bubba

I would say (IMHO) that numbers larger than 100% would become factors, such as 2X or 3X; but they are still based upon a starting number - be it 1 or 100 or 1000. Or they can remain percentages - just need to know of what they are a percentage of. (sorry about the incorrect grammar.)

Then why not say "cms/sec" so that 100 would equal 100 cms per second. Is Force based upon gravity so that a negative 1 in the minus-y direction a negative 1-G force?

(This topic has been split off from another discussion.) I would like to see a basic discussion first of how A:M uses percentages. I am of the old school that says a percentage is a fraction of something (and that 0 and 100 are the min and max.) So I would like to know the basis that A:M is uses for each property. Same for numbers. Some are easy like particle count or size (cm default but whatever the unit.) But velosity - is it furlongs per fortnight or what? I know it is probably just me, but it would go a long way to helping me be a better animator.

Ah, sorry. It is always the little things that trip you up. Yes I did not have Show Particles turned on. Works fine now. Thanks.

Sorry I have not got back sooner on that question. I opened your updated project and saw only a single set of drivers. But when I played it nothing happened. Now I have mucked it up a bit by moving to the release version of 16. But my old version looks correct now. I just wish that real-time rendering was faster. I have it dropping frames but the timeline still jumps to the ends about half-way through the animation.

I did not think I was "baking particles." I don't even know what that means. When I look at the property panel it shows OFF (grayed out.)

Where did I use the same material twice?

Somehow my choreography settings are going haywire. From one day to the next they change. I have been working on a fluids project for several days. Last Saturday I thought I just about had it right. When I started again on Monday, nothing was the same. Real-time rendering slowed to a crawl. I could not change the size of the particles, Nothing was the same. I started from scratch by creating a new project. Last night I left it this way: Fluids7e.mov When I started again today this is what I got: Fluids7f.mov Even though I had changed the size in the channel (by dragging the key frame marker) it did nothing. I then opened the the property panel of the Fluid Emitter in the chor (all changes to the Fluid Emitter are done in the chor, except for color.) It still said 3.5cm for the size at birth. So I changed the size to 1cm, and instead of changing the current driver, A:M created a whole new set of drivers!! I have outlined the two in the screen capture. Also notice the difference in spelling. Lastly, I embedded and consolidated the project. Here it is if anyone wishes to give me a hand figuring out what is happening. Lava.zip Thanks.

That is what I thought also. But viscosity might control how particles fall through the air. Under Object Collision is a property Slide that "might" just control how particles flow over other objects.

But why should the ones I have changed in the past not show up as blue (that is the color of the changed property) and why isn't there an asterisk indicating that I have changed it? I will try to get a movie capture what I see happening.

I took several shots of the screen. The properties panel looks grayed out, not blue for change. I added some of the time line. For the hi-lighted property - rate of emission, no line. Now for the new streak emitter here is the chor and the drivers are there. But!, after closing (and saving) the project and quitting A:M and re-opening, they are gone!. If I select a property and enter the same value the driver spline for that property is back. That is not good because I had changed the value of several properties over time.

This is almost too complicated for my small brain When in this window do this, when in that window do that; pretty soon all roads lead to Rome.

Ok I am starting to freak out over this. Aren't there supposed to be drivers for an object's properties. Well today I do not see them (and I don't think I did anything other than try to add something to the volcano model.) and instead of getting the same animation as displayed above, I get this!

Thanks. Which holds together better large or small particles? Is this controlled by the Particle Physics Surface tension setting or the viscosity setting? or something else?

you are right! turning off Show Particles removes the red blob. By why is it in the modeling window?

Would some one look at this picture and tell me why the red blob appears in the model window? It has no CPs, there is no way to grab it. If it is the fluid material then I would think that it should only appear in the choreography window.

But it is still "gooey" looking. I have spent about 6 or 7 hours playing with the different settings. Not sure if I have learned anything. I borrowed a model from HomeSlice's tutorial on bubbles and tried to make a volcano. At one point things went very screwy. Somehow three of the drivers were doubled. How it happened I don't quite know. I am going to take a break for Easter. This is where I am leaving it. Fluids6bn.mov

The pool spread is controlled by Object Collison>slide property. Sort of of a friction brake. Fluids are so new that there is no technical information nor 3rd party books describing it. I changed the particle size from 5 cm to 3 cm. Fluids5.mov

I have been working with this project for some time and cannot seem to get it to look any better. Here are the settings: and here is the output: Fluids3.mov

Robert, what material did you use to create the streaks?

Yes, I found another sound. It is still coordinated with just the left foot. I used three instances of the stomp,not just one long one.

I found a short sound clip of a dinosaur foot stomp. I have incorporated it. Does this sound any better? WarHawk_w_PPC10.mov

Yes Nancy I did muffle (or tone down the foot stomp sound) because everyone said it sounded like an underground explosion (which it was.) Thanks for your sounds, I will also look for dinosaur walking sounds, maybe a T-Rex? Would the PPC fire look more realistic if there was some bend or fluctuation in it?

I don't quite understand your suggestion. I have been trying to get the camera shake and foot-fall sound to underline the weight of the Warhawk battlemech. The impact sounds are supposed to be foot-fall sounds, not artillery. I am working on muffling the sound. In the world of the Battlemech, lasers are either red or green, depending on its destructive distance. What I am trying to simulate is a Particle Projection Canon (PPC) that fires a high energy protons or ion bolts. It is also described as man-made lightning. In my next iteration, I removed the early bolts and moved them to the end. To render quicker I stopped the sprite (dust) generation. WarHawk_w_PPC10.mov

I have "fiddled" with the animation some more, does this look any better. I am still trying to understand why the camera looks like it rolls instead of shake. I have rendered from two different camera angles. The "front on" took 35 minutes to render. The "side on " took one hour. I can't believe that adding the shake added 25 minutes of render time. WarHawk_w_PPC7.mov WarHawk_w_PPC7F.mov