Sum Square Stories
-
Posts
79 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sum Square Stories
-
-
So will the general current Hash user base also be able to use 19b or will it be like the 19a update and just be limited to a select few?
-
...Still don't know if there's ONLY the subscription version out there, or if there's also non expiring version by now...
Hi Elm,
As far as I understand it (please correct my if I am wrong Jason) there are two version available:
- A:M Subscription for 1 year ($79.99)
- Never expiring version ($299.00)
Both are download-products today. (only manual + ExtraDVD can be selected to be shipped with the never expiring version).
Both are software-dongled to one computer per license.
> Infos on hash.com: A:M Versions
See you
*Fuchur*
It isn't a dongle.
Don't misled. The hash.com software details page should also be corrected.
"A software protection dongle is a small piece of hardware that plugs into an electrical connector on a computer and serves as an electronic "key" for a piece of software; the program will run only when the dongle is plugged in."
To my knowledge Hash still uses Reprise License Manager. Although I've read of configurations of RLM that support using usb memory sticks as dongles Animation Master doesn't utilize that. The license is tied to the computer itself so it isn't transportable.
This incorrect usage of the word dongle isn't up for debate. It is simply incorrect, either by ignorance or willful deception. The unwillingness to be forthright about the limitation is disgusting.
And for the love of whatever don't effing respond to this trying to espouse the virtues of the current license or rehashing how the previous is gone and just accept the current we've been through that d4mn dance already.
-
That's why we are here discussing this thing.
This hasn't been a discussion. It has been legitimate concerns replied to with straw man arguments.
Case in point...
Hi,the problem and the fact is:
A portable CD-Version, like it has been around, is (till now and in near future) not available. Something like that may become available again, but till now we don't have that option and it is not that easy to get back. Be sure that Jason and Steffen have been looking into this and it is not that easy as it seems... the reasons have been told many times, even if they are not that understandable for us non-programmers. I just can not overview all the problems that may be coming along with this involving hard- and software-issues, implementation-issues, licencing-problems, needed sales-amounts to use a softwareprotection, costs, workloads and so on.
I'd like to see a portable CD-version too, but since it is not really possible to get it back I went to the subscription and I can live with it, even so it is not optimal for all people and I am sorry for that.
Many can live with it, why is it that bad for you? You may want to try it out before you bash against it.
When a possibility will become available which is possible and easy enough I am very sure that it will be offered to us as soon as possible. At least it is a selling point for many people...
Sorry if this is not the answer you want to hear, but we can't give you any other one, till there is a permament, moveable option again.
So the easy question is: What do you want us to answer to you? What would be a nice answer for you when "Yes there is a portable cd-version which never expires!" is at the moment just not one that can be given?
I see why it is bad for you and I understand why you want the other solution back... I'd not be against it at any time and would very likely buy it too... but till now it is not possible...
See you
*Fuchur*
No on said we want the CD back nor was anyone against the subscription's existence but it is unacceptable for some of us. Why some of you can't accept that and feel the need to convince us we're wrong for our reasoning disgusts me. An alternative has been suggested. Saying there are issues with alternates that are too difficult for you to understand is an insult to the community especially when we aren't given an official response either on the forums or to emails. A discussion would be an actual presentation of real numbers for the cost of some of the possible alternatives so a sense of how much more it would be to numbers needed to be sold could be figured. No attempt to present options or the reasons against has been giving by those who run Hash thought legitimate suggestions have been given and the requests considering what information is available have been reasonable. We said higher cost wasn't the issue within reason, we've suggested various other license option, even within the same company currently used (http://www.reprisesoftware.com/blog/2011/0...ngles-with-rlm/). There has been nothing in direct reply to these suggestion, so this can't be viewed as a discussion or an answer to our concerns.
"What do you want us to answer to you?"
Is insulting, it reads like you're treating us who won't accept the subscription like children that are looking to be pacified. Unless you do work for Hash and set official policy the only thing helpful you could write would be actual facts on the alternatives. If you have experience with various usb key options or Reprises LM options then tell us. If you know specifics about the user supplied usb drive option like actual fees that such usually are then we can decide how reasonable things are or aren't. Excuses and belittling part of the user base isn't constructive.
"What would be a nice answer for you"
Why do you have to be rude. If you don't work for Hash and make the policy you don't have to answer. Relies that just extol the status quo won't lead to progress, and no one has said the subscription model should go away so stop feeling the need to defend it (statement for each of you who has). Some of us find it unacceptable for our plans or comfort, you don't have to understand it just accept we don't. We aren't looking to be pacified or for 'nice' answers just an official response so we know what is going on. It has been up in the air now for about a year, if there is a plan let us know secrets don't help us and wear confidence. If there is no plan to add any options then we can decide to move on or just stick with what we have that is acceptable and stop checking on AM's progress. AM itself is the thing most hurt by this continued lack of official response, good or bad.
So until someone who actually sets policy for AM actually answers it would be best if nothing more was said.
-
Let's address this issue because it is a recurring theme.
Based on what I know of Martin and the Hash Inc crew here's what I see would happen when that fateful day comes when Hash Inc goes out of business. (One must use the imagination here):
Martin would release a 'final version' that would allow 'current users' to access the 'last version' in perpetuity... forever. (The act of God ending the world is not covered in said contract).
So current subscribers would win again.
Those not subscribed -might- be let in on the deal.
There. Feel better?
(Note: Sadly, it should be noted that some will prefer this doomsday version/scheme)
I find your responses to those that don't welcome the subscription condescending. Talking about Martin releasing a final version stuff is just silly since it seems like he hasn't been involved with his program really for years now, unless I've missed something to my knowledge he has retired. The only one actually developing AM has been Yoda as far as I've seen and he was originally a dedicated plug-in maker not one of the original programmers if I recall correctly. (By the way this shouldn't be taken as a slight against him but the opposite. It is his dedication that has really kept this program going after the founders left and shows the dedication in the community and I really hope he is getting paid well for his work, at least a decent percentage of each unit sale.) So to dismiss any fear about how long the company might last and what will happen after it is gone is either short sighted or patronizing. Also those who have been part of the community for at least 5 years will have likely noticed the change in overall involvement not looking particularly for the better. Not saying there aren't plenty of dedicated users still here but to say it is what it used to be would be a lie or self deception.
As far as pricing it seems to me unless I am miss interpreted their replies they aren't complaining about price and are saying they wouldn't mind paying more (not saying they want to pay more either just it isn't the issue) but only if the felt the weren't at Hash Inc's mercy. Not only the yearly subscription issue if Hash went under but also being locked to whatever computers they had it tied to so the v16 'CD' ver isn't a solution. If the computer breaks or one wants to upgrade they are at Hash's mercy. Yes dongles have there own problems, we aren't saying to abandon the subscription. But what is ok or acceptable for some isn't for others and to keep harping on how great it is and how we just aren't seeing how wonderful it is ticks me off.
This could just be a misunderstanding of the way of software subscriptions or perhaps a shortsighted approach to A:M but it's also a rather unfortunate demonstration of the level of commitment many have towards A:M. We have no interest in A:M's future, we only want what we want today. We can't see the 80th dollar in the equation because we are focused somewhere else.Thinking longer term, for $790 we can use the subscribe to A:M with all of the updates for the next 10 years... for 10 years. (This assuming Hash Inc doesn't come up with a more sustainable scheme with even better benefits in those 10 years... a very safe bet.)
I don't fault anyone for wanting to get the absolute best product for their hard earned dollars (Hey, I'm no different!) but there is more than one bottom line that must be met here. This is where the rubber meets the road and we discover who has the longevity within themselves. Unfortunately, some folks wouldn't be happy even if Martin were to give A:M away. What do we do with those folks? Send them on their way?
I feel sorry for those that can only think to the end of a $79 subscription.
There are better days ahead.
Also speak for yourself and only yourself and stop with the assumptions about what people may want and the insulting hyperboles. Instead pay attention to the complaints and concerns and at least recognizing some legitimacy in what they say. We never said subscriptions had no merit but to not recognize the serious issues or to belittle them does no one here any favors and may make some leave for good.
----------------------------------------------------------
To Wildsided, I'm not sure which specific unique hardware identifier Reprise License Manager (the software within AM that handles the permission to use it since safedisc who made AM's CD protection went under) checks but there are a number of true unique hardware serials. It definitely isn't tied to the IP address which on many computers is set to dynamically change anyway, nor to the registry. There are licensing means though that do tie to a USB flash drive's unique hardware ID and to my knowledge Reprise even has it within their options. This has already been suggested, and also that there is no official response to those suggestions hasn't helped many users feel distrustful of the future. A response that may not be what we would like is one thing but to hear or read nothing is even worse and leaves both a sense of uncertainty and of a lack of involvement be those who are suppose to be running things.
-
Grandma and jakerupert--- I know How you feel I did have a old version 12 cd --and that really was nice to have that much flexibility ---but wanted to get the niceness of the newer versions and ended up buying two subs -one for laptop and one for desktop ...but that also mean will be locked into subscribing year in and year out . Right now it works for me but am soon to be working on a much better desktop that I will build and then will be faced with the either locking in a unending locked sub to that comp for 299 or another yearly sub making my yearly sub price of 240 per year for the 3 seats.
Which compared to some of the upgrades prices I have to pay for new versions of other softwares probably comes out about normal. ie each new version of Modo upgrades go for 399 and come out about every 18 months. (Plus with Animation Master not much else to buy in way of plugins etc --it does pretty much all you need right in the package you get.)
And I am a hobbyists so even for me if i go to 3 subs a year --the cost per hour I enjoy Animation Master is about .30 cents an hour -smiles--- so pretty cheap entertainment when you look at it that way.
I'm sick of seeing 'it is fine for me so just accept it' type answers. I really hope v17 includes some new options for the license (not saying to get rid of the subscription one for those who do like it). I personally won't deal with a computer specific license. There is nothing for me to debate I simply won't. It also seems stupid that there isn't one with the options that do seem out there as have been already mentioned and the lack of official feedback on the matter is disheartening.
-
I did a quick test of "Suggestion 2." (using percentage property sliders to control the cps and controlling the percentage sliders with a smartskin) with the "ShoulderCPweighted01.zip" file (but with weights turned off, excess bones and all original user properties removed) and I think the results are close enough to a proper smartskin that it should do what you need (of course the example I'm posting here is just proof of concept not good enough for actual animation).
Quick guide to how I set it up:
First create the percentage properties, I did 1 for up down, and 1 for forward back motions but other ways may work. Then create a relationship for each of them. For example with the up down at 100% (or possibly better set the percentage limits to the amount of degrees your planning to move the bone) I rotate the bone up to about where I thought a somewhat decent limit was (It'd be good to make note of what that actual percentage was so you can copy it when setting the smart skin, again I didn't bother for the test but if done will likely give better results.) then in muscle mode tweaked the cps. You can and possibly should also set keys between the 0% and 100% if needed or desired, I didn't bother for this test but doubt any issues would result from it since your simply setting a percentage property and can even adjust the interpolation method unlike with a regular smart skin. Then at the -100 percent range (again change these numbers as you desire) do the down arm position. Then set the forward back the same way. Now go into the percentage property relationships info in the project workspace and delete the keys that were set for the bone movement, you only want the control point keys here. Now Create a smartskin for the bone. At the max up rotation move the up down slider to 100 (or whatever the max is) then for down the opposite and for forward back the same just with the other slider instead. I didn't test but you likely should be able to have combined percentage property values (like updown 30 forwardback 30) for where the smartskin key has multiple axis changes. For my test I felt like tweaking the results so I created a third percentage property slider just for the up forward combined motion, essentially it was made the same as the others. This allows for easy tweaking, another advantage of this technique.
Quick movie of results .h264 format
Suggestion 2. test file final version
Untested possible Suggestion 3. that came to mind:
Since multiple smartskins can be assigned to a single bone, maybe having a smart skin for each separate axis of rotation will work since each smartskin atleast can have its own falloff distance radius? Maybe not a smartskin per axis just multiple smartskins period will work? That way each can have its own evenly spaced keys but the spacing on each smartskin can be different.
-
Some ideas and possible work arounds when dealing with smartskins that come to mind that might help:
Suggestion 1.
At the key values where you want to set up your smart skins (also the key values should be pretty regularly spaced, if you have big differences between key frame spacings then A:M according to the help file under "More advanced info about Relationships" will set the falloff distance radius to the shortest set and there is only one radius for all keyframes so the rest will interpolate wonky) create a bunch of 'null' keys first. What I mean is for each value where your going to set a key first create a key at its default value, do this for each key value first. The easiest way is to use the "Snap Manipulator to Grid" function and just move the cps you want to key one hop to the left or right then back in place. It may also be good to create a group for the cps that you want to key and use the "Lock CPs" function to make sure your only keying those cps. After you've created the 'null' keys the cps should behave like there was no smartskin at all for now. You may want to check to confirm. Now (as long as the key spacing is pretty regular) when resetting the key values over where the 'null' key values were placed you should not have to deal with the resetting cp positions as the falloff distance radius keeps adjusting, This may help with setting up the smartskin so jumping doesn't occur because of an oddly spaced cp key
Suggestion 2.
Instead of creating a smartskin for the cp deform create a pose slider relationship (or set of as needed) and then control the pose slider with the smartskin instead of the cps directly. This was a quick explanation for that trick and there are many ways to have a smartskin relationship control another relationship which then controls what you want to actually change so you may need to experiment with this trick and most of my uses for it were either simple or limited to a single axis rotation set so I'm not sure how well it'll work in multi-axis settings with more complex manipulations but it is worth a try.
The keyframe spanning problem you mentioned is weird and makes me wonder if something in how things are set up is off. Instead of using the delete keframe button have you tried deleting the keys that appears under the project workspace (see attached image) with either a right click delete or a delete key on keyboard press (although the delete keyframe control does work for me in a v14c quick test).
-
http://www.anzovin.com/products.html now has download links for both PC and Mac versions.
-
Have you tried final rendering again? Did it happen to the same frames?
-
Knowing that setting the priority helps fix some problems is beneficial, but I'm still 100% certain that is not the issue here (and I stand by my statement that changing priority can potentially have adverse effects). I don't have v15 so I can't test myself but I suspect the multi-core support was removed in v15. I really hope someone with v15 would check if they still have Threads options somewhere and also if someone with v15 and multi-core could report their processor load from A:M while rendering, that would truly be helpful. Unless software is set for multi-core only one core will be used and it'll show as only a 50% processor load. Regardless of priority the cpu which is handling rendering will be fully used, its just a question of process queue.
-
It also could be a windows thing. Maybe try right clicking on the AM process in the windows task manager and increase the priority.
That is not really a good suggestion. Changing a program's priority can decrease system stability and would need to be done each time the program is loaded (if you do, don't set it to "Realtime"). Are you running anything else at the same time, if not checking the task manager is a good idea though, if anything else is using the processor that might explain the 30%, but 50% is probably because only 1 core is being utilized. If something is running in the background that is utilizing a lot of the processor, and you don't know what it is, run an antivirus and antispyware check.
-
I only played briefly with one of v15's betas but thought the option was still there.
I guess it has been removed? Sorry about the false info since I use v14 and thought it would still be in v15 and/or still be in the same place. Hopefully someone with v15 can help you out and until then if rendering animation try my second suggestion. If only rendering single frames though you'll have to wait for better info.
-
It can be done but you need version 14 or later, multi-core rendering was added with version 14. In Animation Master, you need to go to "tools", "options", "global", "threads" and either enter the number of cores you have (2) or click the "auto" check box.
I only have PC's so I can't tell you if this works for Macs as well.
Another option (read about but haven't used yet) for rendering multiple frames with a multi-core processor is to open a second instance of Animation Master and divide the frames to be rendered between the two. (For this keep threads to 1, for each instance)
-
Just because CPWeights might do the job doesn't mean you should just go for a workaround. It is best to know how both tools work and that both are working correctly. There are many cool things that only Smartskinning can do. I really on smartskin for what I do so if there is a problem I want to be sure.
Which version of AM are you using? I did a quick simple test with both 14b and 14c and didn't notice a problem but it was a very quick simple test. Are the CPs positions changed but just not the way you like or are they not being affected/assigned by the smartskinning? If not at all then maybe key muscle isn't pressed. If not correctly then are multiple smartskin keys assigned? If they're not at regular intervals then that can cause weirdness.
-
Posting for additional verification sake:
I just tested (animation preview render) the Barbarian rigged 3 from the extra DVD in v14 (latest as of posting date) and also had it hang (around 30% as well), but the lines shooting out problem I didn't encounter with it. An animation preview in V13t though did render it in seconds.
A:M Bench 2017 – Benchmark for Hash Animation:Master
in Animation:Master
Posted
Don't "winky" face. This issue is neither funny nor cute. If Jason is the only one that can handle such matters then someone has to get him on the ball or if someone else can be then someone else should be given the job. Besides this matter their is also the times I've seen with people or a person was stuck waiting for a new license. A fall back needs to be assigned or hired to keep these things from happening.
You may have your slightly bug fixed update but that most of the rest here don't makes it rude to announce your special case/privilege so flagrantly.