MikeV
-
Posts
164 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MikeV
-
-
All about spoons in there.. nothing else... for forks you will need another tuto... of course not
See you
*Fuchur*
lol!
Nice
-
MikeV, no doubt this has come up before, but are you certain that "mirror mode" and "snap to grid" were both turned OFF while you were working?
Hey there, Gerry.
Naw it was definitely not either of those.
Thanks!
-
Hi!
so here it is...
It is quite large (mp4, about 50 min. 1304px * 804px resolution).
Filesize is about 400 MB, but I think it is worth for a beginner!
Let me know what you think.
I am covering different things like:
- user interface
- basic spline / patch principles
- some comon questions like: how to connect a shape to a arm > explaining when to use which patches, etc.
- what and when to use hooks
- the advantages and disadvantages of peaked vs rounded splines
- hooks, lathe, extrusion, copy/flip/attach, a little bit about normals
- many many helpful little tipps concering keyboard shortcuts, good practice, etc.
And finally we are modelling a spoon in A:M.
Hope it will help you to get started with A:M in a better way.
See you
*Fuchur*
PS: It is not my mother tongue so: Please be patient with me
Awesome! Thanks for putting that work into it!
lol.. love how all the focus is on it being a spoon XD.
Well, as long as the principles taught are applicable to anything, and not "spoon-specific", that's what matters
. -
Im sorry to hear you are having trouble getting started in A:M, if you need any help im available. you can reach me several ways.
if you need a tutorial on modeling something small like a spoon i pretty much mastered all small objects at this point.
and hey maybe you could help me figure out blender since that for me is like trying to jump a hurdle 400 ft high.
all my contact info is in my signature.
Hey there, thejobe..
Thanks!
Well, it's not creating the spoon that's the problem. Like I said before, the object is really arbitrary. We could be talking about anything that you can create by using extrude, scale, rotate and transform, with hands-on spline modeling being required only to "close off" the object.
It's more the way patch/splines work "under the hood", the rules they're governed by, and how to utilize that knowledge - pro-actively - when modeling with them. What put me off with it is that it seems the problems I run into seem to happen more often *after* I've moved beyond the spot where the actual problem occurs. So, not only do I not know *what* caused the problem, I don't even know exactly when it happened.
For example, on a model I was working on in another thread, a five-point patch just vanished. That did not happen until I was several steps, and about an hour at least past the point of creating it. Yet, the problem with it was directly related to one of the CPs defining it. So, why did that issue not pop up right when I was creating it in the first place? Why did it disappear a while later? I have no idea... and that's what I've been trying to convey as the issue.
If there was a tutorial or a demonstration or something that demystified all that, I think you'd see a big difference. Sure it might seem obvious or intuitive to some... but then, not everyone learns the same way or at the same rate.
Fuchur is working on a tutorial vid to address this, if I understand correctly. So I'll be interested to see if it clears up that bit of "mystery" for me. Then we'll see where things go from there.
I'm sure others around here have gotten tired of me by now... what with the lack of response from a few notable people, even to another thread I started specifically asking for feedback/advice. It's fine. Those who want to respond and discuss, will. I don't take it personally.
As for learning Blender.. sure! lol I can at least show or help point you to some of the more "common stuff" when it comes to modeling and such. I wouldn't want to discuss all that here, though, since this isn't a Blender forum. If you want to contact me in a PM, I can point you to some stuff that way.
Thanks!
-
Hi Mike,
thanks for letting us know. Some are just not built to use patches, especially if they already touched polygones. (that is often harder than starting up without that.)
I will do a tutorial on a cup and a spoon soon too, because it is really not too hard to create something like that in a short time... maybe you want to have a look again just to know how it can be done.
(i will see if I can provide something after work...)
See you and have a good time
*Fuchur*
Hiya Fuchur
Heheh thanks for that!
Hey, the more tutorials, the better! They're certain to be helpful to others, for sure.
Thing is, I don't want this to be confused as "Mike's leaving A:M because of a spoon?". The coffee cup I'd already modeled before, but did have issues due to some weird glitch that, to my knowledge, was never figured out.
It's not about "a spoon" or "a coffee cup". It could have been any 2 or 3 or 5 simple objects.
The gist is more in that those are both very simple objects, using techniques you learn "day 1" for either method: extruding, scaling, transform, rotate, and in the case of A:M, detaching and re-attaching CPs. Those very same processes are used in several of the beginner modeling tutorial in the TaoAM book.
So, the trouble isn't from the process of creating the objects. The trouble is derived from the quirky nature of splines/cp's and all those hidden rules that I've touched on before. It's never as simple as just "attaching one CP to another". Attaching CPs is easy. Attaching CP's correctly so as to not break any of the various underlying rules is another story altogether and it's where I seem to continuously run into trouble.
So, while a tutorial to model a spoon and cup is certainly helpful in terms of sheer "hands-on practice". The more worthwhile tutorial, in my opinion, would be one that goes into detail of specifically how splines are connected, broken, re-connected and so forth, relative to how they are supposed to work. That's what is missing in those TaoAM tutorials and in any other similar tutorial I looked at. They all explain the "what". None of them explain the "why" in terms of those underlying rules.
Anyway!
Off to work with me!
-
Hey folks,
Just wanted to pop in to say that, though it's been an interesting (even if frustrating at times
) ride, that I've come to the decision that modeling with A:M and, more specifically, splines/patches isn't "for me". I have decided to stick with the world of polys and subdivision surface modeling (well, actually, it's my first actual venture into Sub-D's; I'd always done low-poly stuff before).
I won't go into a long-winded explanation other than to say that I came to a realization over the past few nights that I'm just far more wired for learning and working with polys/sub-d's than I am with spline/patches.
To be a bit more specific and so it doesn't seem I'm just being arbitrary here, I'll say that I spent 1.5 hours trying 3 different ways to model a basic spoon in A:M. Each attempt was a mess and nowhere near what I was trying to produce. Finding it impossible to believe that after about 2 weeks of working with A:M, I was still having such trouble with so simple an object, I decided to do a test comparison. I fired up Blender3D to attempt modeling the same spoon using sub-d's.. something I'd never used before (all my previous Blender work had been purely low-poly).
Long and short of it, in less than a half an hour overall, I had both a spoon and a coffee cup completely modeled. An hour and a half after that, with some experimenting and tweaking of material, lighting and render settings I had the rendered shot you see attached. It's not a masterpiece, but then it's not supposed to be.
That pretty much settled it for me.
I decided that, as much as I like the idea behind A:M, find the technology of Hash Patches to be quite cool and love what can be done with it, I'm just not wired for it. That much is obvious. I could continue to slam my face against the wall of trying to wrap my brain around Hash Patches, but why? Why spend time trying to force my hand into a glove that clearly isn't my size, when there's a pair that fits me just fine, even if I they're a bit oversized and I have to grow into them a bit?
So anyway... I didn't want to just "walk away" rudely. You all have been awesome, very helpful and very generous with your time. I wanted to say Thank You once again for that and that it has been very much appreciated. I'll still come around, even if only to see what's going on in A:M world, simply 'cause this is such a great and positive place to be.. and because I still find it to be a pretty darn cool piece of software.
Also, I'm finding that some of what I have learned in my time here is applicable to other applications as well. As such, I'll be bringing that knowledge to Blender and to whatever projects I work on with it.
So thanks again, and all the best!
Take care and stay awesome!
Mike
-
hey MikeV---- I thing moving along and making some progress in other areas is good for the soul sometimes. Its a big program with lots of stuff to learn anyhow .
Glad to see you are pushing ahead and forging forward!! and Most importantly have fun!
Yeah. The most important thing, I figure, is to keep moving forward and keep working on stuff.
My current challenge is finding a good set of comprehensive tutorials on materials. I can't seem to find any. Most I find are for very specific applications. I'm sure I'll find something though.
-
Anyone around here from the Albany, NY region? Catskills, etc?
Seriously? Someone else nutty enough to live in Small-Bany??? I'm in Scotia...lovely little Scotia.
Actually, I'm in Mt. Marion, about 5 minutes from Woodstock, about 10 from Kingston. I figured Albany might be more recognizable as an overall region.
Google maps says I'm about an hour S. of you. Google Maps has been wrong before, though.
straight up the thruway...sounds about right..
Nice!
Well, howdy neighbor!
-
I just realized I had set my birth year wrong in my settings. The forums said I'm 38. I'm actually 39 today :-p
I also learned I share the same birthday with Kevin Smith! So that's kinda cool
-
In the meantime...
Got my first "prop" model done... Just need to work on the material for it now. I'm gonna look for some good material tutorials and see what I can learn.
Cap and main canister are separate objects, so I can have them not on fully or what not, just to add a bit of "life" to the setting. Also, the cap actually properly fits the opening... so that's a bonus :-p.
Lathing an object isn't a major challenge, and so this is more just a "I got this part done on this day" sort of mile-marker. Will be interesting to go back and look at how things progressed later on.
Here's a quick render of it...
-
Thanks everyone!
@Rodney Splines.... -whimper-
lol
-
Okay... quick self-check here.
I'm filling out and tweaking the basic counter/cabinet set right now, just getting things into a scale I can work with, etc. I put a window into my back wall using the approach Jeff Cantin describes on his site (or at least how I understood it). However, I am finding that there are 4 dead-end splines connecting the main wall spline to the window spline. I could probably re-connect them so they flow into the splines forming the frame of the window, but then I'd have to contend with the splines wanting to curve. Which I don't want, obviously.
What I'm wondering is, since it's a flat surface and the intention is to have a somewhat sharp corner where the wall meets the window, is it an exception to the "no dead-ends", or at least permissible in this case? Is there a different/better way I should be doing it?
I want to get this right and I want to learn the right way to do this stuff as early as possible, and if doing things over is what it takes to drill it into my head, then that's what I'll do...
Here's a shot of it...
Thanks!
-
Hey MikeV, not to complicate your life, but as you build your set, I would highly recommend beveling EVERYTHING. I know it sounds like a ton more work but the end result makes it way worthwhile. And once you get in that mindset, it becomes easier.
You know, it's funny you mention that, because on the way home from work, I was thinking about setting up the "proxy models" that Rodney mentioned earlier in the thread, for things like the cabinets and such. Given the "project" nature of A:M, I can easily create the basic/starting models - making sure to bevel the edges as you note (which would definitely be good practice) - and just have those models ready for when it's time to complete the finished objects.
And then I got to thinking, well, some things are fairly straight-forward to model.. like a bowl, or a canister (for sugar, flour, etc). Things like that. And I want to do the whole thing with having "Sugar" and such "embossed" into the surface of the canisters, which I think would be a good candidate for becoming more familiar with the material system which I haven't delved into too much yet. I'd like to get a sorta polished earthenware look which, I imagine, would require the use of a few of the settings and such. So that should be good practice.
So... it's not taking as long as I thought it might, but I'm feeling that "bug" coming back to create stuff. Which is good! Certainly not complaining about that!
-
Hey, thanks all!
Gotta say, this is the first time I've had a thread started specifically to wish me one on a forum. Cool!
-
Just discovered a great resource for all types of forgotten places. Perfect reference pics for all your haunted house or post-apocalyptic projects.
http://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/
Enjoy,
Steve P.
Ah, awesome topic. I love stuff like this.
There aren't many, but there's some awesome urban exploration vids on YT you can find where they go into places you wouldn't see otherwise.
Really cool stuff.
-
Hey Rodney, I was just thinking (stand back! it could get messy!)
Since this thread has basically morphed from a "one-off" post and is likely going to become about a work in progress, perhaps it would be better to move it to that forum section?
Was just thinking about that.
-
Mike,
You must have read my mind because I was about to suggest starting a WIP.
Its not only one of the best ways to flesh out ideas but its a great way to get feedback.
Your persistence and determination are great assets.
Keep it up!
Added: I should mention here that often when developing sets/settings that aren't fully planned out, a useful methodology is to use proxy models and then later replace them with the real models. In that way models (which can be as simple a rectangles and squares) can be placed in a choreography quickly and refined or replaced later. Its not unlike what you are doing here with the curtains.
Thanks for that!
Yeah, I like to always keep the creativity flowing, and I hate letting things "beat me" so even if the "gotta model something" bug hasn't quite bit me again yet, I'm keeping myself creative in another way.
I don't intend to jump into the animation part for a bit yet, and the modeling will be basic at this point, and there's still a lot of modeling to be done, which will probably be good practice for me in general since it covers a variety of different things. Will be good material and texturing practice, too, which I haven't gotten into beyond the decaling of a couple tutorials.
I also have to come up with some art for a fictitious Macaroni and Cheese brand. I have an idea for that, though. I was thinking that could be a neat "sub-project". I'll use A:M to create the assets required for the box art itself, then slap the rendered image on the box in the full animation. It's not going to be anything fancy... the idea will be one of those really "child-targeted", silly-looking box art deals, but there's a few key things on it that are important to the story and action itself.
As for using proxies... good idea! I hadn't considered using proxy models. I'd like to have a corner modeled in on one side of the counter, with a refrigerator on the other side... just to sorta "box in" the set, and assure that however the camera's angled, it'll always be seeing "something". You'll never be looking away from the counter, so I'm not worried about that.
No shortage of things to do! But, I have to start getting ready for work, so that'll all have to wait 'til later.
-
I wasn't sure if this belonged in "Work In Progress" or this section. Since I'm not actually physically working on anything in A:M at this point, I figured this was the better option. If I'm wrong and it belongs in the "Work In Progress" section, by all means kick it over there
.So, after reading through the posts in that last thread, I decided that while I wait for my "juices" and inspiration to fully get flowing again in terms of learning in earnest with A:M, that I would start doing some planning for what will be my first full animation with it. I am by no means jumping straight into that project. I'm just doing all the early work that doesn't require any modeling or what-not to take place... storyboarding and so forth. This way, when I feel I'm ready to take that step and really begin work on it, I should have most everything I need in place. That's the plan, anyway.
Up 'til now, I've thought through the animation as a sort of "fuzzy" movie... kinda like someone with really bad eyesight (like me!) watching TV without glasses. You can make out the shapes, you can see stuff happening, but the details aren't very clear. Other than a few key props, I havent' had much else worked out. There are a few bits of the action that I'm still sorting through and I'm not sure what order they'll happen in just yet. Hopefully the storyboarding will help with that.
So anyway, what I did is jumped into A:M and just mocked up a quick kitchen counter (based roughly on the one in my kitchen, but not exact), and then went into GIMP and did a very rough (emphasis on "very") "paint over" of a screenshot of it to sorta "block in' where major set pieces will be. Stuff you'll see in the background to make it look like an actual kitchen counter but that won't be part of the main action.
The smaller props that will be more specific to the movie itself aren't drawn in yet, 'cause it's getting late, I'm getting tired and my mouse drawing skills were bad enough as it was.
In the meantime, I'm going to also do some reading on creating stories for animation and try to get some "formal education" (ie. more of a clue than I have now) in that regard. I know there are some experienced people on these forums who have actually "walked the walk" already and lived to tell about it.. so I might be picking at some of your brains as well
.Anyhow.. I'm rambling here and probably not even making sense lol. So here's a picture of my -cough- paint-over job. Yes, it's pretty much all mechanical modeling at this point (sorry, Rob!). Well, except for the curtains, which will be interesting to model, for sure. But other elements will be more round and fluid and less rigid and "straight".
I thought maybe some folks could take a look at the roughed out sketch and let me know if anything sends up red-flags for you right away? Anything you think might be an issue, etc? I know there's not much going on in the picture, but hey... gotta start somewhere, right?
'night all!
P.S. Aren't the curtains simply breathtaking? So realistic!
>.>
-
You're right, A:M is great for mechanical models too. I wouldn't model with anything else. But if you were ONLY making mechanical models then your life might go faster with an app that can, for example, automatically bevel an edge. You can make great bevels in A:M but it's not as easy as a with a strong polygon modeler.
For me, it's not a deal killer, I prefer A:M when I consider all the things that are easier.
The realization I've come to with all the "aftermath" of that is that I really feel I haven't really learned a thing beyond the absolute basic of basics.I think you were really close with what you had, there were just a couple bumps to diagnose. After you have made some more models you will start to see the bumps before you hit them.
Ah, I getcha now. Yeah I can agree on that point. I definitely don't fall into that category of only wanting to do mechanical. Mechanical objects will be very necessary in my projects, though.
Incidentally, I just got done watching both of your introductory vids you linked earlier in the thread. Very good! I was already a fan of your method of explaining and illustrating things based on your other videos.. so I wasn't expecting to *not* like them. They were a great introduction, though. I take it nothing more ever came of those?
Regarding the information you cover with the magnitude and such of using the bias handles, those things I had a pretty good grasp on. I work with Corel Draw every day at my job (I work in the art dept. of a company that produces patches, labels, pins, shirts and so forth...), and am often tracing over images and having to match curves and such, so the concept of curves and handles and CPs is pretty "solid" with me.
What's tripping me up is more the A:M-specific pit-falls and things that can happen to break the continuity of a spline, or change its direction, or cause ghostly rogue CP's to linger around behind legitimate ones :-p. Basically the things that have been tripping me up in this thread with that particular project.
-
I appreciate all the feedback, everyone. And I'm glad y'all haven't just written me off as a "whiner" lol.
I *would* like to learn and become proficient at A:M
@ everyone: What put me off is purely the idea that I've been moving along under the assumption that I've been learning and building a solid foundation of what I'm doing. I felt I had a good, working understanding of how splines work and of how patches work. That project with the beam, which was really part of a bigger project (an entire "market stand"), was intended as both a project and a sort of application of what I've learned. Something that I would want to do for my own use, rather than something I'm instructed to do from a book or a video.
The realization I've come to with all the "aftermath" of that is that I really feel I haven't really learned a thing beyond the absolute basic of basics. Or at least that I haven't learned a thing correctly. It's a very discouraging realization to have after feeling like I'd been moving along and being overall happy with my progress. So, the enthusiasm has been sucked right out of me. Now all I can think is, "if I proceed from this point, how much farther will I get this time before I find out that I've been doing everything wrong again, and feel I've wasted even more time spinning my wheels?"
@robcat: I get what you're saying about A:M not being ideal for mechanical modeling, but it also confuses me that you say that. Because when I look through the gallery, I see stuff like these:
http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=30
http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=37
http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=48
http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=92
http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...&fullsize=1
... and many more you've no doubt seen many times...
... I get the impression that A:M is perfectly well suited for mechanical modeling. I mean, those models look damn good to my eyes. Is it optimal for flat, mechanical objects? Probably not, in much the same way that polygon modeling isn't optimal for obtaining smooth curved surfaces. To me, Hash Patches and Polygons seem to be kinda balanced at opposite ends of the see-saw, so to speak. The strengths of each balancing out its weaknesses compared to the other.
I do intend to create characters and the like. But I also intend to create set-pieces and backdrops and things that are going to be more straight and hard-edged in nature. If you would say definitively that A:M is not the program for me if I intend to create such objects, then maybe my best choice would be to move on and return to a polygon-based approach. Though I suspect you wouldn't be quite prepared to make that suggestion. I could be wrong though.
I'm not "going away mad". I'm just rather bummed and deflated for right now. I'll probably pick it back up at some point. Maybe not "right now", but I'll be sticking around.
Appreciate the "talk" folks
-
Besides the TAOAM book tutorials ....what really is needed are a point by point modeling tutorials by some of the most experienced modelers with AM .......going over all the planning , and decisions one needs to take. All the continuity strategies used making the models . All the break spline tricks, Add points , etc etc. Every step taken and why. and maybe all the bad habits new folks do ie. peaking to early or late etc ----an a few different models each with different approaches to being successful with etc. I almost think having some do not do this ...type of tutorials would even help many.
These exist already, in the form of Barry Zundel's tutorial series. You can buy them one at a time, for like five bucks. So you can stop *wishing* they exist. They already do.
It's great that they exist, and I've seen that video set mentioned with high regard a number of times.
My one problem with offering that as a solution is this...
If what he's demonstrating in those videos is critical to developing a comprehensive early understanding of patch modeling, of the behaviors and quirks of CPs and splines, and provides instruction/advice on how to properly approach modeling something, to start you off on the right foot, with those characteristics in mind, then they, or something equivalent, should be included with the software itself.
We're not talking specialized topics like how to model a character, or how to compose and render a scene well. We're talking nuts-and-bolts, "this is information that will carry over into everything you create with our software" basic information.
People buying your software, and then being told "now go spend more money on some videos that teach you the ins-and-outs of patches, splines and CPs and how to plan and work with them properly" seems more than a little unreasonable to me. I would fully, and reasonably, expect to be provided that information with the price of the software itself, especially if such info is as critical to proper modeling technique as it clearly is in this case.
-
I think that Mike's experience is a common one. Struggling with AM modeling is almost a given for all new folks. I struggle and feel his frustrations. He obviously wants to learn and make stuff . He obviously has talent but is being frustrated by those patch works rules and practices . And Mike brought up many good points of all the trickiness to getting it all to come out right.
And its not like it cannot be done --obviously great modeling is done by the works you can see here.
Besides the TAOAM book tutorials ....what really is needed are a point by point modeling tutorials by some of the most experienced modelers with AM .......going over all the planning , and decisions one needs to take. All the continuity strategies used making the models . All the break spline tricks, Add points , etc etc. Every step taken and why. and maybe all the bad habits new folks do ie. peaking to early or late etc ----an a few different models each with different approaches to being successful with etc. I almost think having some do not do this ...type of tutorials would even help many.
Heck ---I would even think many folks would pay for some good current tutorials.
However- I cannot stress how important --how amazingly valuable this kind of thing would be to growing the user base of AM users. And more important keeping them active and renewing year after year. And sure ---you can't make everyone a great modeler by having some great tutorials but-----you will not lose so many good modelers to frustration. And many less talented will become more talented.
Robert has made a few short tutorials of the likes needed ------but many more of a similar vein would be oh so helpful.
Robert made some good points how vs blender you can rig super fast with AM but modeling might take longer. But if folks never get to make that model right , never make one character they are happy with --they may never get to see the elegance and speed of AM's rigging.
I know resources are tight with HASH at this point in the life of AM --but if I owned this AP -----Working on new current and detailed tutorials would be very high on the to do list......That and t- shirts and hoodies !!!!!
Anyhow --just my two cents.
Excellent post, Vertexspline. I think you sum it up perfectly.
A:M is fine. The way it works is fine. The results it can produce are awesome. None of this is debatable, in my opinion.
The thoroughness of the tutorials/excercises and the comprehensiveness of all the things that *really* go into spline/patch modeling, however, need an overhaul.
When someone, however new, is running into issues that they didn't even know could be issues to begin with, and it's resulting in the loss of hours, or even days of work... there's something very wrong.
-
Shorter answer to your question: No, it's not supposed to be harder, we don't want it to be harder, but it is, a little bit, for this task.
We might ask the same if we were rigging a face with Blender. One of my Facebook acquaintances has been posting his progress on rigging a face he modeled. He's been going at it for weeks and can just get the mouth to open a bit satisfactorily. I can get that same thing going on an A:M face in an hour maybe:
Blender is a lot harder for this task.
Fair enough, though pointing to face rigging in Blender has nothing to do with modeling a simple beam in Animation Master. It certainly has nothing to do with the issues I'm encountering. I'm not trying to rig a face. I'm trying to model a fairly simple and straight-forward static object.
If you want to do a comparison with Blender, then at least keep the comparisons 1-to-1. As in, "modeling the same, simple object in each program".
And it's not "because polygons are superior to patches". So please don't take it as me implying that. I think they're both equally useful. Each has its benefits and its drawbacks. It's just that patches are more complicated in their use with more underlying rules to be aware of at every step of the process. Polygons are more free-form and forgiving and have less "baggage" involved in their usage.
The simple explanation for that would be that polygon modeling is a lot more.. actually much more straight forward than spline modeling. What you see is quite literally what you get. There are no hidden secondary and tertiary rules governing every single edge and vertex on the surface of a polygon mesh. You don't have to worry about which direction your edges are flowing, or if more than 2 edges meet at a given vertex. There's no such thing as "dead-ending". If you select two faces and then extrude/inset them into another shape, you're not automatically breaking any rules of "proper edge flow". You don't have to worry about internal faces because they don't occur unless you specifically and intentionally create them. The greatest concern you have in terms of the structure of a polygon mesh is "are the normals all facing the right way?", and a fix for that is typically a button or key press away.
So, to answer your question earlier in the thread about what I would have been able to do when I first started with Blender... Yes, I would have been able to model something like that - and more. Within the first few hours. No question. With any poly modeler, Blender or otherwise. Because vertices, edges and faces don't carry all the caveats and conditions that splines and patches do. It's constructed with three of the first and most basic tools you learn.. extrude, transform and scale. We're talking the Day One poly-modeling equivalent of creating an S out of a spline and lathing it into a vase in A:M.
I don't have to worry about having some mistake I made unknowingly suddenly coming to light an hour or two later when I'm well beyond that point and doing something on another part of the model.
-
Hi MikeV,
Jts all about spline continuity. You can always check edgeloops hiting the spline and the comma key.
If something really won'T work, don't break your head finding out why, simply break splines
And delete cps til your reach your goal.
You can live well without ever touching the biashandles.
(there was a time, when they had some disadvantages so i never used them ever since)
AM is sometimes a bit sturdy , the 5 pointers always have been, but you get used to it.
(peaking is always last step ,because it will make it harder to judge splinecontinuity.)
Hey there. Thanks for the feedback/info.
You say it's all about spline continuity, and that was my initial perspective. But that doesn't really seem to be the case when you get down to it, because there are so many little individual things that can alter a splines continuity without someone (especially a new user) even realizing it 'til much later.
With the model in this thread, I had been checking spline continuity and such to make sure nothing was dead-ending, etc. And nothing was. At one point, even Robcat was stumped because, I presume, he couldn't see any reason why it wouldn't work. It turns out there was a "rogue CP" that he found that seemed to be the problem. But then there was a CP that another user noticed that seemed to be the problem. So, in that case, even having proper spline continuity didn't guarantee anything.
Also the thing with peaking the CPs. That part kind of confused me, because at one point - maybe in this thread, perhaps elsewhere - someone suggested peaking the CPs and then using the bias handles to get the curve I wanted. But then later, I think it was Nancy, questioned why I was using the bias handles so early in the modeling. That brings to light another "secondary or tertiary rule" that I seem to have slammed into face-first without even knowing it existed. I had no idea there was a "right" or "wrong" time to use bias handles. To me it was a matter of tweaking the splines at a given CP to get the shape you want. Apparently it's more involved than that.
And that, on balance, is what's really throwing me off with A:M. All those hidden rules that seem to go along with, seemingly, everything you can possibly do in the program. I realize for someone more experienced, all of those things are second nature and completely instinctual. I'm not saying "A:M sucks. It's all the program's fault". Again, I've seen what the program is capable of and what it can do. I'm just saying that, to someone just learning the program and trying to come to grips with the absolute basics, it's more than a little overwhelming. And, apparently, the basic tutorials I've been following have not been doing a thorough job of pointing all that out.
Speaking of tutorials, another thing that's struck me is how someone earlier in the thread noted that the tutorials in the TaoAM are a bit outdated and not really up-to-date with how the program works now, or with the best practices of how to approach different specific tasks. But then on the other hand, what is the first thing people are told to do when starting out with A:M? To go through the TaoAM book. I mean, think about that.
I don't know. I think A:M is a solid and very cool program that can do some amazing stuff. I think it's the structure of the tutorials and such that need to be be revisited, perhaps. Especially if much of it is outdated, using approaches that are no longer valid or ideal in newer versions of the software.
Just my two cents.
I think I'm gonna take some time away from this program and maybe come back with a fresh brain. We'll see how I do.
Thanks again for all the feedback and help. Despite my frustration with learning A:M at the moment, it is appreciated.
Just popping in...
in Off Topic
Posted
I don't take it as "harsh". It *is* completely off the mark and more than a little ignorant. My comment was based on the fact that in every other thread I started with something I was working on, or with a question I was asking, I'd get responses/feedback to it within at least a day. All of a sudden, almost all of that fell away - and this is even before I stated that I'd decided to pick up Blender again. So I guess my "comittment" was being questioned before I even thought about changing 3D programs? Hmmm....
For just over two weeks, every day, I was at my computer working on learning things in A:M as much as I could. I was going through exercises, trying things out for myself, posting results up here on the forums. Discussing what I was doing. Taking the feedback I was getting and applying it - or trying to - etc. It was as much commitment as I could manage, given the time I have to do so.
I'm not even sure what you consider a "convincing level of committment". Further, I wonder why you feel qualified to place such arbitrary expectations on people before you deem them "worthy" of your time. Do you know what my time availability is? Do you know what my other responsibilities are? Do you know how my time is spent outside of being able to sit at my computer and work with A:M, or any other 3D program? No. You don't. So how could you possibly sit there and cast such an arbitrary judgment?
What I wonder is what "standard" I should have met in your eyes to satisfy your "requirements" for one's "level of comittment". Maybe I should have posted twice as much as I was? Perhaps I should have had a live camera on me the entire time I was working so you could see how much time I actually was spending on it? I don't say that just to sound snarky (deserved as such a response would be to such an undeservedly disrespectful and dismissive attitude as yours toward me), but to make a point. You're holding someone else to some arbitrary standard that only you know.. and regarding them accordingly. I really hope I don't need to point out how unfair or unreasonable an attitude that is.
No, what made me finally move on was this... I was trying to learn A:M. I posted in *frustration* that I wasn't picking things up as well as I'd like to be and that I was hoping to move on and get good enough to where I could start actually creating things on my own and perhaps even give back to the community. Perhaps you missed those posts and those remarks, but they were made, and they were made with 100% sincerity.
What happened, Rodney, is not that I "wasn't comitted to learning", it's that - after ~2 weeks of repeated problems with *very basic things* in A:M - I started to wonder if I was barking up the wrong tree. Maybe spline/patch modeling just wasn't for me. I *stated* this openly. I didn't say it proudly. It bummed me out because I really was trying to learn, understand and apply it all - your doubts about my "level of commitment" notwithstanding.
I re-downloaded, installed and fired-up Blender only as a self-check to see if maybe I would have similar issues with creating the same objects in that program, using sub-d surfaces. Maybe it wasn't just A:M that I'd have that kind of problem with. I'd never used sub-d's before, beyond making a cube, applying a sub-d level or two to it, saying "that's neat...", then deleting it and moving on to regular polygon modeling. It so happens that I actually didn't have that much trouble with it. Not even close. It went smoothly and that's when I realized that, okay, it seems that my mind, for whatever reason, just isn't wired for splines/patches.
And that's really all there is to it. If you want to believe that, great. If I'm still "not convincing you" of what my level of commitment was to learning.. well, that's your problem. I know how into it I was. I know what I was trying to do, and I know what my commitment level was. Your perception of it means absolutely squat. Well, outside these forums at least. I'm sure your opinion is considered "gospel truth" to others around here.
Well, I was going to stick around here because I thought y'all were a great group of people. Apparently, though, that's only so when you're all "rah rah rah A:M!". The moment you second guess or state that you're not going to be continuing with it, suddenly "you're not committed enough, so I'm not going to answer your questions".
WONDERFUL attitude. Very endearing.
Good day, sir.