heyvern

That looks great! I really wasn't sure how you would use this for a tail. I kept having images of a poor mouse running and running because if it stops its tail would zoom up inside it like a retractable cord on a vacuum cleaner. -vern

Oh heck... (In this animation you can see the start and end of the trail. In the other project the end is fine but the start wasn't right so I cropped it out of the render.) contrailB.mov contrail4.zip -vern

Ha! Figured out how to have the tail "stream out" at the beginning. Very simple. In the above sample the max lag on the last bone is 10 frames. Go to frame 10 and key ALL the bones lag value at the amount that is already there. You just want that key. Go back to frame 0 and key the lag for all bones to 0. Now as each bone is pulled along the tail stretches out as the ship moves. When the ship stops moving the tail collapses. Works great. If you want the project I could post it but... it only takes about a minute to key those bones... it's a good learning experience. This whole thing could probably be set up with a pose so you only need to key one pose of the contrail model. Maybe have the lag value for each bone linked to an expression to a pose slider and you could stretch or shorten the trailing effect by keying a pose. This is pretty cool. It could be used to create engine exhaust/flames that cut in and out... add some noise to the pose keys controlling the lag and the jet stream would "vibrate" etc. -vern

Ha! Easier than I thought. And it doesn't need a path constraint at all or a very dense mesh. I remember this technique from a long time ago. Someone posted it here or on the mailing list. It was used for a sword swoosh trail EXACTLY like we are discussion. It used an orient and translate constraints with lag... I think. I can't remember the technique or the name of the file. I know I downloaded that file but I can't find it on my machine. As I recall it used a flat mesh model constrained to a sword with a gradient material for transparency at the edges. Looked absolutely fantastic and exactly like those sword trails in the image samples. Wish I could find that file or remember who posted that technique. Anyway, this is as close as I could get and it isn't perfect but the basic idea is there. I used a long thin contrail model with about 10 or so bones... maybe it was 5. Yes 5 bones. 5 spline cross sections. Each bone constrained to the ship has an equal divisible lag. Check the file to see how I did it. I'm too tired to describe it. Also I kept deleting bones as I went along and didn't renumber them... so you got 0, 4, 8, 16, 20.. plus a whole set of other bones I hid but didn't delete... they aren't needed. As the ship moves along the path constraint (I used a path but it isn't needed) the lag on the translate constraints makes the bones follow the exact path... it's a lag so it follows the motion of the ship regardless. I kept thinking lag would... find the shortest route... that is why I thought it would need a path constraint. Silly me. It follows the ships location but those frames behind. So even if it does make a sharp turn the contrail will make the same sharp turn. No path constraint needed. But for a ship a path constraint is the best bet any way. The reason this isn't "perfect" is because when it starts the contrail isn't "pointy". It starts off with the fat end first and each smaller cross section later... not good. There is a way to make it do it right so it starts pointy and ends with the pointy end going back into the ship last. I just haven't figured that out. Basic idea is there I think it's just a different type of constraint or ease or enforcement or something to make it do it right. Looks pretty cool though! p.s. The faster the ship goes the longer the trail as the frames spread out. p.s. Contrail model has an extra pose in it. Don't use it. Delete it if you want. this is something from another project. contrail.mov project file (v15e) contrail3.zip -vern

My idea wouldn't use dynamic constraints at all. It would be a straightforward path constraint on a chain of bones in the "trail" model that has a fairly dense mesh. In the chor use a path for the object motion and then constrain the "trail" bones to the path with offsets or ease settings. Each bone would also constrain to the model that is moving. The lag would be on that constraint, a small lag (1 or 2 frames?). As the model moves each bone in the trail model would follow along but lag behind 1 or 2 frames. I'll see if I can whip up an example later tonight. I already have a rigged "rope" model that will work. I just need to add new constraints. Remember it would not need dynamic constraints. It would use path constraints so it wouldn't be "automatic". It is the path that causes the trail to bend and warp as it follows the main moving model. -vern

It appears to me from all of the image examples that the contrail follows the motion path of the ship or object. The trick would be how much "automation" do you need? Are you trying to create the effect or are you like me and want the effect to just "happen" without user interaction? If you are okay with just the final result and not making it "easy" I think this contrail effect that follows the curve of the motion path of the object could be done using a "tentacle" model with bones and a motion path constraint on each bone with a lag. A lot more work but it would give the exact effect you want. Of course you would need to do the "glowyness" of the contrail with a material and some glow. But that could be cool. You could have a material that dissipates and changes color over length or time. The tentacle trail effect would follow the same path as the object. Each bone of the trail would have a lag on the path constraint so it stretches out and then closes back in. This would mean using path constraints to move the object so the trails always follow along. EDIT: Another option using the previous "particle" sprite solution: A render of only the particles with an extreme motion blur on the "trail" particles could eliminate the "particleness" of the streak. This could be composited separately. -vern

Check out the "Change Your Pants" video in my signature. Most of that was 2 or 3 passes. A very few shots... maybe 5. There might have been one shot done at 9 passes... nothing was over 9. The places it becomes obvious are motion blur "stepping". If you use motion blur you really do need more passes. I too am surprised that MP off is equal to 16 passes. It doesn't seem to take as long to render without multipass compared to 16 passes. I suppose that displaying each pass might add to the time... or maybe it is purely psychological.... like when you get a new computer that seems really fast... and years later it feels as slow as an Atari computer with a cassette tape drive. -vern

If you have tight thin lines in a material, or small "speckles" like noise in a surface property this will add to any "speckly" problems in renders. That is why some projects don't need as much multipass or antialiasing as others. Another issue could be what is in the model itself. If you were rendering "THX1138" you wouldn't need a lot of multipass, smooth white surfaces... lots of bald people. If you render "Jungle Book" you would need higher mulitpass with all of those leaves and vines, hair and fur. My last big project had very little need for high multipass. I was able to use only 3 steps (some shots only 2) and it still looked great (9 would have won an Oscar!) -vern

Apparently the patent on the design of the original Rubik's Cube has "run out' so there were bunches of "copies" made that weren't "official" Rubik's cubes. The original design or mechanism had a flaw that would allow it to pop apart more easily. So the "official" Rubik's cube these days has a NEW patented mechanism that is more recent and has a new patent. A long time ago I had this idea to make hand crafted "Cube Puzzles" at a much larger size than the original and made of different materials like wood, metal or ceramic tiles or a combination. I have an AM model of the "parts" of the original design to make the "base" internal components for the cube mechanism. I had planned to send these out for "rapid prototyping" with a more long lasting stable resin or plastic final product. I checked into this and it isn't too expensive (getting cheaper all the time). They could make a mold of the prototype and then cast additional copies as needed. I had designed the AM model to have a place where I can attach hand carved or decorated wooden tiles to the outer surface. For instance I might use different types of wood for each side, or have different designs carved into the tiles for each side. I could also use ceramic tiles (I had hoped that my cousin who is a talented potter could create some tiles for this but... he has since become a missionary and is off in some remote jungle or desert helping people find Jesus, which is commendable but contrary to MY needs dagnabbit. .) My initial design was originally entirely made of wood. But the work involved was extensive. Each "block" has to form a sphere inside. I had to cut and shape the corners and other tiles parts with this spherical inside surface. It also requires "cylinder" posts running through the center for each side. I had thought to replace these internal posts with metal rods for more stability but then this rapid prototyping thing came along. I am thrilled now that the Rubik's Cube craze has sort of resurfaced somewhat. I really need to build a few of these "executive" cube puzzle art pieces and see if they sell. I think my prototype is about 7" or 8" cubed. Still small enough to work the puzzle but larger for display purposes. -vern

I love it! Reminds me a bit of Lara Croft and her butler. It's very similar to an idea I have... don't think I have time to produce it though. It requires some dialog and a lot of "acting" and maybe a bunch of "extras". Even under 9 seconds it's going to be some work. -vern

I swear that was a one time incident only and the police swore that the police photos would never go public. YES! I agree. Never use tape. Especially duct tape on the hairy parts. Just buy a smaller size. -vern

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. It would be like judging a singer's talent on the dress she is wearing. Would that person judge animation skills if it was claymation or hand drawn? Sounds stupid to me. They should be judging the quality of the animation and skills of the animator. What a joke. -vern

Me TOO! I have 23 orient like constraints in 23 poses and had no idea what the heck was going on. Perfect timing. Question though... why do those other channels have to match? Does this cause some odd pivoting or something? -vern

That was my mistake. I was keying that in the pose... so when it got keyed again off or on it would get all wonky and go to like -200% or -100% and get stuck. Works like a charm now (check my rag doll post. IT WORKS!). Thanks for the help! The 2008 rig is AMAZING. I love it. It does everything except get up in the morning and make coffee... but I'm putting in a new pose slider for that. Gosh dangit I wish I wish I had used this rig and model for Change Your Pants. It would have saved me HOURS of work. -vern

Don't fret too much over this... I have to do more testing. it may be user error... I'm entitled to some user error... I have to deal with tons of user error from others in my life I should get that privilege. -vern

Actually I DO want Pose B to key Pose A... and C... and D... and.... When I created the relationship I had to turn all those things off so only the geometry bones are visible and have no other constraints. -vern

You know what? I think I don't need to set those percentage sliders to 0% in my pose. If the leg IK is off those sliders have no effect right? -vern

Yes it does. Works fine that way. I was doing it that way for most of my experimenting. Turning on and off and setting the pose sliders for the rig in the chor action. Then I got the great idea to put that in my new pose because it was always a pain to go through and set all of those things in the pose sliders in the chor. I thought it would be a time saver if I could turn those poses on and off by clicking one pose. The only problem really are those two percentage sliders for the knees. That's the only one that acts oddly (-200%) so far but I only just started using all the cool IK and hand/feet controls etc, in the 2008 rig with my rag doll set up. Happy to say IT WORKS! I can use all the cool gizmos and widgets between rag doll simulations. Turning them on and off and "transitioning" between them carefully works well. -vern

So I'm a bit confused. As some of you may know I'm using this rig as the "base" for my rag doll set up. I need to add a single basically "simple" pose to this rig. This pose has constraints only on geometry bones. To work properly in the set up the rig also needs to have all the rig "controls" turned off, IK legs, Spine, etc etc. Basically only the basic poses should be turned on for things like fan bones etc. What I did was to set these other poses the way I need them in my NEW pose. This makes it easier to turn the other stuff on and off while doing rag doll simulations. What confuses me are some "conflicts". For example I turn off IK legs and set "Rt knee follow foot controller" to 0%. The default is 100%. Even when MY pose is off in the chor or not set in the chor this pose slider will jump to -200% and get "stuck". Also the keys for poses like IK legs etc would "stay" at whatever setting was used in my pose even though it is turned off in the chor. It would appear that even if my pose is turned off in the chor it has an effect on these poses. Am I wrong to assume that turning off my pose (that has these user properties set) would "turn off" the user property settings in the pose I added to the rig? I deleted the ENTIRE choreography action for the 2008 rig inside the chor. Even after doing that those values were still reading the settings from the pose I created using the "add" method which causes the "... knee follow foot controller" percentage pose to get "stuck" at -200%. -vern

I've already started assembling the parts for my own "door unlocker". They wedge the door open slightly using a cloth to protect the door and a metal wedge, insert a thin inflatable rubber thingy (similar to a blood pressure thingy) with a hand bulb pump. Pump this up and it pries the door open just enough to insert a metal rod to push the electric door lock button. I will have to keep it in some kind of pouch around my waist whenever I drive my car. So far I've been lucky and only lock the keys in my car right in front of my house. p.s. If he had said $54 FIRST I probably would have gone for it. After that whole mess I wasn't budging past $40. Like my dad said when I told him this story tonight, if that had been some poor old woman she would have paid the $75. Alls well that ends well I guess. -vern

Oh... my... GOD! Had to update my story since it just happened. I did this stupid thing back a few months ago. That time was locked out of my hose. So I had a key to get in the house this time but never got a spare car key. The lock guy shows up. Before he even started I asked "How much?" expecting a "reasonable" price. They quoted $40 over the phone. I figured it might be A LITTLE BIT more than that (I paid $40 last time to a different place). Keep in mind this guy has been on the turnpike from NJ, PA whatever for at least 2 to 3 hours. Not my fault. These guys were listed as covering Delaware. The lady on the phone said it was no problem. I was told they would arrive in 30 minutes... that was at 2pm this afternoon.. The conversation went on from there (at one point neighbors came out to see what all the shouting was about). As I was going back in the house to continue looking for my spare keys and evaluate the situation he agreed to call his "boss". 20 minutes later... More phone conversation... Yes, he agreed. So he opens the door and I pull out my credit card... oops... I don't think he was expecting that. Strange how the "cut off" for credit cards was such an oddly specific number. He followed me to the Wawa and I paid the dang $40. Tomoorow... I get 10 extra car keys made and scatter them in the yard, under rocks, tape one to the mailbox... swallow one... have one surgically embedded under my skin... -vern

Engine light! Try waiting 5 HOURS for some idiot to show up an get the keys out of your locked car... I'm still waiting. Apparently he is stuck in traffic. I called them at 2 with a "30 minute" time estimate. So the guy just called from the road all apologetic about the traffic not moving... These numnuts are listed as "local" to my area but apparently are located in NJ... I would have called someone closer if I'd known. p.s. He just called! Just now! He's 2 minutes away! WOoohooo! I'm free! -vern

What amazes me in your work is how well you "maintain" spline consistency over a project... by the end of big project I've stopped trying to keep things all neat and tidy. Case in point... the dang terminator model. The parts I did first were PERFECT.. smooth rounded bevels, everything lined up.. frugal splinage... by the end I was just whacking out shapes and didn't give a dang bout perfect bevels or patch count... or dead end splines... 3 pointers etc. I guess it is all the copy/paste and repeating shapes. Also the arches and "perfect" curves. Do you use a lot of math to get things "just right"? Or do you "wing it"? For instance I often will create a circle with a lot of points so I can "cut out" a section... or sometimes I will use a large circle as a guide and match a part of that curve by tweaking biases of the mesh. -vern

I had a similar problem on my system. No amount of fiddling with the library settings in the preferences worked for me. I had to edit the library file by hand in a text editor. If you open that file in a plain text editor like Jedit or Notepad whatever you can sort of see how it's put together. -vern

I believe there is work being done for something like this. I don't know if it is that specific product but it is something similar. I don't have anymore details. -vern