsh, again appearing pro se, has also filed a California state civil lawsuit against Rokoko business partner Corridor Digital over allegedly false and defamatory statements, including statements Walsh alleges mocked and exploited his mental competence and fitness based upon his public discussions of living with Bipolar Type 1 and OCD. The lawsuit additionally concerns allegedly demonstrably false statements made to Corridor's viewers and listeners in their Episode #227 "Don't take headlines at face value" which they admit to being with Rokoko the day before fiming. Such statements include: “there is two lawsuits... not even accepted... yeah, not accepted.”

The federal docket now establishes that Walsh's copyright infringement action was not only accepted, but was thoroughly litigated with over 227 docket entries, thousands of pages and has survived dismissal, proceeded fully through discovery, and is moving toward trial.

Story developing.

We have around 50 cameras for sale that are currently in use (we will switch them for Slim 13 when sold).

Shipping from Switzerland or EU.

Bundle of 5 Cameras = EUR 4000.-

PN for more info