Rodney

Ha! Nice job. Here's the link folks: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22ureq_hash-animation-master-let-it-go_creation That was a lot of work and I'm impressed by your timing. Keep that up!

Very nice!

For what little it is worth I'll offer the following thoughts: If the series were to be picked up I see a few likely outcomes (of course there is always the innovative alternatives but...) As you state the project would be taken off in a different direction (modified to fit a specific commercial market). That project would likely not be created with A:M Similar to TWO and SO the key here would be to get buy-in to make it a viable project.I was talking with Paul (fae alba) Harris last week about Martin's goal in movie making that targets a 7 day cycle.*If* TWO had the success that it started out on a trajectory of I can't help but believe we would be at the stage where your project or one similar would already be in product. I don't want to sound negative in any way but the height and depth (and degree of success) depends almost entirely upon the artist(s) involved. As they loose faith in a project (and they all will at one time or another but hopefully not too many at the same time) the going gets very rough. If the project is small... and the webisode size might be well fitted to this... the opportunity for success is magnified. And if planned properly those webisodes might fit quite well into a feature film length presentation. .. Some day we need to discuss the subject of mortality in depth for both creators and projects. The trick there of course would be to put a positive spin on dying. (I think I'm up to that challenge. ) I do think that this is a given even if you see success in either or both of the other two options. I also think that being able to point to a body of work will inspire others. Whose inspiration you then choose to grant rights to your creative property will depend entirely upon your own criteria. I can think of many directions Tar could go and I'd guess that many of those would not align with your vision for the world of Zandaria. In each of your three scenarios going forward there are considerable compromises. But the good news... I don't think any of those directions would turn out to be a wrong decision. I will say that if you opt for anything that releases rights make sure that you either control final decisions and/or recoup those rights later on. The example I would cite is the many years that Marvel Entertainment had to delay plans because production companies sat on their projects. I'll hand it to them though... as they've got those rights back they applied what they learned and didn't allow that to happen (quite as much). I suppose it might be okay if someone were paying you very handsome for the inconvenience of delaying production. Then you could afford to move forward with other projects.

Nemyax, I should thank you for the reminder of Hamapatch. Boy has it been years since I looked at that! I had opened and used it momentarily many years ago and quickly set it aside because it didn't approach A:M in capabilty etc. But... Hamapatch is a very cool program in many ways and it does have some nice features that make it a great companion software for use with A:M. The one in particular is the drawing mode that allows you to draw with splines without clicking (in similar fashion to Moi3D but with splines more compatible with A:M). Drawing quickly in three dimensions in hamapatch and then saving out as an Animation:Master model makes it a useful tool to have. There is something of a danger in recommeding programs like hamapatch (and previously Jpatch) in that those that try those programs may be quickly turned off from splines and patches because the interfaces and workflow isn't optimal nor is the all-in-one animation capability of A:M presented in those applications. As such potential users of A:M might decide to go elsewhere. Now that A:M has a trial I'd much rather point them to that. But hamapatch... wish there was more software as compatible.** **Disclaimer: Hamapatch isn't all that compatible with current A:M file format so modeling is limited by that. For instance, if you attempt to import a model created in A:M into hamapatch it will fail with "Not an Animation:Master file". It is 10+ year old software so we should anticipate that.

Will, Are you using a specific rig or did you rig something with something of your own. The reason I ask is that if others have access to that rig (but not the model itself) they/we could animate actions as Ruscular suggests and those could be shared with you. While those actions might not be entirely ideal in every case they might at least give you starting points. The same could be said for the hyenas etc. I think it would be fun to 'roleplay' a hyena (any one of many) trying to get the best of Tar. (But I wouldn't have to feel the pain of actually getting hit by Tar!) Usually having multiple people animate characters is a bad thing because of inconsistencies that can be introduced but when these are mostly quick poses, action by secondary characters, etc. that might actually be an asset. For some strange reason when I think of animating in the world of Tar keep having a recurring thought of having a hyena draw back on a bow to launch an arrow at Tar. Another fun test might be to animate a hyena being tossed around without Tar in the scene as this would allow you (or someone else) to place and animate Tar into that shot. The thought being that it might be easier to animate Tar in action where he has to match the reaction of the enemies he is dispatching. If the hyenas were rigged with 2001 rig then we could animate those characters movements with a proxy like Thom. Then you could just apply that action to the real character and adjust the animation. One thing that I've long wanted to test and perfect is how to best execute the handoff of an animation shot from one artist/animator to another. This was done quite regularly in traditional animation but is rarer in CG animation where one animator might complete the majority of everything in a given shot. Sorry to drone on... I guess you could say after seeing Episode 1 I want to see more Tar.

Jeff, Much better on the fingers! There is something different (from the drawn images) related to the curvature of the bat-ears. In your model they are more horn-like which.. probably looks more like real bats but aren't as straight as in the drawing. I can put together a collage of images for comparison if that will clarify.

(See above concerning topics related to software development) Note: I don't want to suggest a grant for development couldn't be applied but in general I think the funds required for such would be fairly high.

While development is always of interest... I talk about development often... our primary focus is to use A:M as it currently is. There are so many things that can currently be created with A:M that is where our creative energies should be. That's rather the whole point of this grant thing; to educate everyone in what is currently possible. Take something that exists and apply it in A:M. The example mentioned above of taking a course in animation dialogue from a traditional animator is one example of that. Those techniques are time tested and proven to work in CG but that information must be assimilated... interpreted and transferred And where something doesn't directly transfer... heck, that's just success from another angle... now you've learned how one approach doesn't work as well as another in A:M. The grants I speak of would facilitate learning by allowing folks to broaden horizons by sampling others experience without breaking the bank. While software development is important, for our purposes here, when I speak of development I specifically am referring to developing the person... not the software.

Thanks for the clarification. I recall you mentioning that as an option you were considering. The whole idea of working in such a shared world does sound intriguing.

Not that I can tell. It shows up as an option in the Chor when selecting one or more Models.

Can someone clue me in to the use of the Align Plugin? Its usage is currently eluding me. When invoked it doesn't appear to do anything.

I didn't think I needed to update my driver but because I'm suggesting others should do that I figure I should follow my own advice as well. I wasn't experiencing any issues so I was a little hesitant to update. It may be just my imagination but the display in A:M (and Windows in general) does seem to respond faster. Another thing this appears to have resolved was a continuous recycling of my system to want to update Java. Installing the updated graphics driver failed the first time because of that and in fixing that first I don't see that problem happening. Sometimes tweaking things to better optimize A:M will yield other advantages. Edit: I'm definitely seeing some improvements here.

Will, Can you clarify what you mean by this as I don't want to overlay my interpretation on what you suggest. Do you mean to suggest open sourcing the tools used to collaborate (as with TWO)? If that is the case most of those tools are already open source (SVN, dotProject, etc.) so I think I'm misunderstanding. If you mean to open source the actual projects (i.e. an open source movie... open education... etc.) I get a general sense of where that could be heading. If both or something else altogether I'll appreciate the fine tuning. We've had a whole lot of successes in the A:M community but we don't often celebrate them. The scholarship stuff I can see but the foundation thing way beyond the scope of this topic. The more limited in scope. the smaller. the more flexible. the less constrained. the better planned. the more expertly executed. the simpler. the better. That's why I proposed a $10 grant to take a limited course in animation lipsync dialogue as a means to test the process. An added benefit being that dollar amount is sure to scare of opportunists with loftier aspirations so the process can get to focused on what really matters. Animators take what they are exposed to, assimilate it and apply it more thoroughly to their effort than was ever originally anticipated so I am confident that learning can happen. For those that are just simply stuck in a rut perhaps they could take a course in project management.

In all but the rarest occasion graphics glitches can be resolved by installing a current/updated driver from the graphics card manufacturer (or third party rising to the challenge). For those currently experiencing display issues, let's get those drivers updated, regressed to an earlier/better state or into whatever configuration needed to maximize performance and stability. Official sites for driver downloads: AMD / ATI http://support.amd.com/en-us/download Intel http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/detect.htm nVidia http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx 3S Graphics http://www.s3graphics.com/en/drivers/index.aspx Want to try out beta drivers? Sites such as http://www.guru3d.com/ post recent releases. Interesting factoid: . Source: http://www.opengl.org/wiki/Getting_Started

Just a heads up... this topic will move to the Open Forum shortly as it's beyond the scope of the main A:M forum.

Nice! Congratulations!

It looks like Metasequoia has improved considerably since I last looked at it. The modeler sure seems to be working extra hard to create that model. It reminds me of my own modeling methodology when I'm not sure what I want to model... try this out... try that out... change things on the fly. The purpose of using a rotoscope is largely to avoid that excess by following the roto image as a plan. It appears to me the excess is entirely due to use of polygons which... how can I state this without being misunderstood... polygonal modeling is less restrictive in many ways in that most modeling programs don't require you to conform to stricter rules (i.e. you can make many mistakes because the program will allow you to do that). Following the stricter rules of spline/patch continuity will generally result in a more optimized mesh/topology. With polygons this results in higher density models (hence the need for this modeler to tweak and retweak his placement of polygons to size and space them correctly etc. In contrast spline/patches can use minimal density because with splines/patches the underlying resolution of the model approaches infinity. This becomes all the more important when attempting to animate the geometry. I say, the more programs like (and compatible with) A:M the better.

You are a veteran of KIckstarter so your take on its use is very valuable. Having not used any of the services available I can only play the process out logically, examine potential shortcomings etc. I like Patreon's approach a little more because sometimes folks just need support. They may not have a specific project planned. I like Kickstarter because it's a neat way to get things developed (O think everything I've backed didn't exist at the time I opted in... there is something very satisfying in bringing such things to reality. (the downside... I have a small 'supercomputer' I'm not exactly sure what to do with... sometimes the wait for that reality to come around is considerable) I *think* I'll like Youtube's approach even better because... I'm a big fan of random acts of kindness.

Deep into research and development.

This forum is all about R&D and at times we all get to sit in the audience and watch as cool things appear on the screen while at other times we get to be creative and make cool things. I suppose one could argue that it's the results we are after but I've no doubt it's also about the journey getting there. All we need is one course and that'd be enough to begin. Keeping up with what is available out there... yikes! That task is never ending.

Lots of folks could teach/mentor but I'm not aware of any courses by anyone in the A:M community currently being offered. And to my knowledge none with 30+ years of animation experience.

Hmmmm... as a trial run, the teacher I might nominate would be John Pomeroy. Cost would be $10 ($20 for two lessons). Folks could either pay to take the course or apply for the grant. The venue; 'Taught by a Pro' The course(s): ''Animating Dialogue 1: Speaking Through The Body' and/or 'Animating Dialogue 2: Moving the Mouth' Measure of Success: Those who receive a grant would/should transfer a portion of what they learn into a project in A:M that incorporates what they have learned.

Yes, one of the things I discussed with Paul Harris earlier this week was how the initial roll out of The Art of Animation:Master on the forum* couldn't take advantage of technology we take for granted today. Not to mention I didn't have a clue back then either. (well at least some things remain the same) *Note that TaoA:M had been used a lot before that (even being taught on college campus by Steve Sappington but it hadn't gone online yet via the forum. If I could find anyone that would believe it I'd say we were an original source of inspiration for Animation:Mentor. They didn't start up until much later.(circa 2005 as I recall)

Mark, I like the idea of an A:M Foundation but from my perspective it seems similar to a newbie starting out wanting to create the next Star Wars... a large enough project to almost guarantee the project's doom. Still, even Star Wars started somewhere so an A:M Foundation could too. Never having initiated a foundation before some R&D would need to be undertaken. I presume one issue would be those funds held in stasis. Paul, The idea of the mentor/apprentice is certainly a valid one. Not only has it been attempted... several have benefitted from it and can speak better to it... for instance I believe David Higgins apprenticed (if'n you can cal it that) under Frank Silas. More recently Robert Holmen did a trial run on a basic animation course (my memory says you may have been involved in that). In each case it seems to me the primary burden falls upon the initiator of the idea/course with the success being determined by the role of the participant. Both of these are fairly lofty ideals but are implementable. Let's test this out on e=paper... If I were to start a course (the first offering of a potential A:M Foundational Series) it would likely be to run through the current lessons of TaoA:M. Reasons for this is include: 1) the course already exists 2) lessons learned could be applied to future offferings. There is another aspect of what this A:M Foundation might look like in the real world. At the risk of muddying the waters I'm tempted to say it sounds a whole lot like a refreshing of that storied group known as Hash Fellows.

Actually, neither. The funding of projects may be too broad a category so, perhaps we should reset? Let's consider education because that is more manageable/tangible than 'a project'. (and probably cheaper) There are many online courses in a variety of subjects that can be taken that will plus up any given project. What if a grant was disbursed in the form of funds to cover the cost of attending? What kind of course? Heck, I dunno.... pick a subject... any subject... cinematography? Character Design? Color Theory? I can think of a few $10-$100 courses folks might not feel inclined to take if they were paying but might be interested in taking if the fees of the course were already paid. While not a subject that is off the table, I am hesitant to suggest paying for some or all of a subscription fee for A:M because frankly A:M will be appreciated more when someone personally pays for it. I speak from personal experience and from funding a few copies of A:M for other people. Yes, most definitely! Yet another reason to proffer one-off grants. Yikes, you are bringing back bad memories. Other aspects of that would include continual visibility (better yet 'transparency'!), dispersing all grants immediately upon receipt and not cursing some poor soul to be in charge of a purse full of money. Holding money in stasis would be the antithesis of applying them toward people's needs. You are wise beyond your years. (or should that be 'behind your ears'? For the sake of argument because of my stated interest in these grants... if they were to ever be offered... I would remove myself from eligibility to receive them. Avoiding conflicts of interest is the only true way I've found to successfully avoid the potential pitfalls and to counter the inevitable occurrences of self-deceit. Having said that, when considering -an educational grant- I would encourage those who can pay their own way to take said course simultaneously along with the grantee. Rationale: Besides just being more fun... there is considerable benefit to be gained through that shared experience.