Meowx

Alright, looking in to it now. Thank you both a ton! I'll let you know what I come up with. edit: Fantastic! Copying the relationships back over from the installer did the trick. Thanks again!!

Indeed, the stuff is all weighted: (Couple black pixels that didn't get assigned, but nothing huge.) Here's the rig: Orc_Warrior_rig.mdl.zip

Ha, nice job all around! Thanks for taking the time to put it all together, Rob. And great rope trick!!

I'm installing the 2008 rig in a model and have it all weighted and ready. However, when I actually mirror it, none of the relationships/constraints seem to be coming along for the ride. IK legs, hand controls, nothing. I tried using the "MirrorConstraints" plug as well, but that just messes with it. I've followed the instructional PDF included with the 2008 rig. Thanks! (I moved the foot controller in the picture to show that the leg's not following it, it wasn't there on its own.)

Hahaha. Much better now! Although looking at it now, I'd almost say it would be a lot cleaner without the "SEE" stuff at all. But it would also have less to draw people in. I'm torn! Perhaps just a shorter line like, "Princesses and astronauts, love and romance, treachery and betrayal... and much, much more!" thinking>

Cool! Is that just something you did for fun, or were you going to use it to promote the film? If the latter, I might suggest putting "...is twenty of them." above the "SEE" lines. It reads a little awkward right now.

Delete this: I've had the exact same problem before; having the model bone's visibility toggled in a pose causes it.

Perhaps duplicate the bones, constrain the copies to the originals (translate to and orient like) and have the original bones aim at the copies?

I think it's more that it's hard to tell if she's wearing pants or not. The "seams" seem like they're supposed to be pants... but the color is identical to the face. If they are indeed pants, you should probably change the color to something that's not the same as the skin.

Hey there, something I've always wondered about... does anyone know how AM decides which patches should be shown when hooks are involved? For example: I'm adding some pants texture on these legs. You can see the patch with a hook is also making part of the skin decal show up. When I select the hook, it automatically brings that extra CP along with it. When I specifically click that CP and make it go away, the hook's patch ALSO goes away: However, on the other leg? Exactly the opposite. Here, you can see that the "skin" patch is hidden, but the "hook" patch shows up just fine. I'm planning on just decaling over the skin on the one side and then removing the patch from the decal afterwards, but I've run into this a few times before and was wondering if anyone knows what dictates the hook's hide/show behavior. Thanks!

Awesome!

Just go into bone mode and click on the background. This selects the model bone and makes any unassigned CPs flash.

The guys on these forums are ridiculously knowledgeable and friendly. If you have any sort of question, never hesitate to ask - responses are far quicker than most message boards. I browse new threads multiple times a day, you never know what random helpful thing you might learn!

Gotta say, bug reports in German are far more fun to watch!

Bat wings do suit the character better, but agreed with paradymx - go smaller like cherub wings. Or go bigger! Right now they're kind of neutral sized, and don't quite seem right... their size isn't stylized like the character is.

Alright, that gives me a bit more insight into the whole shebang. I don't quite agree with the whole "shoulder the burden" outlook - standard business practice for most software packages outside of pay-to-play MMOs is you buy it, you install it, you use it. The company comes out with the new version next year, you look at all the shiny new features, and decide whether or not those features are personally worth it for you to spend the money on the upgrade. That being said, A:M is very much a product like no other - like you mentioned. There is no massive campus at Hash, Inc. with thousands of employees pouring over the code. There is no $1k+ price tag leaving jaws on the ground. Animation:Master is absolutely the best deal I've ever seen in 3D software, period. Honestly, I doubt there would be much interest in the return of the $99 upgrade CD. I probably wouldn't bother, I'd just keep renewing my $79 subscription anyway. But options are always nice. (And I do enjoy my collection of A:M cds!)

Say, a question about the whole subscription thing. As much as I love having the latest up to date version of A:M, I'm not a fan of "yearly dues" at all. We've paid money for the software, after all. I used to go years at a time without updating, and it suited me just fine. Now, however, we're pretty much forced to shell out for the upgrade every year just to keep the software running. Feels more like we're renting than owning. (Unless I'm just absolutely blind and there's a way to upgrade without subscribing.) Is there/will there be a way to get upgrades without the leash in the future? Does the $300 box get you a subscription as well, and then you're forced to go update to keep the software running? Or is it just a free to use forever A:M like the old ones?

See, this is why I like them all facing the same way.

Another suggestion - holds never completely stop the motion. Try the action yourself in the mirror - it's impossible to completely freeze yourself solid like that, and looks very, very unnatural. The actions will typically "follow through" on a hold - that is, the hand moves a bit farther back, the body sticks a bit further out, etc etc. Here's a nice little video about holds from the Killer Bean guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpgMqebug6Q

As long as you don't name each version after different kinds of cats. My response to "are you using leopard or panther?" is "I have no idea."

Huh, weird. Just tried it out (3.5.16), worked fine for me... I hate browsers. Getting stuff to work on every browser on every OS is a nightmare.

Awesome resources! Compiled Rob's link into a PDF for easy reading: http://www.modenstudios.com/Lesson%203%20-%20Composition.pdf

I remember when I first came to the forums, I was actually confused by the version numbers and had to go do a get info on A:M to see which version I was using - because the CDs have always been A:M 2001, A:M 2004, etc.

Ha, cool idea! Would be neat to actually see it in action, too! Did the gifs in my original post work, Rob? They also cycle back and forth. What browser are you using?

I don't know... I've noticed a very subtle difference in shading when normals are facing the other way. When two opposite flipped patches are next to each other, correcting it can actually be noticeable. Random lathe object; two renders: one with normals facing in, one with normals facing out. Subtle shading difference. (animated GIF)