heyvern

The black as transparent on images as was mention can be changed with the key color attribute in the image properties... ... however the best thing to do is to right click on the key color and select "not set". This removes any color from being transparent on an image. Vernon "Thanks for listening" Zehr

Hee hee.... And I bet poor Ed thought this would be easy! YeeHaa! Welcome Ed, to the never ending tweaking and bottomless pit of photorealism! It can become addictive. Vernon "!" Zehr

That "look" you speak of is partly the lighting and environment. Play around with skylights and/or your lighting setup and you may find that your renders will get that spark of life so to speak. As for "dirtying up".... that is a tough one. Are you using any decals or textures for the "whole" model? What you want to try is to create some grunge maps in photoshop or a paint application... too much info on that subject to go into here. Lots of stuff on the web for that. Then use these grayscale maps and apply as decals for specular and diffuse etc... need to experiment with this of course. This is a easy way to "break up" the perfect surface. Also you may want to use the grunge map as a basis for a slight color variation decal image. Remember you can use the same decal for all of these. One decal and just load it up with your different images. I apologize if this is obvious info to you. No insult intended. Just covering the bases. You may want to create a flattened pose or action of the plane and use that in a paint program so you can create specific areas of wear in logical spots, like around joints or bolts... you know what I mean? --------------- Another option would be to use materials to create grunge and dirt effects... same principle but... I prefer images since I have more direct control... I stink at materials... they are a struggle for me. Nice plane by the way! Vernon "!" Zehr

Would love to see some wire frames of the models. They are very good. Where have you been hiding?!?! Vernon "!" Zehr

Yeah... that's weird. At first i thought the same... extreme 5 pt patches... however I think I have created 5 pointers like that without trouble. It is the standard configuration for extruding arms/protrusions/limbs after all. So my next thought is the second round spline ring inside. That close to the first could put "stress" on the 5 pt patches. Depends on the bias as well. Severe bias manipulation around 5 pt patches like that can cause SOME trouble... it has for me on occasion. If this is NOT a final render than we need to see that before knowing if it is a problem. However, shaded mode at the highest poly resolution (page up key... all the way up) should be right on the money as far as accurate display of spline anomalies.. at least in my experience. Vernon "Darth Facetious" Zehr

First off... I desperately wanted some "floating" particles or bubble type stuff in my bag of goop a while back (last mechanical image contest). I will have a closer look at your technique and see if it would work for me. I also will look at the trick with the foam! This is what I was trying to do with the goop as well... just a little different. Second... Did Miss-demeanor get a... reduction? Or is this... uh... her less endowed younger sister? I like this one... she is less... uh... distracting... Small tip on the avatar link You may want to have that link load into a blank window. All links on the forum load a second window by default... which I have become quite use to... so... I closed the window after the animation loaded... but this closed the main window... just a small thing but it might cause irritation... if it does cause irritation talcum powder also comes in handy. p.s. goo, poop, loop, goof are all in my spell check library... but goop is not. I don't understand the world. Vernon "Hic...... hic" Zehr

Yes they are great gadgets... Your project sounds like a ton of fun. I am really fascinated by the whole Lewis and Clark story. It was absolutely amazing what those guys did. Unbelievable obstacles and truly miraculous they survived it. I saw a recent PBS documentary on them... amazing. Good luck with your project. Vernon "!" Zehr

WooHoo! Thanks Don for getting the space for these meetings! And John? It was Don's idea to hire someone to move your car around in the parking lot when you weren't looking. He thought it would be funny. I told him it would just be annoying. Thank you Scott for the cookies.... I mean, tell your wife the cookies were fantastic... I think I ate like 50... don't make so many next time... or make more... depends on your perspective. Thanks to ZachBG for not beating me on the head with a stick as I added commentary to his presentation... I have a tendency to talk too much... even when I only have half a voice. I discovered... I focus too much on minor details in my projects... at least on my mechanical stuff... my face models don't have tear ducts... but I put the pins through the hinges in the back no one ever sees. I learned that... half a David Bowman... is caused by too many beveled edges... and Ian Mckellen didn't really have a prosthetic nose in LOTR. When modeling the light for a ceiling fan... it is not necessary to model the electrons moving through the wires in the motor... of course NOW, everyone will be expecting that level of detail. The stride range doesn't have to start at 0... and even if there is a problem with the arm in shaggy's rig, I am STILL an idiot. To avoid harsh animation critiques in the future, animate characters using a bidet and make sure they don't eat to much bean dip before they do their scenes. I may still have a low grade fever... or... that old lady did cut me off in traffic. I don't think old ladies who can swear like that should be allowed to drive. p.s. If we weren't' suppose to put in that kind of detail... why does it zoom to 1600 hundred million percent? Huh? Why? Vernon "Quantum Modeling" Zehr

Hold on! If you were applying the hair/grass material to the grass group that is CORRECT. The decal when applied to a model, only "sticks" to patches that are visible. I guess what got me confused was that you said the ground had the grass not the grass... the only way this would happen is if somehow the grass/hair material was applied to the ground... If the ground has the color of the decal... then the ground got the decal too. So the grass group is just the "surface" of the ground. The grass group is the only part of the whole thing that should have anything that is part of the hair grass material or decals. There shouldn't be any materials assigned to the "model"... all materials should be applied only to groups. When the color disappears... it only disappears in final render? It shows up in preview? It very well could be.... an issue.... uh... that needs to be reported. You may want to send the project to Hash support. I can't be sure. Vernon "Hair club, for beating men with hair" Zehr

On step 3... Applied to what? It won't matter if the splines are hidden if you drag a material to the model or to a group... it will go on everything regardless. You need to create a grass group and drag the grass/hair material to that. You seem to be very close... but can't tell from your description where you've gone wrong exactly... You can't apply a decal to a material... I don't get that part... if the ground was visible when you applied the grass decal... the ground has the decal as well. You should have one grass group. this is the only thing that should get hair grass. Nothing else. Hide everything when applying the DECAL to the grass. You need a grass group to apply the hair material. Hiding stuff and dragging a material to the model still applies it to the hidden stuff. Drag it to the grass group. The video I believe only had one model that was all hair. So I think the materials were being dragged to the whole model and not to a group within the model. I am pretty sure this is how it was working. Vernon "Hair club for men" Zehr

These two items together would kick some serious arse... well they would on their own too... but together... yeehaa. I was a little confused myself Aaver... I think I actually got you two mixed up in my head for a moment there too... I remembered this texture thingy... then I saw Emilio's wave thingy... you're both from exotic foreign lands... (anything more than 100 miles away is foreign and exotic)... ... you know how it is for us poor simple mennonites... all you foreign guys start to look the same... I am easily confused by the musical accents... and strange shapes above the vowels in your names. Vernön "I wish I was foreign!" Zéhr

When I was in high school, 20+ years ago, I was able to solve a Rubik's cube in about 90 seconds... at the height of my talent... with plenty of warm up... a carefully lubricated and a properly loosened cube. This was back in the day... when those guys were on TV racing to solve the cube. When the cube was brand new. I can still solve it now... it just takes a lot longer... I've forgotten the order of some of the steps. I think the patent is up on the cube design. I have been planning to make hand crafted "Cube Puzzles" out of wood and plastic at about 200% "actual" size. I have the components laid out in the computer... quite a simple mechanism actually. At one point I attempted to study a possible rigging system. I honestly do not believe it is possible. Every single cube section must be able to belong to a different bone/CP group and snap into a locked position to rotate on a different plane... there is no way I can see this being created in one rig/model. Vernon "!" Zehr

Doesn't play on Mac... I have the Mac OSX WMV player v9 which works 99% of the time... this one uses strange codec. Vernon "!" Zehr

The second one is the way I would go. Vernon "!" Zehr

First off... you have TWO copies of the wall in this model. One is locked. Second... you have internal patches everywhere. I would advise you to do some of the tutorials and pay careful attention to how patches are created and also avoiding internal patches. Read the definitions and explanations on patches and splines carefully until it makes sense to you. Practice in AM with simple things. Internal patches can be created when you extrude a grid of patches, like a wall. All the points "inside" the grid get extruded as well... but you can't see them since they are "inside". To extrude a grid properly... only select the CPs on the outside edge for extruding. You must delete those splines that are connected in such a way as to cause internal patches. The splines that go "through" the wall inside it but are not "visible". These are internal patches and will cause more trouble than you have with volumetric lighting. This is the basis of modeling in AM. It is important to understand how patches are created and how to connect CPs properly to avoid internal patches. The previous series of threads from Josh with his screen grabs illustrates precisely what needs to be done. Read all of the links he provided in one his posts! One of the Basic Splinemanship tutorials specifically addresses this exact situation. I promise I am not trying to be mean or a jerk. I really want to help and I think you have made great progress so far but, it is harder to explain some things... when some basic concepts aren't there to base them on. Good luck.... I am on your side dude! p.s. I am a strict teacher... just ask my mother... I make her cry sometimes when she doesn't pay attention in "computer class". That "I'm too old to learn this" line is no excuse in my book. Vernon "!" Zehr

Wow! It's like the return of Paul Atreides in "Children of Dune"... only with out the blindness... and all the sand... not as many worms. Or like... when you think the governor of California is blown up in the gas truck while chasing Catherine Chandler... but he crawls out of the wreckage... with only a slight limp. Or when you thought Catherine Tramell was shot dead by Maximus but she comes back to shoot Lex Luther right in the head. I could go on... but I won't. Good to see you back.

Wow. Don't know if you were going for it but the detail image has an almost... painterly quality to it. Maybe it is the texturing but it looks almost like natural media... like a detailed oil painting. The lights and shadows have the feel of dabs of paint and subtle strokes... not a critique... it looks fantastic. What a cool effect... it looks like a beautiful painting... in my head anyway. So the 30 second film resolution animation should be done... about July of... 2015 or 2018? ------- Any chance to see a full size detail of the cat? Big robot, gun... I want to see the kitty. Vernon "!" Zehr

That is real life! That is contrast! If the wall had the same look all over there would be no drama. It gives focus to the light area. You might even consider going darker at the base, to accentuate the darker shadows that are there. This would also increase the "mood". Good progress so far. Vernon "!" Zehr

Those bricks look great! You're getting the hang of it I think. I think the bump looks good as it is. And the lighting is very dramatic. .. not sure what is in your head of course, but consider how close and how the wall will be seen in the animation. You may not need to tweak this as much as you think. Vernon "!" Zehr

Dude! Cool! I definitely need to play with this technique for Happy Bear and the enchanted forest! That hill looks just like the spot where I built his house... sorry... they had to cut down the tree. Oh my how I wish there were more hours in a day... 27 just isn't enough anymore. Vernon "!" Zehr

Is the image tiled? Have you edited it in photoshop or image editor so that it is a seamless tillable image? That is the only way it will tile without a seam if it isn't large enough to cover the whole surface that you are decaling. Vernon "!" Zehr

I like it... I like the bounce in his step. I like to use my first impression. If nothing jumps out the first time I see it... and I get a chuckle... I think it works. I think a dice... a dye... a die... would walk a tad stiffly... think about what they go through all day long! I would certainly walk a little stiff. Can you even imagine the chaffing!?!? He does turn on a dime though, slightly militaristic... sorry that's political. But it is a good start. And the abrupt turns are probably the path constraint... the turns seem to stick out... small thing. I did notice that the speculars are a bit pronounced in the beginning on the dots... but that is a tough call on a test render. p.s. Is he naked under those dots? I think I see some "snake eyes" Sorry, I don't get out much... and I am obsessed lately with euphemisms. Vernon "!" Zehr

Oh God! That... that is like that reoccurring nightmare I keep having ... Usually.. I am naked... with the shoes... and a hat... Vernon "!" Zehr

Nice fluid motion... However.. the "gravity" is just a bit off. The launch and landing would be faster... with a slowing down at the top of the arc of the jump. The bouncing ball tutorials and practice projects oft used by nearly every animation program is a good way to see how this should work. You need to adjust the timing of the jump so he doesn't seem to be defying gravity. It is more noticeable on the landing. Overall I think the motion could be just a touch faster. He seems to be jumping on the moon... well... not the moon... maybe mars.... And if you REALLY want to get ambitious... Go in and seriously exaggerate the poses before and after the jump. What I mean is to push the poses as he scrunches down before he leaps, maybe he could take a few steps before launching, and really "squish" him down when he hits. Really exaggerate it to make a statement. If this is just a test for motion and not the final camera position than just ignore me but... You may want to offset the camera angle. It could use more dramatic framing and composition. Straight on view like that is... well... it is boring.. and it feels "odd". It is hard to see the action because the sense of motion through space is lost when viewed straight on like that. I think you have a really good start though. Vernon "!" Zehr

Chris, This is all talk... there is no confirmation with words. We need to see it... we need to see the final render... with wire-frames... I am beginning to think my theory correct. My feeling is... if this is a real 3D image that you created with cool tricks and AM skill... you should be THRILLED at this type of attention. You should not be reluctant or defensive. Any one of us here would be falling over with happiness and pride to be accused of submitting a photo as an AM rendering. Anyone else here would gladly supply all and any evidence needed to persuade doubters. There is no reason to feel threatened or accused... just prove us wrong. You can do so easily. I will keep an eye on this thread but will not post anything further until there is... 1) Final render of original image... as large as the original for comparison. 2) Wireframe screen shot of said image, from the choreography for comparison. Keep this up and I won't even apologize if I am wrong. This is just mean now. If it is a real AM render... you are just dragging this out for some odd reason that I don't understand. Show us the proof. Haven't seen diddly squat so far. Have not seen one single thing that has change anything since the first viewing of that image. This is not a unreasonable request. You have been justly challenged. Prove your skills beyond the shadow of a doubt. Vernon "!" Zehr