To work from images doesn't allow for good answers.
Going by what I see, it is a relatively high polygon count, which is not ideal for this task.
My initial question would be, if the points are not altered, how was it moved in this shape? Based on joints, then I would suggest employing the weight map and the joints to move it back. I assume you have thought about that, but I have no information about what you did.
Dragging the new mesh into a Pose Morph that is connected to the initial Object should work, kind of, as the points are "moved" in a straight line or around one single axis. If that works at all, I can't tell based on the images. I suggest placing and aligning the Pose Morph axis where the Toe joint was.
Without any project file, I can't tell more. (If you share it, please as DropBox, Adobe, Apple, Google, or Wetransfer Cloud services. I do not open shortened URLs or unknown services. Thank you.)
Got it; thank you for taking the time, MaverickMongoose.
Going by both images, the shadow is the object shadow, not a show on the floor. This would have led to a shorter reply above.
Nice to have it discussed in the forum from many angles; it is hopefully of use to someone.
As our skills grow, the need to check for updates stays the same. In around two weeks, I reach seventeen years of answering in Cineversity and 19 years to Cinema 4D users. Yet, I refuse to answer questions from memory.
It just doesn't work that way; as everything changes, we must have an eye on new options. With that, each question is a request to combine anything old and new to stay in the present time.
Some answers from just a few years ago might work, but there is always a chance that something is easier or at least faster now. I'm certainly happy to explore each question newly, as the only trap we can have as creatives is to fall into a routine. New updates will prevent that. So I welcome any change. From gamma over log to linear-light to ACES, it is improving fast
The point I made above is that you need to have the same settings. Taking overshoots out was not meant as a rule.
In the initial example, the Key settings were different for the second Joint than the first. That might work sometimes, but more often, it doesn't.
The first Joint does something that the second joint need to do while countering the movement of the first, as it is a child of the first. Any slight derivation from the settings will lead to different results.
When I select your first example, Keyframe 75 from Joint and Joint.1, the fields show Mixed or [ - ] in many areas. There should only be one Mixed, and that is the Key value. These two values should be like "positive two" and the other "negative one", in ratio to each other.
CAD files often have quite a bag of problems if visualization is needed. They are all created with different targets. Based on their core modeling technique, most of the higher-end CAD systems run mathematically based. From that data, polygon-based models are retrieved. Here the settings are the key to getting either bad or better models.
What I am trying to say, there is a wide variety of CAD systems and an even wider variety of polygon results. This makes it so hard to say anything in general.
My typical advice is to get in contact with the person who creates the CAD data in the first place and try to make him/her understand what you need. As mentioned, what is done in CAD doesn't mean targeting visualization in the first place. So, don't fix what could be created from the start in a better way. For a CAD operator, that is often the same work either way. I'm sure everyone likes to get a thank you instead of perhaps a cool OK. So, I stick with the idea that the workflow has room for improvement when I get a question like yours.
I was an office principal/manager/lead designer in the early '90s, and my first project was to connect my teams of architects with our CAD department. That was quite new back then. It took a while; I trained the CAD people a little bit in Architecture, and the architects went with me to Nemetschek and enjoyed some CAD training. Building bridges. After that, the CAD room was overbooked, and everyone was happy. Since then, I have seen many times that things have options to get better. Try it.
Yes, my roots with Nemetschek (Allplan, ArchiCAD, and Vectorworks) are deep, and I love them. It was fun to see Maxon joining this great company. In short, I believe there is always something possible.
There are methods to improve, but again, I can't say anything in general. I need to see the model. Sometimes it is as easy as using the Untriangulate option or combining tools. This is kind of experience based. Take a copy and mess around with it. Of course, ask, but please with an example.
I'm happy to look into it. After a while, you will see what is possible. As everything has quality, it needs some time to develop.
Yes, no magic button, fordmar, but for flat objects, that is sometimes an option inside the Cloner.
Not that I use it often, as I love UV data, which means stable and manually adjustable
You mentioned the Pose Morph Tag; as this one produces the information for the Cloner, it needs to be above the Cloner in the Object Manager—processing order/Priorities, etc.