Rodney

Thanks for that Nancy. I see several that I haven't viewed yet.

In Greg's case he probably went directly to the source and requested the models for his demo'ing purposes. I expect it was easy for the creators to grant access for the intended purpose. There are other resources from Avalanche that made their way into public over the years. Lots of vehicles... and one of the most notable 'characters' being the Dragon from the cover of Jeff Paries Animation:Master book.

A couple (as in a few) of the background assets made their way into public. I recall seeing a Ram, and a Chicken and have seen those pop up in a few productions (Spleengene's music videos being prime location for spotting those). Those assets should be on the Extra DVD. If the Tak character was ever distro'd there would be very restrictive limitations to usage. It was likely shared with a few people who were told not to distribute those resources further. This is the case with many characters used in comericial works where they are shared for study or promotion purposes but not for general release to the public. Sometimes riggers run into these models when they assist with rigging chores or to study and promote new ideas in rigging. I recall cases like this with Dennis the Dog and Petey and Jaydee which have versions in circulation but generally are not cleared for public use. In the case of Dennis the Dog there is a stripped down version that is released as an aid for rigging.

Believe it or not, folks are working on it/them. Greg's demo could easily be broken down and used as an example for future 'community demos'. The basic breakdown: - Show a couple hundred images to illustrate what has been created with A:M. - Short demo of basic process in modeling, texturing and animation. - More extensive look into the process of creating a project. - Wrap up and Credits A variation on this in the past has been to start off with short animated sequences at the beginning of the video and then exit the intro by presenting lots of still imagery in rapid succession. Other videos then move on to demonstrate how those things get created in A:M. This may be what the forum's Virtual Studio will focus on as it can look back at previous demonstrations and presentations and examine what works well with them even as it endeavors to move forward by illustrating what is currently being created with A:M. The Community Projects then showcase how collaborate works come together as well. An interesting thing is going on here in that when many of the classic demos were created we didn't have the bandwidth that we enjoy now so some folks could not take advantage of those demos. I recall that I had to forgo watching them because it was just too difficult to download them on a dial up modem. While file size and streaming rates should be carefully considered we don't have that bandwidth problem these days.

Interesting. We could pop popcorn with that.

In a best case scenario with a closed object cutting a closed object the boolean will leave an exact surface to close that shape. So, yes it will fill the void. Better yet, if the cutting shape's bone is a child of the main object's bone (this is called a specified boolean) then the surface left will take on the color of the cutting shape. So the bitten piece could have a different color and texture than the main object, thus revealing a different inside to the shape. Edit: I like that new rendering! Attached is a quick example that shows the basic idea of using boolean cutters: PoorMansChocolate.mdl

I forgot to mention the very first thing that occurred to me so I'll add that. It strikes me that the candy bar in the package is a bit too perfectly placed (horizontal/full front). If it were rotated ever so slightly not only might we get a view of the depth of it but it would also 'physically' support the unpackaged chocolate that is resting upon it. My thought is to rotate it clockwise about 2 to 5 degrees... with 5 probably being too much. This would also help with that triangulation I was talking about as the perspective would then be oriented more toward the viewer/audience. Added: The bite out of the chocolate I presume you've just whited out. It would look much better if modeled. Using a Boolean cutter you could quickly bite that piece out. The added angle/rotation then would show the thickness of the chocolate.

I do like the ideas presented thus far... milk and coffee... chocolate... I'm getting that taste of chocolate just thinking about it. The idea of milk is a powerful one that pushes taste. To my way of thinking coffee might push that even more into the realm of taste and smell. Compositionally, it'd be nice to have at least a third object in the image. (As suggested that could be more candybars) That would be something to further suggest a foreground, middle ground and background. (and that would be supplied if there was a glass of milk or cup of coffee) I'm tempted to suggest doing one of those HDRI renderings with the blurry background. That might take more time to perfect that than you have. The suggestions concerning the wrapping are spot on. The packaging could use a little more work (the text seems to be moving off the edge at the bottom) Regardless... I like! You've made me hungry for chocolate which is saying something because I don't care to eat chocolate often. Anything that you can do to heighten the sense of storytelling will be good. You've got just a hint of that with the bite taken out of the chocolate. A partial glass of milk or steaming hot coffee would point again toward the person who took a bite out of that chocolate. What this suggests is that the person who took a bite out of the chocolate is very likely the person who is viewing the artwork. Added: What (I think) I am suggesting is to work some form of triangulation into the image. You might get some of that simply by changing the layout from portrait to landscape and finding a way to suggest that the background is receding as suggested by the reflection of the candy bar.

Thanks David! Aside: I was all excited because I thought I found an typographical error in your documentation. It turns out your documentation is right. I was just overlooking the "-" in front of the second "100". Keep on Keeping on!

When using older files the first thing I hope you are doing is before trying to manipulate or render the file in the newer version is save the file again. For old files I usually save with an appended version number so I know that it's been updated. (Example: Character.mdl would be saved as Character_v17.mdl) Why do this? Because A:M has to interpret what that old file's instructions are in light of current processing instructions. By saving a new file A:M 'corrects' the interpretation so that it is in the proper format. This is especially true given that the file format changed circa v11 to a more XML friendly format. If working with files across this file format gap you are forcing A:M to do a lot of work it doesn't need to do. Crashes are usually an indicator of attempting to perform some function too soon. I suspect in this case that would be trying to perform some action on a Model or Project while A:M is still working through this file format interpretation. So... long story short: Import your old Model or Project and immediately Save it to the current version. Do not overwrite your old files because you want to keep them too. For problematic files it is almost always better to Import rather than to Open. Why? Because via import, A:M knows it needs to interpret information that may not be completely compatible. When using Open the basic assumption is that the file being opened is completely compatible (i.e. it is designed/formatted for use with the current version). Added: I've been recently importing old files all the way back to v8.5 into v17 with no issues.

That looks to be a pretty straightforward shot and you've got the essential elements there. My initial thought is to say that it needs some element to emphasize the purpose of the shot but... it's hard to judge that without seeing the bookend shots that follow after and proceed. I assume the next shot will be a close up of the view screen as the ship enters warp? If you are wanting to emphasis or accent Darren just a little you might have him leaning forward a little more and then as he is looking up at the end he is also settling back into his chair a little. This is the concept in animation of Opposing Directions where one part moves in one direction while another moves in the opposing direction. It's also a form of Clarity in that it helps communicate. It also maximizes the usage of screen space (both laterally and in depth). Here is something to try... Think of yourself as the audience and consider where you want your attention to be. I will assume that you want the focus to shift from the hands of these characters to the screen at the very end of this shot. One way to do this would be to limit the movement of everything that is not important and to accentuate the movement in the area where you want the audience to look. Everything else in the shot should be pushing your attention to the most important place on screen while allowing time for the audience's attention to move there. If you were to place a red dot at the location of interest what motion helps to move that red dot back and forth... perhaps up through Darren as he finishes his task and settles back into his chair and then looks up (and slightly forward and over?) to the screen. This ripple effect of motion is the primary place you want to draw the attention of the audience to. In most frontal shots the audience will naturally key in on character's faces... and of the face the eyes command even more attention. In this case the audiences attention might be grabbed by flashing lights and the movement of the hands *if* something else in the scene isn't pulling attention somewhere else. This is why I mention the bookend shots before and after this one. If the shot proceeding this one is of a hand pushing a few buttons then this shot is an extension of that. So a question related to this might be: What has motivated the cut from the last shot to this one? If it is to allow Darren a moment to shine then you'll want to add some more emphasis in his movement while decreasing the acitivity of Ricky. Perhaps Ricky slides his hand forward subtly whereas Darren's hand is rapidly moving up and down... pushing buttons that light up... grabbing our attention. This isn't to say that there shouldn't be other things going on in the scene... there certainly should be... but they all should support the primary action, which I assume is to show that Darren has done his job and to help transition us to the next scene. Other than focus... animation-wise... I like what I am seeing here. You could proceed with what you have now and you'd effectively communicate the idea. I would say move on and get those other scenes going so this one can be seen in light of the whole sequence, then return to this one in order to drive that focus forward (progression) and clarify the character animation by accenting and exaggerating the primary action of the scene. This is a really short shot so there isn't a ton of time to spotlight anything. I'd say you've got three or perhaps four beats worth of time here. This then is the breakdown I might emphasize: 1. Ricky moves (his activity and all other activity drives the eye toward the lower left of the screen) - Anticipation 2. Darren does his thing (he begins to settle back into his chair just prior to his head raising toward the screen) - Overlapping Action 3. As Darren's head raises all other movement in the shot recedes - Clarity (This task is finished) 4. All attention moves to the warp screen - Motivation (On to the next scene) Depending on the bookend pieces you might be able to use a subtle camera movement (In and then Up) to emphasize these beats. You might even be able to combine the previous shot with this one which if starting at a close up of the hands and panning up would deemphasize the animated warp screen and allow it to progress into the scene. Another thing you might do is place Darren just a little more in view in shot and move Ricky to the right a bit more (or perhaps we see a bit more of his shoulder). Right now, the symmetry of the shot places most of the attention right smack dab in between... which is only good if what we seen there directs attention to Darren quickly. Just a little asymmetry favoring Darren would help to guide the flow toward Darren on the left of the screen. Perhaps at the beginning of the shot Ricky could move a little from off screen right toward Darren? Just a subtle movement in that direction... don't make it noticeable... it's just a directive thing... I don't think you are trying to get too artsy with this shot so I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it now. Especially as you've already sold the main idea. Looking good Chris... looking very good!

I'm liking that John. I don't know if it's what Rusty is looking for but it's sure to be useful to someone.

There are a lot of different ways you could proceed. Perhaps if you could post an image from Google or some other source that will narrow down the possibilities. My gut feel is that you are going to want to fake this (as opposed to model it all as if it were a real object). The two easiest ways I can think of (to fake): 1. Create one image (a master model) that creates the look you are after. Render that and bring it back into A:M and apply it to a model and then adjust the Repeat setting to 22x22. If you have 22 planes (easily duplicated) then you'd have a 22x22x22 cube. 2. Create a model with one Light in it and experiment with the light settings and especially Lens Flare until you get the look you want. Drag/Drop that Model into a Chor and use the Multiple Models pluging to create a 22x22 grid of lights. (Consider how best to turn this 'grid' into a cube... as memory for a 22x22x22 cube of models with be considerable) 3. A combination of methods 1 and 2 together. I believe you mentioned reflection. In order to get the reflection you can consider several methods and the final desired look will dictate the approach. At the $200 budget I would suggest flipping image you want as a reflection and composite it appropriately.

It's a bit dated but still very cool: http://amfilms.hash.com/video/148/Animatio...emoGreg-Rostami Price says $299 but you might tell those folks that they can get the same thing for $79 as a subscription.

Are you familiar with Right Clicking on the Decal and editing in the UV Editor? There are some new capabilities in v17 that let you separate the UV patches*, rearrange, rotate, scale etc. *This doesn't effect the real patches of the model... just their representative UVs in the UV Editor. Whoops. My response wasn't concerning OBJs. Please disregard.

Happy Birthday to Mark, Jess and Al! TacoBallZ(34), jesshmusic(40), Tralfaz/Chopper Al (57) These links (click on their names) are just samples of their work... they've shared a lot over their many years. Hope you have a great birthday! I know Al has been under the weather for some time now and would appreciate an email but he's set his email as private. If anyone has his email please launch a happy birthday greeting and share our warm wishes with him. Thanks!

Nice one John!

There is always good reason to consider and then to reconsider or reference a source. My last post can be used to illustrate this as in transcribing the text I perceive that an unintended error and omission was made. Case in point: The two main paragraphs in the previous text are titled: and Note the ellipses form a container for the thoughts under consideration. What the author is footstomping then is this relationship between the planning of the story as how it is dictated by the terms (or phrases) of the action. This follows in the pattern of animation itself, where the animator places bookends at the extremes of a sequence in order to better consider what will be framed and presented. As we cannot include everything we must focus on what is important...the acts and actions of the movement. This is essential if we wish the audiences attention to ever reach our intended focal point. To properly tell the story we must think in terms of action. For in that activity we will find ourselves considering sources... the motivated hands of seen and unseen forces.

Welcome back Heiner! The following will run a bit off topic... those that want to respond to the part of this discussion regarding forum rules should start a new topic so as not to derail this topic. I'm posting this here because Heiner asked and Fuchur requested my view. I've been waiting a long time to hear words like that. This is a great way to work. Clients take note! Heiner said: Fuchur said: Let me address this because even folks that should know better get it wrong. Other software certainly can be mentioned but it's the context in which it is mentioned that can have it coming into conflict with forum rules. It is not now nor has it ever been forbidden to mention other software. (I perceive doubters but I speak the truth) The problem is that where it comes to other software we have a dearth of people that use common sense when it comes to using A:M with other programs. They often pursue the path of incompatibility over compatibility. (Which is even farther removed from the general rule) We get people who look at a feature somewhere else and decide A:M needs that exact same feature too (immediately too!). (Sometimes not realizing that A:M can already produce a similar result... I perceive the root error here is wishing A:M were a different program) We'll get people who will promote other programs and run comparisons (It's a human tendency to compare and contrast everything... so that's why there has to be a rule). There is a world wide web available to promote anything desirable. (The A:M Forum is one that focuses on those who prefer to use A:M) The forum rules are common sense and quite simple. Discussions of competing products are not to be pursued. So how do we explain the number of mentions of other programs throughout the forum? Why is it that sometimes the name can be used and sometimes it leads to a topic being removed? I submit to you that those who wrote those posts that remain applied common sense. Note that this is very often not the fault of the originator of the topic. There is a point were a discussion can be salvaged (usually by removing a personal attack and the responses to that attack) but on occasion the entire topic is unsalvageable. In these cases if you are the original author don't despair, simply consider where the topic went wrong, reword (add disclaimers or topic parameters if you must) and then repost. Then the discussion can move on. As Fuchur states (correctly), the forum rules haven't changed. An attempt is made to save discussions where someone sees an opportunity to vent a frustration, push an personal agenda or consciously break the 'no competing program discussions' rule. Fuchur states (incorrectly) that other software is not to be mentioned. It can be mentioned and has been mentioned since I first logged into the forum back in 2003. How is this possible? How can we mention too? A possible recipe: Consider the context and approach. (Is the post adversarial? Is it accusatory? Is it factual? Is it well thought out and presented? Will it educate and enlighten?) Use common sense. (If you feel the compelling urge to type, "This post will probably be deleted" at the beginning of a post... that's your subconsciousness hinting that you should redraft your post) Don't run advertisements for other programs here in the A:M Forum. (There are too many other venues for that) Concentrate on what is working for you. (compatibility rather than what hasn't yet been perfected) Edit: I have to insert this or run the risk of being misunderstood. An announcement doesn't have to be an advertisement. Simply focus more on the announcing and less on the advert. Also, there are some folks that have forum areas that specifically allow them to advertise their projects and programs. If you want to advertise your program consider a Special Topic or 3rd Party forum. Those areas are ideal for self promotion purposes and with everyone working together should see improvement in the future. Don't look at something neat somewhere else and demand the exact same thing from A:M immediately and certainly don't take hostages as you do "If X is not implemented now I will leave and never return" can only be met with one response... yours. (Work with others to realize the ideas full potential) Bridge gaps wherever possible. (Blessed are the peacemakers, etc. etc.) Bottom Line: A:M works very well with other programs. It is presumed that all programs will work even better together in the future as technologies emerge and converge. But back to the topic at hand... Welcome back Heiner! Looking forward to hearing more about your projects.

The following text is excerpted from the book 'How to Cartoon for amateur films' by John Halas and Bob Privett. It is a classic of animation production and well worth studying. For explanations of animated action, timing and movement and more, please refer to source. Source: (How To Cartoon for amateur films)

Looking good Steve! Nice hair!

Well, to study a thing does mean it needs to be perfect and to take them too much to task for that would be a considerable stretch. Sometimes it's enough to note that the secondary action is there to convey the intent and isn't an attempt to fully replicate the real thing. Abstractions tend to work that way. Animators can also be occasionally forgiven for being caught in the act of learning how to communicate more perfectly as well. Milt Kahl (who we presume would have at least drawn the extremes of this sequence) was perhaps more well known for his abstraction than most animators (his design style soon began to be seen as the Disney house style and it largely still is today). Kahl was well known for taking his (inbetweening) assistants to task for screwing up his animation (I'm using polite language here but I'm sure anyone who has considered Milt Kahl will know his personality well). Such is the nature of productions that rely on more than one hand to get a film completed on budget and on schedule. I am of the opinion that it is possible, although very difficult, to determine who is to blame for every decision made in animation that gets into the final film. This is largely due to the nature of animation itself where we can at leisure reverse engineer the whole thing. We can also examine in great detail things that were not originally intended to be so closely scrutinized over and over again. Remember... this was 1952... the age before VCRs... and a time when Disney movies where rereleased (maybe) every seven years or so. If you wanted to study an animated film over and over frame by frame you had to either be rich or work in a movie theater. One of the reasons that Disney films are studied and appreciated so much today is that Disney's animators had access to the latest and greatest technology of that day. That made quite a difference I'd say. That presents another interesting aspect of this, that the animators of old did not have all of the tools of the trade we take for granted today and yet were still able to create animation of the quality and caliber that animators strive to reach today. This makes these presentations all the more magical. If one wants to study shortcuts and mistakes, Disney's 'Robin Hood' is a film with so many of those it'd be easier to spot frames without mistakes. Despite its flaws though, that film is still one of my favorites and is even more fun to study than most because the animation allows us to see more easily through to the process of how animated movies are made. In our studies, finding something that doesn't quite work as well as it should in an animated sequence is almost as valuable as something that is perfectly communicated. Even more valuable in many ways. That's the long way of saying... 'Regarding the motion of the headdress feathers moving back so rapidly... not necessarily a mistake... I believe they were attempting exaggeration.'