Rodney

Gambate kudasai!

If we keep pressing in that general direction we might get something like this: (note: this is not unlike the Malo-method of subdivision)

Here's a quick down and dirty A:M version of the OBJ. Added some color to differentiate some of the areas. Added a slightly more detailed mesh. And a third... just for the fun of it. HeadTemplate.mdl HeadTemplate2.mdl HeadTemplate3.mdl

Junyasan. Hagemamashite dozo yoroshiku! (Yes, I believe this is the first time I've officially met you) It's great to have you here in the forum. You may want to start a topic for your interests so that others can dig deep into information and provide feedback and examples. The one thing that pops into my head with regard to Surface Constraints is that we need a Bone to point at the object that exists on the opposite side of the surface.

I'm attaching a proof of concept that has a simple model with one light inside it. A Null is present (but separate) in the Choreography and the Light is then constrained to Aim At that Null. The Null could also be part of the Model with the Light but I find keeping the target/null separate sometimes helps. I will guess that you are planning to create an array of lights as seen at many sports arenas and race tracks. One of the nice things about having our lights as part of the model is that we don't have to constrain the individual lights to the target/null. We can constrain (Aim At) the entire model and when the model turns all the lights go with it. ModelwLight.prj

To quote myself: This will automatically constrain the light to the model because the light *is* part of the model. Wherever the model goes the light then follows. Everything I'm saying here you can do with the light separate from the model too, you just have to Right Click and Constrain to the model *in a pose or Action*. If you add the light to the model... no constraint required... except for... Aiming a light that is part of a model is similar to aiming one that is separate. You could just select and rotate the light... but nah... that's no fun. It'd be ideal to be able to place a 'x' on the point you want the light to aim at and then boom! The light follows that 'x' wherever you put it. This is usually accomplished by using a Null but it could be just about anything; another model for instance. The Null method is useful because it gives us a nice crosshair-type controller to grab and move to wherever we want. I will guess that you will want a Klieg light to act as a spotlight but given the bright lights at a racetrack you might want to use a combination of things including turning up the ambiance percentage of the light fixture's surface and perhaps even turning glow on (the power and radius of glow is controlled in the Choreography's main properties. The secret to getting the type of light you want is to go back in to the Light's properties and change the type to Klieg, Sun or Bulb as desired. I'll try to put together a short demo video of the two primary approaches. I'll add: When testing lights (in a Chor or Action) I recommend.turning off any lights that are present and working with one light at a time until you get the lighting effect you want for that light, then test it combined with another light... then another... until you've refined all your lights. .

Looking good Steve. It's great to see you back in action!

There is so much that could be said on this subject but I'm not sure what would be gained in the process outside of a better understanding of how people make decisions and how businesses work, for better or worse. This isn't to say I'm not interested! I just wrote a few paragraphs on the subject before deciding it's probably best for me not to go there. My thoughts and opinions would surely be misconstrued especially as my effort to be brief would miss the mark. I do often think of the influence A:M and its users have had on the industry and other software, most of it unacknowledged, marginalized and even usurped. Not that such has been exclusively a one way flow of ideas and innovations. A:M has also gained much by interpreting the world of graphics through its own unique approach. This is somewhat on topic to your thoughts relating to undisclosed 'proprietary software'. I'm a fan of Disney but recognize the underlying tragedy (can I use that word?) in the Disney purchase and jettison of Avalanche; Disney gained what they needed and once they had it moved on. The results of that gain can be seen in their latest works. This of course isn't to say Disney uses A:M... they certainly don't in any official capacity... but rather that the software they do use has undeniably benefited through it.

Good news Rodger. According to A:M Reports this reflectivity problem (report: #6781) has been addressed and is closed. The fix should be coming your way as of the next release.

Don't forget that we can render both Toon and nonToon characters/objects at the same time. I'll have to refresh my memory but I believe the trick is to set the value to zero in the toon line settings so that the Toon renderer renders standard style rendering. Then set your toon settings in the Model's surface (or material) and leave the Camera's toon setting on but otherwise unchanged. In this way you might be able to get away with no compositing.

Nice! That definitely gives the feel for racing.

You can and that may be the most common approach. My preferred approach is to add the lights to the model itself. When adding lights to a model the lights are treated as Bones and therefore must go into Bones Mode in order to adjust their position and orientation via mouse. The alternative would be to adjust the position and orientation by typing in the values via the PWS. For front lights it can be useful, in the same way as for the eyes of a character to place a Null in front of the vehicle and then point the Lights at that Null. Then if the lights need to be adjusted on the fly (say for artistic purposes) the Null can be moved and the lights will follow. I prefer to have the lights be part of the model because they will then automatically move with the model.

Here's another thought... Are you rendering out to a format like EXR first to gain the additional precision of that format? Once rendered the image (container) can be selected in the PWS and re-saved as another format via Right Click>Save As Animation (even if it's only one still image). I'm not sure this will make any difference but it might. Unrelated aside: To gain the look of black and white photo or film you might try the grayscale GPU post effect.

Avalanche Software that was shuttered by Disney after they closed their gaming divisions is back in business again under the Warner Brothers banner. Interestingly enough, their first major project is a Disney property; the 'Cars 3' game. http://www.polygon.com/2017/1/24/14371888/cars-3-video-game-avalanche-software-warner-bros I'm not surprised. Their breadth of experience and talent.is substantial and has been since their early days of using Animation:Master. The downside? If Avalanche at Disney had 300 employees they now have approx. 100 and while it can be assumed that some of the 200 stayed at Disney in some capacity most had to seek other opportunities.

I hope you put a note in the v19 listings (i.e. created a new report for v19) I doubt v17 get much attention any more. I don't see a report for v19 related to your issue so will guess not. It doesn't appear that older reports are editable to bring them forward (at least not with our permissions). As such I would suggest creating a new report for v19 that refers to the old. I was going to create a report on your behalf but I'm not entirely sure I'd be reporting it correctly. I'll see what I can do in referring 6493 for v17. Update: Reported on your behalf as #6781. Added: I'm curious about your surface's specularity settings as specularity size has some control over reflectivity. In other words (I think), make sure your specularity size is not zero. Here's the write up from Specularity in File Info Properties:

Looking good. I like your methodical approach.

Very cool Rodger! Put in an A:M Report and link to your post (post 32) If it's what you suspect I'm confident Steffen can assess and fix the problem. If no report is submitted the answer leans more toward 'no, this won't be addressed in v19'.

I enjoyed that! In animation we can do just about anything. I'd imagine that if a giant finger poked at a flour sack, the sack's weight would be such that it wouldn't tip over unless already precariously perched somewhere. The idea being that most of the sand/weight is near the bottom of the sack and so the finger would simply redistribute the sand at the top of the sack. (we could actually have a go at animating this!) This is the same premise of what might happen if someone were to push on a regular human being whose is balanced. The push might cause some movement but if the base of the human is well balanced then only the upper extremities would react. Consider the law of motion that states "a body in motion tends to stay in motion". If the flour sack is already in motion (i.e. unbalanced) then it will be more likely to tip over. If in balance (equilibrium not in motion) then chain reactions will effect the object part by part depending on the construction of the object. As such I can easily see where a giant poking finger might press into the sack... leaving an indentation... and slightly moving the top of the sack... but not effecting much of the rest of the sack. I guess we'd have to consider the weight of that sack. When thinking of it I definitely get a sense of the weight of a really heavy flour sack. Rather than make suggestions concerning this present animation I"ll suggest telling another story with the sack. Keep animating!

Wow. Looking very good!

That's snappy!

Over all I enjoyed your novel. I'm a fan of your work.and (I believe) have been since your release of 'Aesop's Fables'. I'm resisting the urge to cherry pick a few items you've written in response because inevitably the focus of such turns negative. Some have (to me) obvious solutions while others (slightly?) miss their mark. Mostly, I'd find myself defending some decisions made on our behalf that have greatly benefited A:M Users. How then to proceed... I think the best approach would be to examine your workflow/pipeline in detail to truly identify the bottlenecks and formulate solutions for those. I know that workflow/pipeline changes a bit from project to project but the idea is to identify the core elements that need attention. I'll cherry pick two statements that need some more immediate attention because I believe addressing them can pay off the biggest dividends and set the stage for greater successes. Let's address/remedy this and get you running Netrender. Every A:M User has access to Netrender... few take advantage of it. And because so few use it less emphasis is placed on its enhancement/improvement. I believe a law of sorts is forming here... if we want to see something improved we must first use it. This is exactly what is happening now. The problem with incremental change is that it's more of a natural process and most of us don't like the waiting inherent in that process. Seeds are sown... the sun rises and sets... flowers blossom. One question I would ask to gain a better view from your perspective: What are you currently using for compositing? Bottom line: I'm confident there are solutions for these concerns that don't require raising a lot of money. The use of money would be toward mathematically de-picting reality. Not something people... and especially artists... generally want. .

Jason H. Done.

I would say that Adobe's primary aim is positioning themselves at the crossroads of 3D stock in a similar way they are with stock imagery, video and the like. And they don't necessarily have to charge for the stock... if they are the conduit and people pay to access the conduit... that'll pay off. They aren't the only ones pressing into 3D. Heck, Microsoft is betting big by bringing 3D into their operating system (or as near to 'into' as they can via their pending Creator's update). .

I'm not sure this topic is the right place to have the discussion but I'm certainly game to hear more about the good and bad of current trends in software (especially graphics software). Perhaps you could start a topic (in Off Topic) and describe what you like and don't like about current trends in software (with the obvious focus on Adobe as an example of what you don't want to see in software).

Terry. Done.