Rodney

Yes, I believe we are seeing the same thing there. Thanks for the video... I should have done something like that myself. Perhaps a bug report linking that video will suffice to let Steffen know what is happening.

Might as well make it v50. Then we could really celebrate.

Try this and see what happens... Do the same thing you are doing but when you get to the step of using the O key select the entire X shape (the entire spline) instead of the individual CP. If you are seeing the same thing I am you should note that the orientation of the bias handles at that new insertion point (CP created with Y key) is aligned as desired. I'm not smart enough to know why but it seems to me that this has something to do with the 'end condition tangents' spoken of in the paper I linked to above. The document is old and tweaks in the code have very likely changed some behavior in how Bias is computed but it seems to me that the Bias produced is a product of the collective biases of what is selected at the time of 'smoothing' of the selected CPs and/or splines. Try this also with selecting anything other than the individual CP at the insertion point you've created and when you hit the O key to smooth the curvature, the Biases should likewise (correctly) align. Added: Interestingly enough! if as soon as you create the new CP with the Y key you hit the space key and then O key to smooth you should see that the curvature appears correct but the bias handles themselves have adjusted and are (from a user's perspective) ever so slightly mis-alinged. Interesting. (This reads as 0 gamma in the properties panel but when adjusted to be fully flush appears to be somewhere between 8 and 10 degrees off of traveling straight through the CP to match with the other (mirrored) side) Assuming all this is true (and I'm not seeing something odd) it may be that isolating that individual CP is the root of the (originally) observed problem. Apologies for where my terminology and understanding is woefully inadequate.

If you can further relate how that applies to Gamma and Alpha (in A:M) we might see a breakthrough in my understanding. I can probably just read Martin's paper on it but that doesn't mean I'd understand it. REF: Martin's paper: Spline Mesh Character Modeling Note that Bias Control is covered (briefly) in para 2.2.1 It sure looks to me that Gamma is off by plus or minus 10 percent when using the Y key to dissect splines in half (from peaked splines which are subsequently unpeaked).

I found the posts where Martin asks Emilio what the difference between the regular properties for Bias and his plugin are. While Martin acknowledges the differences none were ever incorporated into A:M's interface (that I know of!). LINK It's long gone from Emilio's site but the link in Emilio's post where he explains a bit further (about why he created the SetBias plugin) is available via wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20040825015756/http://www.moscafilms.com.br/emilioleroux/amplugins_setbias.html

That sounds right although for some reason I feel the term angle might be more appropriate than direction? If you had said direction of the spline I'm not sure that'd be right as magnitude, alpha and gamma all contribute to the orientation/direction of the spline. I've long ago exceeded my level of understanding here so will defer to the experts and gladly learn from them.

I'm seeing something a bit different than you describe, but I follow what you are saying. From what I see when two peaked corners have the spline dissected via the Y key this results in a CP that is peaked in the middle with 100% Mag In and 100% Mag Out. It is only upon making that CP smooth (via O key) that we get the curvature you describe. It may be worth noting that adjusting the Gamma at this point to 10 will return it to (I assume) proper orientation. While certainly not ideal for our purposes, I think the difference is that 100% magnitude going into a CP from both sides (while peaked) doesn't equate to 100% magnitude of the curvature of a (non-peaked) spline. How to rectify? Outside of adjusting the Alpha or Gamma to refine the axis I'm not sure. I'll guess that we'll see better results when the splines are perpendicular... and test that out to see if a hunch there is right. Edit: My hunch was incorrect. The orientation of the inserted CP adjusts the same on the perpendicular as well. In the case I tested it is corrected via a -10 adjustment of Gamma. Added: From appearances it looks like everything on the right side of the Y axis line is losing 10 percent of Gamma orientation while everything on the left of the Y axis line is gaining 10 percent. It may be worth restating that when working from smoothed splines at the start the new CP's spline properly aligns. It is when it is then peaked that they aren't. What is a bit odd about this is that nothing is seen to change in the settings of the Biases. As I recall, way back in the day Emilio LeRoux created his Set Bias plugin to account for some of this; namely that the Ins and Outs of Magnatudes weren't entirely covered by the settings available via the properties panel.

This one almost doesn't rate a 'tech watch' label but there are aspects to it that certainly lend itself to further exploration. xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWzurBQ81CM

It's important that we don't go from one ditch to the other when considering technology. And as you point out, we chase after anything that appears new and spectacular. I don't know the whole (origin) story of Webster Calcord and his adventures with A:M but from appearances it looks to me that he needed to learn CG animation and did just that with the tools and experience he had at hand. He was fortunate in that he knew the folks at Hash Inc, had access to their software and used that as a springboard to a career in digital animation. As stated in his interview (link in first post), he also transferred the skills he had previously learned through stop motion animation and his epiphany of animating pose to pose in CG animation... just as he did in stop motion.... is an epiphany every animator should and very likely will have. And I'd say, one that can/should be taught. My memory is a bit foggy but I may have very briefly met Webster at SIGGRAPH. If I recall correctly I was headed to get some lunch with (master of enchantments) Greg Rostami and they recognized each other. .

One of the easiest ways to combine Choreographies is to create a third (empty) Chor and import the others into it. As a cautionary note, saving that Chor will result in one that is truly merged and combined so make sure you save your originals. For realtime organization and planning of Projects consider creating Choreographies with themes. For instance you might have one Chor named 'Characters' that has all of the actors needed in a particular storyline. Similarly, a Chor named 'Props' can be populated with all manner of props. As you need these resources simply drag and drop from the Character Chor into the active Chor you have set up for with a camera for that shot. Need a different camera setup? A different rendering output? Grab a camera from the Chor named 'Cameras and Render Presets' that already has the settings you want. Note that all of these resources need not be spatially organized within the Chors but generally they should be properly scaled/sized. This will ensure that Characters, Props and Scenes all fit into proper environments. Then simply use the listing in the Project Workspace to locate the assets and drag/drop their name as desired. Chor collections growing too large? Copy that Chor collection, name it something appropriate and then remove everything that isn't wanted. But what about Libraries? Libraries are still very useful and provide a preview image prior to selection but for those times where you don't have adequate time to organize resources or assign preview images to assets the broader categories of raw assets stored in Choreographies can help populate scenes rapidly. Unlike Libraries however, Choreography contents can be automatically identified via filters/tabs in the PWS. Just name the assets in a way that will help the filters you set up find them. THEN, once the Chor collections are created consider storing those Chors in your Library with a preview image assigned (in the Chor category).

Webster is a busy guy!

This may be of interest to those who need more realistic characters... of a variety of body types. It was previously reported that Adobe had acquired Maximo and the latest news shows plans moving ahead to provide Fuse software with Adobe CC. Fuse is a bipedal set of tools used with Maximo (and other software) used to create characters. It's similar in many ways to MakeHuman and other software. For geometry the characters can be exported as OBJ. For animation the preferred format is FBX. In something that reminds me much of Hash Inc's earlier ground work with segmented models, the highlights of Fuse are the quick modification of modular characters (those provided or those you supply via import) to create characters of almost any type (bipedal being the focus). Fuse also leverages Substance's API to apply procedural textures to clothing which is easily customizable as well. How can these characters best be used with A:M remains to be seen but there are some very interesting approaches being used. Fuse (preview) comes with Adobe CC subscription and as far as I can tell will remain part of Adobe CC offer. Joe McPeak of Truebones has a video where he explores Fuse's workflow (I'll see if I can find a link). Here's another from Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/features.html?trackingid=226KD1P6&mv=email#fuse-cc-whats-new Of particular interest is Fuses use of UV layout to control customization of characters and layering of images/maps to drive the topology of meshes to include removal of unnecessary geometry under clothing. In A:M the latter might is fairly equivalent to setting geometry underneath clothing to transparent and hiding it so that extraneous calculations need not be performed.

Agreed. Over the years I've noticed a lot of software with similar approaches to drilling down to more complex information but few (none?) as refined and intuitive as that of A:M. I do reserve some serious affection for the technology (and vision) underneath the hood that makes the PWS in A:M integrate so well across the board. As Martin once said, he built everything with animation first and foremost in mind... all other things of necessity follow. This has been a perennial problem in software where animation is a byproduct. In recent years most software is being written from the ground up with a more animation-centric view in mind. But this will always translate to workflow relative to the underlying technology. Are you familar with the story of Moses and Aaron who went before Pharoah? Aaron cast down his rod which became a snake and the magicians of the court did likewise with their enchantments. In the end only one snake was left; having consumed the others. Someone had superior technology (thought craft).

A:M isn't trying to catch up... it's waiting for the world to catch up. With proper technology in place spline/patch technology can then enter into the next phase of advancement. I liken this to Ed Catmull's telling of how they charted the course to create the first digitally animated feature film and laid out their plan to get there. He/They saw that with advancements in computing following Moore's Law it would be a specific amount of time before they would be able to succeed in their endeavor but that it would (without any doubt) inevitably happen... if they were there to see it occur. So his effort then focused more fully on survival... of keeping his team together during the long haul it would take to get from where they were then into the future. Of course this does't mean they were idle... they set out to more accurately define what their place would be in that future. Why is it that folks like A:M's workflow so much? (often wishing they had A:M's workflows and ease of use in their daily work-a-day solutions) Could it have anything to do with the technology (and the vision) behind the tools? It's not surprising that folks use other software. What is a bit disappointing is that when folks (inevitably?) do they stop supporting A:M. Would I be any different? If I were happily churning out animation at PIXAR, Dreamworks, or any number of animation studios would I still financially support development of A:M? While reality often suggests otherwise, I'd like to think that I would. Note: I make a distinction between general/moral support (that of what is demonstrated by Webster Colcord) and financial support (of which there is no indication that he ever contributed) although I'm sure all support is appreciated. General support is a great thing but its good to remember that it takes money to support the people behind the effort to develop software at the pace we would prefer. Lacking that support what other options are available.

It's nice to see some of the many folks who cut their teeth with Animation:Master give credit where due to the creators of A:M. 'Antz' was one of the first CG films that proved that =other companies- besides Pixar could rise to the challenge of digital animation. It was certainly one of the first that convinced me that high quality animation wasn't out of the reach of mere mortals. And it should be no surprise that the artists behind these earlier films helped drive better software and workflow through their desire to have a better solution... one more like the approach they had in Animation:Master. There are some recent demos from Pixar that show some newer capabilities that suggest in many ways they are only now catching up to some of A:M's 'self evident' and intuitive workflows. In other words, in many ways A:M is still ahead of its time.

Nice! Even way back then you were meticulous.

Very nice!

Here's a brief but good article from the Animated Spirit Blog: http://www.animatedspirit.com/the-five-phases-of-work/ Overview: Phase One: Beginnings Phase Two: Preparation and Planning Phase Three: Doing the work Phase Four: Struggle Phase Five: Completion This process is not unlike any good story-telling worth being told. I can easily see overlap between the phases that suggests similarity between the three (and often four) act structures of theater/film production. And (because things in collections of 5s seem to be important) don't forget to read James Chiang's five part review of the book 'Five Cs of Cinematography'. It's very well worth the look. Here's part 5; Composition: http://www.animatedspirit.com/book-review-the-five-cs-of-cinematography-part-5-composition/

The latest trailer for Disney's 'The Good Dinosaur' has been released (Trailer 2): Xhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?t=141&v=daFnEiLEx70 At lot of shots from the previous trailer but some new ones too!

I'm glad to hear the waters are receding. It looks to me like a breach/partial breach of Beaver Dam was/is a major contributor? Hang in there.

Sounds expensive!

Awesome! Nicely done.

Finally, I have seen your video Robert (after the sidetrack into forum permission corrections) Excellent tutorial and just what the doctor ordered for my Bone Falloff deficit!

I get something similar. Perhaps that is a glitch with IPB and post lengths? I do see that if I Right Click on Edit and select 'Open in new window' the post correctly opens for editing. So, try that.

Interesting. I can't see anything that would be private in those topics. I believe those topics (in the private area) were being prepped for final refinement and (re)publishing as a form of updated documentation. As the champions of that particular documentation project have moved on to other endeavors it's safe to say they can and should be placed back in the pool of general information. I'll collapse a few extraneously deep branches within the A:M Answers area as well.