Rodney

Try selecting next to a Control Point and then use the comma key to select the rest of the spline (although selecting the whole spline is not required for lathing). Then Lathe. That should work.

You aren't too far off the mark. If you were to draw a straight line from cheek to chin you'd be pretty close.

Hang in there Gene. May God bless and keep you in his care and give you all the strength and patience you require.

Nicely done Robert! You've given me a few ideas with that approach.

If the primitive wizard doesn't meet your requirements you can always roll your own spirals via the Duplicator Wizard (using the extrude setting rather than the copy setting of course). Here is a rough video (t is a variation on Robert Holmen's classic sea shell tutorial: Note that if you don't want any height in the spiral you simply leave the Y axis setting alone. In the video I create the spirals with height and then (in at least one instance) use Scale on the Y axis to decrease it. I use a simple spline line to create the spiral but other shapes work well too. Note that the real trick to success here is to have at least two spline objects on opposing sides of the Y axis. This way when the Duplicator wizard goes to work it will use the center between them as the point to revolve around. Disclaimer: You may want to download and view this in a video player that you can zoom in with because everything on screen is VERY tiny. creating_spirals_with_the_duplicator_wizard.mp4

While it might be good for a bug report (if you can consistently replicate the problem) it is possible Steffen could get the report and not be able to reproduce it if the problem is locally on your system (i.e. an out of date driver or somesuch). In a case like this it is appropriate to start a topic and explain the issue you are having and see if anyone can validate the problem. Once validated... it'll make a great report. My first thought is to examine the files in question but since I've been simulating the same project with the same images you are using... it doesn't seem to be related to the image itself. There has been reported a problem with OpenGL3 or... um... not sure. Set A:M to use OpenGL is what my memory recalls. At any rate, post a new topic and outline the issue. I'm confident that you'll be good to go in no time. There are a couple other things you can check. For instance, do you have the same problem with A:M in 32bit? Have you installed v18a? If not is that an option? I ask this because I don't know where you might be in your current production cycle. An upgrade in the middle of production is not something I would generally recommend to anyone unless it fixes a major problem or adds a new feature you cannot live without.

A few of those plugins work great for multiplying and scaling too: Edit: I should have made note that in some instances it may be adequate to just use the Duplicator plugin in the Modeling window but when using Newton Dynamics we often need the individual objects to have their own Bone. That's where plugins such as 'Brick' come into play because they duplicate the model with it's bone structure intact. Prior to that, one of the old methods was to reimport a model into the same model over and over and over and over... until you got the number you wanted. This often wasn't as bad as it seemed if you saved your model each time and reimported exponentially. But it is a lot easier to just click a word, set a number or two and... done.

No. Especially if it was Steffen. Steffen built *several* plugins just for the purpose of duplicating models. One is called 'bricks' but can be used to create other collections of objects. That plugins primary reason for existence of course was to make brick walls. If you Right Click you'll see several of the plugins/wizards depending on what window you are in. Simple Scatter is one. Multiple Models is yet another. Yes, Newton Physics creates all the movement and keyframes. When in doubt the keyframes can be forced (where none are) via Baking of Actions with a tolerance of 0 or 1. Other tolerances will set keyframes at appropriate intervals (i.e. a setting of 4 would produce a keyframe every four frames) If you haven't explored Steffen's other Newtonian projects they are well worth investigating: http://www.hash.com/NewtonPhysics/samples.html

I don't think you are doing anything wrong. Please note that I am simply deconstructing the files *as they are*. From what I can tell the two files are set up in tutorial fashion with the first just setting the stage for what will be added and then simulated. The second file is the 'desired' result. I won't be able to dig deeper until later tonight or tomorrow.

Believe.

Modeling Anna or a similar character is something I've been wanting to do myself if nothing else for the challenge it presents but unfortunately I've over committed myself to other projects (and school) these days. If you get her started and post your progress others (including me) will join in. You can do it! Take a page from Disney and believe in your ability to achieve it. The magic of animation... okay, spline modeling... will do the rest.

Well, if you aren't now you soon will be. There's nothing like diving in and creating your own things. That's the purpose of my doodling with splines here, to test out thoughts and theories. Just pace yourself so you don't burn out or get overwhelmed. Keep it fun and before long you'll be able to model anything. I don't know how long you've been modeling with A:M but you very clearly have the talent for it.

I continue to learn something new every day! That is going to be very useful. Rusty, There you have it. Thanks Mack!

I'm really liking what I'm seeing here. HitFilm Express is very accessible... somewhat unlike After Effects which has assumed more of a Blender-like interface these days. There is no doubt that After Effects is more powerful and versatile but what is power if you cannot readily access it? I hope the folks at HitFilm will be justifiably rewarded for the move to get the word out about their application. I'd certainly never heard of it.

Yes, this is why you can have multiple setups (screen layouts) but when you open a new instance of A:M it will default back to the last layout when A:M was closed. (A:M assumes you went to all that trouble to setup your screen that way so it saves it that way) As I mentioned a workaround for this would be to keep an instance open with an alternate layout (in fact it's sole purpose for being open could be as a 'Please revert back to this layout-saver'. But when you close out that instance the layout of any other instance of A:M still open (and then closed) after that will be maintained.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. If we move things around in A:M and save... then close either the Project, A:M or both... when we open the project again in A:M it should be in that same screen configuration again. I don't think this is anything new however. As far as I know that's been standard operating procedure. Note: I've heard it reported that Workbook mode is not available for the Mac and have just accepted that as fact as I've no way to test it. Edit: I think I see what you mean. Windows that are not part of the Workbook (those you mention such as Pose Sliders, etc.) aren't saved because they aren't part of the Workbook or Project in the first place. In that regard nothing has changed. As far as I can see, the way to get a Pose relationship window to stick is to create it and leave it open in the Workbook. This works similarly with Actions and Chor windows. I have a vague recollection that you do something a little different in your workflow when it comes to saving. Because of that workflow your workbook settings may not stick. The views of the interface are separate from that of assets in that the interface views are maintained in one session whereas the assets window positions are saved in a Project. I suppose a workaround might be to open more than one instance of A:M as each will maintain the interface windows their own custom locations.

Installed and operational. Um... there are a lots of things that us bottom feeders can use in this Express Edition of HitFilm. At a quick glance, some things that folks often desire: Easy conversion to/from WMV to other video formats (folks have problems with that conversion) Tracking (Folks want to track things) Compositing and Effects (Folks should be compositing things) etc. I'm liking what I see thus far. What are you waiting for.... go get it! Disclaimer: If the world goes sour because I am now Twittering on Twitter this is all Mark's fault. Note: Upon initial launch I didn't get the menu that allowed activation but after a quick relaunch the menu was there.

I'm digging deeper into the project file and have currently locked A:M up in the process so I'll take a break there. Note that after simulation there are some things we can remove from the project. For instance we should be able to remove the Forces without changing any of the animation because every frame of every leaf's every move is keyframed.

I switched to the side view for this one... Note the difference in Fall off of the Forces. It's an interesting view of the forces themselves (that white stuff) which can be very handy in shaping forces. When moving back to a front view we see pretty much the same results.

There are further differences in the Chor Setup of the Forces position, fall off, etc. Here's a comparison between the two:

While there are several differences in the two Forces themselves I'd say the primary difference is the Magnitude which is 5% on Force 1 and the opposite (-5%) on Force 2: So, is it safe to assume that Force 1 might be pushing the leaves along/outward while Force 2 is pulling/drawing the leaves inward? Hmmm... thus far it looks like that could be what they are doing.

The only initial difference *in the Sine wave* of the two forces is the Octave. In the first Force the Octave is set to 5 while the second Force's Octave is set to 1. Of course there are other differences in the two Forces themselves.

I don't think I'd want to animate each of those leaves manually! Here's a look at the simulated results on one leaf (in the timeline): We might expect to see each leaf's path is different as it is drawn/directed via the two forces. Edit: And of course they are. Added a view of a second randomly selected leaf's timeline.

The primary motivators of the action appear to be: - Sine Wave setting of each Force - An expression that controls the Magnitude of the Force (Note that it is Random and in the negative which I assume draws the leaves toward it rather than repel them) Specifically it is: Magnitude=Rand()*-10

Yes, a very nice effect! I've never played with that project file so I'm glad you've brought it to the top of the forum again. As for deconstructing/reconstructing... we'll have to look further into it.