 So ladies and gentlemen, today it is my pleasure to announce that we have in fact found the solution I was hoping for. A solution that is faster and easier to use than the standard parent child trace a bone technique that I and so many others have been using for years. And it goes something like this. From pose mode, click the bone that's supposed to follow the target. Tab the edit mode, press alt P and clear parent. Tab the pose mode, click bone constraints, add constraint, pick child of, click target, set it to the target armature. Click bone and click the target bone. Set inverse, you're done. That's it. Now the bone will behave as if it's parented to the hand, even though it technically isn't. And we still get to adjust it manually if need be. A huge thank you to the following people who took time out of the day to help solve the problem and email different solutions. So yee. Gizali. Haddis. Jordan. Rohedog. Myberg. Mr. High. Conlar. Martin Hofmehr. Jonah. Gabriel Piva. From Malditima Studios in Argentina. Glenn from Ammonite Studios. And Lightbulb from Lightbulb Workshop. All of you are the heroes that we didn't deserve, but the ones we desperately needed. And along with the solutions, I've also received some amazing emails explaining how Blender Offset really works. And after reading them, I have a much better understanding of how it works. I think the confusion was because location offset in Blender is different from general offset in other programs. If what I've been told is correct. What Blender is really doing when you check this box is adding the world position of the constraint host and the target together. And then using that number as an offset. This is very different from enabling a general location offset. To help explain what I mean, I'll use Unity to demonstrate an example of location offset. Which is how I traditionally understand it. Now I'm pretty sure it works the same way in Unreal, but let me know in the comments if it's not. A location offset is usually just an extra 3D value that you add to a target location. If we program this sphere to copy the cube's world location, you'll see that no matter where we move the cube, the sphere is always in the exact same location. Now if you wanted to add an offset location, you would do it like this. Pretty much the exact same code, but this time you would add a 3D offset. Let's just say 5x. Now you can see that the sphere is still copying the cube's location, but is also going 5 units to the right. Now notice how we the user decided the value of the offset. This is very important because the point of an offset is to be able to adjust a position from another position. An offset is useless if you can't control it or if it's not centered on the target location. In most software that I've used, they distinguish between enabling an offset and applying the sum of two locations. But this checkbox forces you to do both at the same time. Now there are times when you want to enable an offset without applying the sum of the two locations. That is why it's confusing for people who are only looking to use one function without the other. I think the easiest solution would be to simply separate the two functions. Instead of one checkbox that does both, have one called Apply Locational Sum and another called Enable Adjustable Offset. It would be a much more accurate description of the functions and be less confusing for people who are unfamiliar with how offset works. People who are happy with offset as it is could just check both boxes and people who just need an adjustable copy location could easily activate that function by itself. Anyway, that would be my recommendation for clearing up the confusion. This was a fantastic challenge and I learned so much from it. I know that I tend to be a bit critical about Blanda as a software, but that's because Blanda is my home and I want to see it become the best software it possibly can. Sometimes I'll misunderstand pieces of it, but that's when you guys can point me in the right direction and I really appreciate it when you do, so thanks for the help. And in the end, I think it's totally worth it because I mean, look at the solution we found. It's such a Blanda solution and it's even better than what many professional rigs use. Parent, child, tracer bones are the standard workaround, but just because something is standard now doesn't mean it has to be standard forever. I intend to keep pushing the boundaries of Blanda in hopes of seeing its evolution help more people bring their dreams to life. I'll do my best to make this software and this community a better place for everyone in the future. But in the meanwhile, as always, I hope you all have a fantastic day and I'll see you again.