Rodney

I hope everyone is keeping this contest on their radar. The deadline is coming up fast!

I'm not sure how you've got everything set up there but you may want to change the Rotation driver to Euler as that will allow you to rotate the ball in increments of 360. You can access the drivers by Right Clicking on any of the Rotation Properties and selecting Change Driver to Euler. Much will depend on what you want to accomplish with the rig.

It's always great when the fix is in. Now you've got me wondering why the transparence doesn't work without multipass... It's likely a known problem already but you should report it to A:M Reports so that it's on the record.

hehe. Very nice!

In a quick test I didn't see any real difference between PNG and TGA files applied as Cookie Cut Decals. While there are a lot of variables not fully accounted for (Mac/PC being a major one) this seems to point to the process of creating the images/transparency in the first place. More testing on my end... Added: Another variable that I don't know at this point: When you say 'Flats' are you talking about a single four point patch (in filmmaking often referred to as 'Cards') that have decaled Cookie Cut images? The reason I ask is that I want to rule out internal patches. If the decals are applied to a single patch then that rules out internal patches. At a glance I'm guessing you might have applied the decals to Grids? That might explain the triangle shapes in the areas of transparency.

Remember that you have to actually remove the underlying image/background or else it won't be transparent. Quite often folks will remove part of a Layer in Photoshop but not realize that there is a Background (or another Layer) underneath that isn't transparent. One of the first things I do in Corel Photopaint is convert the Background to a Layer because the Background cannot be manipulated in the exact same way as a Layer. With no Background beneath all the various Layers I am then guaranteed to have transparency in the erased areas. Of course this will be true for other image formats as well and so it is possible that even after doing all of the above you can have Photoshop recreating an opaque background in the process of saving the image. When saving the program wants to flatten/combine the layers so when saving to TGA in Corel Photopaint I get a dialogue box that pops up giving me two options; Normal and Enhanced. It is my understanding that if I choose Normal the image will be saved as RGB (without transparency) and if I select Enhanced it will be saved as RGBA (with transparency). I'm sure Photoshop works much the same way because PNG, Targa and similar files must all be flattened into one Layer with RGB (and optionally Alpha) channels. When in doubt you can post the image here and we'll remove the area in question for you. I would be interested in seeing the PNG image to see if there is anything partially opaque in the Alpha Channel. But... my experience is that PNG images do not hold their transparency well in animation. (Some of this seems to be due to program to program incompatiblities due to the way they deal with the Alpha Channel) I believe this to be especially true with programs that aren't specifically designed for creating images for use with RGBA animation. Older versions of Photoshop will definitely fit into this category. Added: I'm not sure it will matter but... in your screenshot above I see you've got "Contribute to Shadow Color" set to "On". I can't help but wonder if that might have some effect on what is seen in the Alpha Channel. The good news... it's a variable that can be easily ruled out.

Hey, I remember that one!

Simon, I will assume you are using PNG images here as they often don't stand up as well as other image formats (especially with regard to transparency). It will help to know a few things about the image that is causing the problem: - What format is it? - What program was it created in? - How was the transparent area of that image created? Without knowing the answers to these question I will offer the following: Try using a image format like Targa (.TGA) as it will tend to hold up better with animated transparency in A:M.

Lloyd, The email address you gave "hash_animator@outlook.com" responded back "failed permanently".

Yes, indeed. Nice explanation and examples. The primary place I use negative lights is in a shot that is lit well but needs an angle or approach to the subject to be slightly darker.

I know a few in the A:M Community will be interested in this webinar as the price is certainly right for jumping into animating with music. Obviously some translation of software specific instruction will have to be negotiated but Jason's instruction always try to be applicable across the board. http://www.jasonryananimation.com/webinars...r-series-4.html From the site's description: The price? If you are already an iAnimate student this and previous webinars are accessible for free as they are included as part of the iAnimate tuition.

Easier to create than explain. If you haven't used negative lights though... well worth looking into.

Sebastian, I'm not sure what Rusty's goal is here but I like the direction you are headed. I'd love to see your current effort done with Lights (instead of mesh spheres). Specifically, with 2 negative lights and 1 positive. A backdrop/patch would likely have to be placed behind the lights to properly see the effect. Rationale: The lights themselves can exert an influence upon each other that plain-jane spheres cannot.

Where A:M can work really well in this is where you've already got the visual in mind and you then recreate it in A:M. Using one of the other programs suggested to get that visual locked down would be ideal because once known (and shared) it'll be easier to see how to simulate the same look and feel in A:M. As you are working backward from a theory this should be fairly straightforward to show manually in A:M. You simply animate the objects to correspond with the movement of the theory. As David has suggested, analyzing (or verifying) that theory is likely outside the scope of A:M. To say much more about the approach, we'd have to know more concerning the theory. Without knowing more I'd say you could set up spheres of influence (as has been suggested... models set with transparency of 100%) and use Newton Dynamics, Cloth simulation and any number of other features found in A:M. A:M is a theory-agnostic animation program. It will automatically validate anything you create.

Nice!

Nice one Dan! Very educational. I feel like I actually know something about Sonic now thanks to Epic Gamin'.

Check your Group on the glasses to see if you've got Render as Lines on. If you do... and you want it that way... lower the thickness setting of the line. It may also be that it is a Toon Line setting which you can also decrease the thickness of in the Model Render Options or Render Panel settings.

He'll read his email on vacation?

Tell her this is a great place to explore ideas. As for personally helping her on her project... I'm here to help in whatever capacity I can, although... disclaimer... I must admit I tend to only commit to a project to the extent the originator of the idea is willing commit. In short, I'd love to hear more about 'Delta 7'.

The world has changed a lot since I first started moving toward 'cartooning'. Where I grew up there was interest in such things but only from the perspective of a consumer. Children really got into that drawing thing but set it aside as they advanced toward more mature pursuits. Even among those who had a vested interest (comic book collectors, writers, etc.) few were motivated to actually produce the work. Contrast that to now and at the local level much still remains much the same. I ask folks who seem interested in such things if there is anyone locally interested in create comics/cartoons/animation and I get the typical blank stare in return... as if to say, "you mean ACTUALLY produce a product?". I suppose that the difference is that the internet at times makes it seem as if everyone you know (and don't know) is producing artwork in some form or fashion. As has been mentioned before here in the forum, this is both good and bad in that (Good) there is a lot of creativity flowing (Bad) it's hard to get your work noticed... much less have someone be willing to pay for it. I'm hoping to take advantage of some educational opportunities in the near future but I confess that when I look at the options I'm a bit less than enthusiastic. Going to school does have the advantage of assigning tasks and deadlines that require you to produce... something... anything... and that ability to finish a project... to be productive... may be what is most lacking amongst the 'unschooled'.

I'm liking the new website Mark. The suggestion I have would be to try to decrease the unused space around the edges (the blue area mostly). Perhaps that extra space is necessary for mobile viewing? Diminishing the extra space around the edges also allow the comic strip panels to be slightly larger.

Not to be outdone by the Tinkering Gnome, Fuchur has decided to have one of those birthdays of his own too! Happy Birthday Gerald!

Impressive. I love the side to side motion of that last one.

This will be making the rounds... Don't Go to Art School: Why Traditional Art Schools are Failing Us by Noah Bradley. He outlines the issues and provides some resources to help address the problem. Here's a brief snippet of Noah's recommendations: His main point is that the debt incurred in attending a traditional art school is not worth the cost (a concept most will readily agree with). Agree or disagree (like most folks his solutions align fairly close with his proximity to those solutions), Noah has many interesting and thought provoking things to say and considerations to contemplate on his blog. Like this article entitled, "Start often, finish well"

I just noticed your free asphalt material. Very nice! This is two years late but... Thanks!