Rodney

At first It did appear that the wave material was time based (animating itself) without adjusting any settings. I was following that theory but then I'd go to adjust a setting and no waves would move... until I went back and animated the settings. Gah! Thanks Nancy!

I may have to call it a fail on my end. Just when I think I have the settings understood... I lose track of where I am. There is a potential workaround for some scenarios to be found in the material(not the wave attribute)'s scale setting. From most angles though it looks exactly like what is happening... zooming in. I thought I was getting close with the attached but there is still length expansion. morewave.mov

Well... why didn't you say so in the first place. Stay tuned. Comin' attcha...

Here's another project file that uses a more generic wave material: Added: Silly me. I forgot that displacement is dependent upon geometry. A one patch mesh doesn't have a lot of geometry to displace! untitled 000.mov Wave2.zip

Here's a quick, no frills example: Note that I've made the wave attribute part of a gradient but I don't believe that is required. That is just what my mouse clicked together. I also set the material to bump (displacement didn't work very well). Also, I created this before I read your response so the ripples radiate inwards. Easy to reverse that though. untitled 000.mov WaveProject.zip

I played with some wave materials a few weeks ago. If you can describe what that entails I might be able to come close to hitting the target. Edit: Make sure you adjust the Propagate setting. I'm pretty sure I animated the material in the Chor. Of course, trying to animate it in the material won't work... not sure about in an Action but that (theoretically) should work.

CGTarian is yet another online school that has offered a wide range of courses. I'm not sure if we've discussed those before. Recently CGTarian launched out on an updated path with new instructors and few newer approaches. I note that JP Sans (highly active in the Animschool realm is an instructor*) and a focus is said to be that individual courses can be taken without signing on for the longer term. A little about CGTarian (from their website): The price of admission is still high for attending online classes but as long as the value is also then taking a course may be well worth the effort. As always, my suggestion would be to sample the lessons available online first before diving in to the paid courses. This serves several purposes: - It helps to formulate the right questions you'll need to be asking during the actual courses (such as those related to where you get stuck) - It helps to learn the lingo that may be a little different from what you already know - It keeps money in your pocket while learning at a comfortable pace - It maximizes your experience, return on investment and success when you do finally launch into a paid course. Current instructors include: Mike Safianoff, Jalil Sadool,David Stodolny, Rebecca Perez, Joe Bowers, Juan Pablo Sans (JP Sans) Courses include: - Animation: Basic --Animation Bootcamp - Animation: Intermediate --Characters in Motion --Physics of Animation --Intro to Performance Animation: Advanced --Acting in Animation --A Character Close-up --A Thinking Character --Cartoony Animation -- Creature Animation - Post Production & VFX --VFX Production 1 From their FAQ I note this interesting element: In my estimation the best form of grading system is of the go/no go. As stated above you are either ready or you are not. There is an alternative grading system that I've yet to see utilized in any online school... more on that later. Prices: (I assume these may vary and haven't looked extensively at the cost of the courses.) They are currently running a promo: $1347 USD (or $449 monthly) If nothing else prices allow you to gauge the general value attributed to online animation courses. In this way should you learn something valuable you have something to measure that value against. If nothing else you an learn a whole lot just by reviewing the courses and course outlines as this may help to bridge the gap and narrow your focus. *It's not clear if JP Sans and others are teaching at several online schools or aligned exclusively with those schools. There is some competition for experienced instructors and many do move about from time to time. Some moonlight as well. For instance, while not at CGTarian, as far as I know Victor Navone teaches online at Animation:Mentor and in person at the Animation Collaborative. Similarly, Ken Fountain (also not an instructor at CGTarian) sells instruction video via Spatfrog.com and teaches online courses at iAnimate.

Most impressive! Love everything about it... the details... the color. I do see what Matt is saying about the contrast with the ad works sign though. You should add partial buildings to the right and left to suggest this is only one part of a larger picture. Perhaps they could be grey so as to indicate they aren't active. Also, I assume you must have thought the maibox was getting lost if it is put in the middle of the image (i.e. between the comic book store and the print shop)? One of the reasons I suggest the building continuation is to decrease the empty space around the whole image. Folks seem to like that extra space but it drives me batty. (Like this forum.... it has entirely too much extra space wasted on the left and right sides of the forum) I believe you've already got the building(s) built for your other projects. Added: That'd make a great business card as well if you have a version with contact info. And I know you are in no position to afford it but can you say... l e n t i c u l a r 3 D !

Is it possible that you have the Diffuse setting set to 'OFF' in that light. That would cause it not to light the model.

I must say... your animation and timing is getting smoother and smoother. I am impressed by your progress on all levels.

This is the best rock, paper scissors tale I've seen told.

Wow. If I'd have grown up in Largentoville that street would be where I'd want to hang out. Comics... movie theater... printing press... Some folks might want to visit but I wanna move there!

I'm sure some of her age will show as you put her into specific poses. A pose that is weightier (suggesting confidence and experience) will hint she is a little older.

Wait just a cottonpic... ... ... You say 'Be Largento!' is unbelievably arrogant and yet you've got an entire city named 'Largentoville' named after you already? Do you have any earthly idea how much money it'd take to bribe folks into naming a town (or website for that matter) Rodnocity? Life is truly and eternally not fair.

I think this is also where we get into what Will was saying regarding 'talent' versus 'skill'. The general public believing that certain individuals are born with a gift. I'm not one of those who thinks folks are born with the ability to draw unless by that we are acknowledging that almost everyone is born with that ability. I do think that interest has everything to do with it. Those with an interest in drawing will get better and better at it while those without an interest generally fall into that 'I can't even draw a straight line' camp. Exposure has a lot to do with it as well. When I first encountered comic books I was entranced by the drawings I saw there. I distinctly recall making note of the different styles of artists as well and can even pinpoint the characters that awareness related to; Marvel's 'Black Panther' and Disney's Bageera from 'Jungle Book'. I recall staring and staring and flipping back and forth between those two characters trying to understand more fully how one was a man in an (more or less) animal suit and the other was a talking animal. But it went further than that... the differences in drawing styles were in some ways very similar and in other ways very different. And I marveled at how different people could draw those two characters. Now note that at this time that to my knowledge I had never read a full comic book with Black Panther and I'd never seen Jungle Book. I was comparing the artwork from an in-house advertisement in a comic book (probably 'Kid Colt Outlaw' but possibly Fantastic Four) with the artwork that accompanied an LP narrative storybook record from 'Jungle Book'. I was similarly captivated with the drawings of Maleficent... wow... someone drew that! From that point on I sought out similar drawings wherever I could find them and began (slowly) to try to draw similar characters. I distinctly recall drawing my own version of what I thought R2D2 and C3PO might look like (I changed them to be my own characters) because I didn't really know what those characters were like from the films. I didn't see Star Wars until many years later. I did see Disney's 'Robin Hood' in the theater (1975 timeframe) and that fully convinced me of the superiority of animation. I must admit however that I didn't have a clue as to how that film (or other animation on TV). Around that same time though an aunt gifted us with a couple Big Little Books... the ones with the flip book animation in the upper right hand corner. I must have flipped those pages for ages... and from that point on I had trouble being pulled away from the TV. I was just soaking everything I could see in at every opportunity I could get. I do also recall that there was one big empty hole in my understanding that didn't get filled for many years and that was the concept of inbetweening. Even though I did have access to several of Walter Foster's books Preston Blair's 'Cartooning' and 'Animation' as well as one on drawing horses and one on painting I couldn't grasp the concept of what how inbetweening was handled. If I had been exposed to someone that showed me the process at that stage... woah... the mind boggles. As it was I was fascinated by animation but knew I lacking in understanding the process so my interests gravitated to something that made more sense... designing my own comic book characters. (We are getting back on track so bear with me!) Most of what I did in my early formative years was trace out a rough outline from a comic book (usually a cover because the larger images were easier to see through the paper). I would then start to modify the tracing to turn it into a new character. I still recall one of my favorite tracing references.. SubMariner (from Tales to Astonish). That was the comic book that had me running around the house terrorizing my sister and brother while yelling 'You punny human beings!' It wasn't until my Mom stopped me and asked what I was saying that I started to realize that 'punny' and 'puny' were very different words and one of them didn't make a whole lot of sense. Hmmm... so much for what I could be taught by the SubMareener. (I was curred of 'punny' but didn't get beyond that until much much later) So... Exposure. Tracing. These are referential forms that move us toward 'creativity'. These apply so fully to drawing they it should be underlined and bolded for emphasis. An example of this is the person who says, "I can draw but I can't draw hands." Well, how does one get better at drawing hands? Target that weakness and draw and draw and draw more hands. Expose yourself to a variety of hand gestures (you've probably got two of them close by... so reference them!) Trace them if you have to but place an emphasis on those things that you feel weakest at in drawing. Can't draw eyes? Draw eyes until you can no longer stand them. Having issues with horses? Read and reference everything you can on them. Collect images. And don't just stydy photos of the real thing. Look at paintings, sketches, cartoons... don't just chase after realism. Why does that artist emphasis this? Why does that cartoonist exaggerate that? How does that animator get such a wonderful performance in so few frames? Still don't know even after diving in deeply... replicate the reference... read or listen to an interview... study similar works... delve into 'how to books' and ''behind the scenes'. Get at it while you still have interest and... Perhaps most importantly... if you can find a way to remember what your knowledge level was before and then again after you learned that knew thing you'll be able to understand the ground you've gained all the better. One of the best ways to record this is via a sketchbook but it could also be project files, self made tutorials sharing what we've learned, animatics and difficult tasks that challenge our current level of experience... quickly sketched thumbnails that force us to abbreviate and jettison all but the most essential details... Each time we draw from our fund of mental understanding related to any subject matter we become more intimately attuned to it.

All the more reason to use it? Embrace your largentness. You deserve it. Perhaps the graffiti could be a less enthralling, "Hire Largento!" Just doesn't have quite the same ring to it does it. I might not have particularly cared for "Be Largento!" the first couple times I read it but it grew on me and I learned to embrace it. Subconscious messages spray painted onto walls are just hype for nefarious marketing and entertainment purposes. No crime in that! Being echo'd by you it takes on the form of commentary (shades of parody and satire) on the strange largento-adoring-affectations of the masses. It'd be a lot more fun if your first name was Bob though. Then you could sign all your work "B. Largento". Sorry... I'll stop now.

Sweet. You guys are doing great things with your workflow.

He's looking even better than the original drawing. Those feet are awesome. The bumps on his back make the wings seem like attachments. For a second I thought that was the intention but looking at an earlier rendering they look more natural and part of the body (due to the similarity in flesh color). The wings are a l m o s t at the size where I'd think they'd be able to support his weight. FWIW It might help to think of the wings not as extensions but as an extra set of arms and hands with the bulk of the wings being stretched out fingers.

I know I'm repeating myself but those are some great looking characters. Each one unique in their own way. Robert really hit the nail on the head when he commented on the number of characters. That kind of cast is a pretty rare thing to find in any animation project and due to the work involved few would attempt it. Kudos to you for tackling it.

She's looking great. Love the hair! That's a bit of a tough call but I say... Save. Save. Save this version. Burn it onto read only CDrom and double/triple check to make sure it opens all the way. Then texture everything else. Additional textures will really take it to the next level. BTW - Did I forget to say... "Awesome looking hair!"

Looking very good Mark! That's a great approach. You need to have a 'Be Largento!' graffiti spraypainted somewhere nearby... I'm just sayin'.

Nice! That turned out great. For a 3D print you've got some very nice detail in there.

Nice. I knew that was what you were doing before but it seemed like you were stopping with the OBJ models in this instance. I could easily see the value for generating props that way but knew you'd be wanting to animate creatures like this. Thanks for the clarification.

And this is the beauty of animation in that rough ideas (of movement and form) are can quickly be carved out of empty space. This working through concepts via multiple attempts isn't exclusive to animators but animation trained artists certainly have an advantage in it. Animators usually don't grow too fond of one solitary image that will or will not change. They know that image will all too soon pass away. I have a few entries on my blog that attempts to outline the importance of roughing out ideas; one is 'Get a Plan'. This seems to be a bit harder for computer animators outside of the paradigm of manipulation of objects in a puppet-like fashion although for the most part we've adapted well. So lets roll this back a little and ask the question again as to why drawing is so important. Quite often in our attempts to put together a scene we operate on a continual process of filling in empty space. Namely, we have our basic setup (concept) and then upon further reflection determine something to be missing from a given space. These are often background objects... the additional details that won't interact directly with characters but do have an associated history assigned to them. Something to give the scene a sense of actually being lived in. While not all important to the story if these elements were real they would have been manufactured by someone, put in place by someone and generally have some purpose for occupying that space. They are elements that contribute revealing a character's personal interests and personality. Externally, those elements are not important so in rough sketches they may only need to be hinted at with squiggly lines or a hastily placed word (ex: 'pile of crumpled papers'). In identifying what will most likely occupy a given space, our work can quickly progress to filling in other (less important) empty spaces. Assuming of course these aren't required to remain 'empty' space (i.e. space the characters will move through in the scene). And here we enter the realm of layout... putting everything in its proper place. Now this could be done on the fly... create a model of everything we think we might need... and place them. Through drawing (thumbnailing, storyboarding, etc.) we cut to the chase and quickly (in a matter of seconds) begin to visualize what really will occupy (or not occupy)... and this part is important... camera space. But here we are getting ahead of ourselves because in development we generally do not want to confine our creativity to that little area constricted by the camera or stage . Optimally, we will quickly explore space that the camera may not see as well. Why? Because in the development stage we are only exploring what might work best for the camera (i.e. the audience) to see. We may discover that another approach... a different orientation... a different location... works better. Thus, in the development stage (where we aren't yet locked down to detailed direction we will see later in production) we can draw from a much wider range of possibilities.

This use to be an issue and I assume it still is. The problem exists because in some cases the user will want light to shine through an object. In your case of course you don't so building objects with double thickness tells the renderer to keep the light out. We use to have a better explanation around here somewhere...