Rodney

I'm mainly posting this as a test for posting vimeo videos but... the educational/animated videos that are being distributed these days are pretty impressive. [vimeo]41038445[/vimeo]

Link: Gaming seems to be the real key to making this technology ubiquitous. Here's a link to their site: http://tech.yostengineering.com/3-space-sensor As near as I can tell each sensor sells for about $300. (This is the Bluetooth sensor) I would expect that price to fall pretty fast if it's going to sync in with the gamers. It's just a matter of time before you are walking around inside of A:M while drawing splines and extruding patches in realtime 3D. Here are some of the downloads and documentation.

Yes indeed. He is looking very realistic. What else can be said except... WIREFIRE... Framewire... I mean... wireframe! More please.

Particle hair. Should have gone with the skull cap (and/or used patch image or decaled hair). The secret to particle hair IMO is to keep it at a very low density until you have it exactly as you need it at the lower density and then increase that density. As there are many parameters to tweak it takes quite awhile to get a good feeling for it and it helps to experiment with one patch (and not an entire scene) until you feel comfortable animating with it.

While looking for information on the Rhino House video player I saw this article on animating quadroped walks. Lots of good reference and things to consider in a very short article. http://www.rocket5studios.com/tutorials/ap...he-walk-cycles/ Among other things it illustrates how an 8 cycle animation can have 4 key poses.

Very nice David. The hold interpolation makes it have something of a 'stop motion' feel to it. I like the snappiness to the movement.

I haven't even looked at the pricing but the general video and the video player look nice. I think the video player is a trend we'll see more of in the future with the ability to see Onion skinning, alter the frame steps, speed, etc. The frame step feature of the video player almost... almost... almost... breaks down the video into extremes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJaqpKQtwI http://www.rhinohouse.com/ Ref: Ad/Write up at onanimation.com Note that downloads apparently are NOT included in the subscription to the service and because of that each download appears to cost 99 cents. Not sure but that's what it looked like to me.

Nicely done Dan! You've been busy!

OOOooooo. This is going to be good. Looking forward to it!

You are definitely not wrong David. As you say, the only real trick to it is the refreshing of the image in A:M and because A:M can be refreshed quickly you are talking about a matter of seconds. The benefit to using a program like Photoshop is that you can utilize all those layers. Most programs such as Photoshop also have an autosave feature so that portion of the updating could be largely automated. And don't forget you can record Macros so that with the press of a button or shortcut key you can save out layers to different images. In this way you can have a layer for every equivalent image map type in A:M; Color, Diffuse, Secularity, Ambiance, Bump, Displacment, etc. When the Macro runs it can automatically update each of these.

Not to go totally off track but... Several years ago I experimented with a technique that initially seemed to be promising. It was going to be part of a book I wanted to call "Hacking A:M". This technique uses a utility to make a program (or programs) partially transparent and therefore you can place a paint program (or any program for that matter) on top of A:M and then draw over the top of whatever you see in A:M. The specific program I liked is called Chaos Crystal. Just now I wanted to see if the technique was still valid so I just downloaded the program again and used Coreldraw to draw on top of Thom in A:M. Of course decaling isn't the only thing that can be done using this technique. Animation analysis, rotoscoping and a whole host of other things can be facilitated by making programs partially transparent or... making A:M itself partially transparent and placing A:M over the top of something else... a movie sequence for instance. I didn't pursue it frankly because it is a hack of the lowest order but as they say... whatever works! It has the benefit of being usable with just about any program you can think of... Added: One nice thing is that once you've got the decal in place you can turn off the transparency and really go to town on it in that program and/or move it side by side and refresh to see the updates directly in A:M. Here's the decal plastered onto Thom after drawing on top of him with a brush in Coreldraw: Added a second one cause it's fun stuff.

Can you get any other Newton Physics projects to work: http://www.hash.com/NewtonPhysics/samples.html

I hope this isn't too esoteric, but I found this written by Howard Trickey (author of the AI and Font Wizards). He had this to say regarding some of the difficulty he experienced in determining the direction of splines to ensure proper continuity: I believe this and other early plugin programming information still resides in the yahoo group where they discussed the development information. The point of posting this is to emphasize that it isn't always clear which way a spline is directed. The test that can be performed to ensure a particular direction is to add and then immediately delete a new CP at the end of to the desired direction of the spline. By doing this (and at least in theory) we can always guarantee the splines direction.

There are a few topics that discuss this but we'll have to ferret them out. As a starting place I'll say that every spline has an origin (initial Control Point) and all other Control Points extend from that point. It's not always easy to know which is the origin and we can trick A:M into assigning new points. The example of this is to create a two CP Path in a Choreography and then alternatively extend that path in one direction and then delete that extra spline length and extend the spline from the other direction. An object with a Path Constraint will assume that the newly added Control Point is an indicator of the direction of the spline. 1 ------- 2 X ------- 1 -------- 2 1 ------- 2 -------- X Here the X indicates a new Control Point added to the spline. In the first case the new CP between 0 and 1 has the spline moving to the left. In the second case the spline is moving to the right. I suppose the downside of this is that the direction of a spline can change based on additions to the spline if we expect them to maintain the same direction.

From my persepective this may be primarily related to the fact that 3D Coat has a broader feature set. As I've little desire to move things further down the polygon pipeline A:M Paint would suffice for basic needs... with one exception that I can think about and that is creating the initial decal. I've never been very good at doing that in A:M Paint. If 3Dcoat has this same issue with creating the initial decal then there isn't a lot of reason for me to go there. Where I think 3Dcoat has a clear advantage (and the real reason to use it in my estimation) is in how it can be used to paint deformities and displacement in real time. I don't believe we've seen that yet with A:M Paint. I assume that maps painted in 3Dcoat can be taken back to A:M and adjusted further in A:M Paint (via the general workaround described of ignoring the exported model and keeping the decal for use with A:M). In this sense I don't see it as an 'either/or' but an 'also/and'. The real question then becomes one of streamlining the workflow between 3Dcoat and A:M Paint. The benefit of A:M Paint of course being that we can paint directly onto the A:M Models without no middle man. In this sense 3Dcoat just facilitates the process.

Interesting. I'll pick one I like and one I think needs more work... The one I think needs additional work is the side carry. You actually got me out of my chair for this one as I stuffed my clothes back into my suitcase and tried it out for myself. What you've got isn't an implausible pose but it seems to me to be either an inbetween (or a pose caught in the act of lifting the bag). I noted that the closest I got to that pose was when I momentaryily tried to relax while considering how the weight might shift while walking (I did not actually walk because I thought I had satisfied my curiosity and that doesn't seem to be part of your assignment). My thought and pose was more specifically angled in an arc with my head being away from the weight and not directly over it. Variables not accounted for: - It may be that my bag was heavier - It may be that the weight of my bag was distributed over a larger area But that is my general feeling on the matter. Here is an image that captures some of the arc that I experienced in lifting: EXAMPLE I think in animation this arcing to the opposing side could be further exaggerated. It's interesting to note that I actually like your pose but I don't think that it would make the best extreme but it might make a really great breakdown! As far as the pose that I like the most I'd say it would be the front carry. While I think you could get more out of it through further exaggeration backward and further manipulating the hands, this is most definitely moving in the right direction. Edit: In looking again I can anticipate what someone else might say with regard to this front pose and the one thing I didn't mention would be the twinning of the feet/legs... the whole pose really. Some of that might be necessary here but a little variation can go a long way. If nothing else you could probably play with the upper torso and head. Consider he might be yelling at someone off screen saying, "Where the heck did you say you wanted this thing again?" The other I mentioned already and that is the hands. It'd be nice to see those bearing more of the weight but with the palm(s) of his hands on the side of the toolbox and fingers holding on for dear life underneath. I'm not sure if your character is rigged in this way. Keep it up Lloyd. Latimer is turning out to be quite an interesting character.

I've added the link just below the video in the first post.

Site says: I did note that they do have a Win/Mac release which I presume can be installed on either. They do have a trial version to warm up to. Of interest to those who won't be making any money off of their endeavors I note what they consider their educational release: Hmmm.... I am the very definition of unemployed... am a hobbyist... and am pursuing non-commercial goals... I might have to take them up on that and if I ever turn commericial make the transition to the commercial license. That sounds like a very good deal.

I note that 3Dcoat has released their v4 Beta. I read somewhere (not sure where) that current users can upgrade to this for free. I have a feeling that is only for the Beta but some may know the whole story. http://3d-coat.com/forum/index.php?showtop...amp;#entry80738 http://3dcoat.blogspot.com/ This is the closest announcement to the free upgrade I could find:

Then there should be no problem here. Fuchur was just commenting on your question of what would happen if Hash Inc went away. While I agree that what Fuchur suggests would be a likely case I'm simply suggesting that is a foolhardy way to think. For what it's worth I'm sorry you took that personally. Note: This topic is closed because Mayaman appears to be done with it. If he continues the topic elsewhere it will be reopened.

I'm listening to your complaint. I'm just suggesting that you have some significant errors in your factoring. I actually want you to have your CD. But that isn't a current option. For that you need to contact Hash Inc. Breathe. I was only responding to Fuchur's comment. As far as I can tell that is not related to yours in any way.

Trust is a difficult thing, isn't it. It's hard to say what the future might bring. Personally I'd like to see high speed drives with A:M preinstalled and optimized for feature filmmaking. (Not sure if anyone is considering selling such a thing and I don't think I'm up to the challenge of producing them either) I'm not meaning to nitpick here... I should really avoid these conversations... But I'm a user too and it's important to clear out the cobwebs. I'm not sure what your typo represents but I think it's safe to assume we tend to inflate our understanding of our support toward Hash Inc and deflate theirs toward us. That's human nature. For the sake of discussion we will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute $299 for each of your purchases. It's likely that you weren't able to get to a tradeshow or access the discount that got you to $199. As the upgrades, even for the CD were $99 a year though... I'd like to know if you typo'd that as well. Perhaps you were purchasing from someone other than Hash Inc? But at any rate, let's do the basic math with your (inflated) investment... 1998 $299 1999 2000 2001 $299 2002 2003 2004 $299 2005 2006 2007 $299 2008 2009 2010 $299 2011 2012 2013 (Presuming a potential Upgrade) Note: I don't know what years you purchased... slide them to wherever most appropriate. So over the course of 15 years you see your investment in A:M as: $1200 - $1500 or roughly in the ballpark of $99+ a year. You can't include the money you spend on Azovin Products and the like because it didn't get fully invested back into A:M. We could figure out what those elements contributed but that'd be a pretty deep discussion. Now let's compare that to how much you should have paid if you were paying attention: 1998 $299 1999 2000 2001 $99 2002 2003 2004 $99 2005 2006 2007 $99 2008 2009 2010 $99 (This would actually be $79 but we'll leave it inflated) 2011 2012 2013 (Presuming a potential Upgrade) So in 15 years time you think you've invested $1200 - $1500 but more likely have spent $700. Assuming this is correct and not inflated itself... and that all monies went to Hash Inc and not some other vendor or user this represents a $500 - $800 deficit in what you (unconsciously) think Hash Inc owes you by way of a return investment. In other words your support of A:M is substantially self inflated. Now if we factor in that we do not in fact pay anything toward support beyond the year in which a particular version is released we begin to see a growing support deficit... but not in your favor. I'm not trying to suggest upgrading as mandatory but only using it as an illustration so that we can better understand each others perspectives. How many years did you skip the $99 upgrade? I count 10 years. Ten years at $99 a year equates to $1000. So now we see that in the support category you are running at least a $1500 deficit.... more likely approaches $2000. And this could all have been avoided at the cost of $99... now $79... a year. The really ironic part of this is that your percieved investment would be very close to the same amount *if* you had upgraded every year. We can do that math if you want to go there. Hash Inc can't recover that $1500 - $1800 deficit from you any easier than they can from others who think the same way. But there are some who don't think that way and do understand the effects of such thinking on the past, present and future of A:M. If you really love A:M as much as you say you have in the past (you've said so and I trust that to be the case), please consider a recalibration of your thinking. The price of A:M has been kept low because Martin wanted to get it into the hands of everyone who needs it. But don't see that as the actual value of A:M. It's worth much more than what we pay for. And with our regular support that doesn't whittle away that value at the edges, it will continue to be. I have said that before myself but now find it a fool's game to play. Worse yet, it actually encourage the nutcases to want Hash Inc to go away. Follow the logic... Hash Inc closes it's doors.. and then gives A:M away? That's a solution? Are you kidding me? No, it would be better to think that without a shade of doubt that if Hash Inc were to close down they will take all of our lovely models away with them for all of eternity. But trusting in A:M's future now will not only destroy that imagined fate, it'll go toward realizing better options, programming additional features, extending A:M capabilities and ensuring a much desired longevity for A:M. I'm sure Hash Inc appreciates the support of the past but it seems entirely logical to me that they'd appreciate it all the more if our current support helped to move them forward enough to meet what the future will bring. One of the reasons for the current subscription model is very likely due to this way we as users think that we are supporting A:M when in fact that isn't the case. The subscription model corrects this and for the user does it in an amiable and cost effective way.

Jost, First, this isn't a dreadful discussion and hopefully others will see why as we proceed. Your suggestion has issues on several fronts and so I'll try to explain why that is the case logically. Would not an increase in price effect all users across the board, some of which find it difficult to pay for A:M even now at the current rate? Would some of them likely stop purchasing A:M if the price increased? Would increasing price not risk alienating many? Rather than increase the price why not just buy an additional license? Or two? Or three? Purchasing is and should remain a decision based upon the needs of each individual or studio. They understand their own needs best. It's funny you should mention increasing the price because I personally think A:M should be sold for $99 a year for one single license as it was in the old days. Among other things this would send a strong message to the A:M User base about the value of A:M. We have this discussion cyclicly because deep down we all want everything we can get for the lowest possible price. That's understandable as we can be expected to prefer to spend our money on other things than A:M. We've all got other things to invest in that cost significantly more than A:M. But this is a too narrow perspective that not only devalues A:M, it further erodes the financial support that A:M needs to meet our future needs. Devaluing A:M undermines A:M for everyone and increasing the price will of a certainty move it out of the range for many. So I'm glad Hash Inc has already discounted A:M across the board for the price of one license at $99 as that allows us to apply that $20 saved toward additional licenses should we need them. That is Hash Inc speaking to each of our individual needs and all users benefit because of the current pricing. The bottom line is that some don't value A:M at the going rate and others see it as a great deal. For those that desire volume discounts there is a solution that will satisfy all and that is to contact Hash Inc directly, state their specific case and work with Hash Inc to negotiate a discount rate (if any). Only Hash Inc can determine discount rates and that is exactly how it should be. I'm confident that if there is a market for additional licenses that Hash Inc will be glad to sell additional licenses at a discounted rate. But you've got to let them know your needs. Sending them a bid that devalues their product is not the proper way to realize this.

Nice!

One important aspect of telling stories is the timing of telling the story. While the entirety of timing is imporant, how everything plays out, even more pressing issue of timing may be the understanding of the overall length of a story in order to determine how well it can play out. It has been said by some that one page of written script equates to one minute of film and that is a pretty good measurement to work from if you've got an actual script. Another way to determine over all timing is to read the script outloud and to time it while reading. If this is read in the voice of the author, the one with the original vision of the story, then the timing should be more accurate. With the script read, this timing measurement can then used to break down the script further to determine the timing of individual scenes, sequences and shots. Through this process it will be found to be no accident that the sum total of all the timing from all the shots will equal the final timing of the film.