Fuchur

Yes as long as we are not talking about something before A:M v6 or something like that.. just guessing the version... v8 and up will run on any newer windows (xp, vista, win7 or 8 or 8.1). I would recommend win7 over win8.1 but that is really just a matter of taste if u r not too much used to windows it will not make a huge difference since u will have to learn anyway. But win7 is better tested with am... I could be wrong but i think you can run setup machine2 on windows but u need to install A:M 32bit to do that. (You can install both next to eachother with 64 bit windows. See u *Fuchur*

It really has been removed by the user and like that it can not be seen in any browser BUT it STILL is a good time to get rid of IE8 because in fact ANY time is a good time to get rid of it... See you *Fuchur*

It really does not matter what you get. Anything will be better . I am a Firefox guy, Chrome is fine too, IE10 is much better than IE8 too (I am not sure if you can get that for XP, since MS does have some restrictions there) and you can use Safari (I am not recommending that for a PC user, but it still is much better than IE8)... Every single one will be better, more secure, have more features and will be more customizeable if you want. Just get rid of IE8. There is only one kind of browser that is less good: IE I like firefox for three reasons: - Mozilla is an organisation, not a big company trying to sell you stuff and collecting data with you using your browser. - It has a better interface if you ask me... for many features in Chrome you need to know shortcuts and I am not a shortcut guy. - FireFox has the best developer plugins for Websites available (like Firebug, WebDeveloperToolbar, LifeHeaders, etc.) Speedwise there is no real winner between FireFox and Chrome... one version Chrome is faster, next day FireFox beats Chrome and the next day it is the other way around... in the end: If you use one of those two, you are using one of the best browsers available. See you *Fuchur*

It is very unlikely that you will be able to use the same lic-file for both. You will have to ask Jason to move the licence after that. But that may take a few days when you ask for it. You could of course use the trial-version till you got win7 on the system and activate A:M permanently on that after that. It should give you the time to set up win7 and work till then with A:M. See you *Fuchur*

I am quite sure you did try to reactivate it using the Views-Panel and restarted your Mac just in case, right? Did you try to reset A:M (Help > Reset Settings). In general this should be done by reinstalling, but it is worth a try if for instance it is trying get these setting from another installation somehow. See you *Fuchur*

Yes, since v4 you can buy a private use version of 3d Coat for 99 Dollars (instead of about 350 Dollars for the full version). ... > http://3d-coat.com/buy-now/ See you *Fuchur* PS: Thank you very much everybody It was a lot of fun!

Good god that is mavelous! How did you do the fire? See you *Fuchur*

I am really not sure if there was a Newton Plugin for that version. If you dont have it in your installation-folder it will very likely not work with that version. You would at least need v13 OR even (if I read Steffen's website correctly) v15 to run the file we are using in v17 now. If you need it, it is very likely that you will have to get a recent version of A:M. See you *Fuchur*

Thanks for your kind comments Nancy and John . See you *Fuchur*

Pros 64 bit: - Faster at least for computers with more than 3 GB of RAM. Cons 64 bit: - TSM and Quicktime will not work. > as Robert told you before: You can install both versions on one computer. I never use TSM or Quicktime and as that 64bit is the way to go for me. I'd say, since 32 bit computers are very uncommon today, A:M will sooner or later only be developed for 64 bit systems. But we will see... depends on how hard it is to compile it for 32bits. See ypu *Fuchur*

Some may have guest it, other may not: The entry with the chameleon on it was mine. If you are interested I want to show of a little about that fellow because it was a quite interesting workflow. I used A:M to create the model (and rig), gave it some basic materials, used BakeSurface from A:M and exported as an OBJ with a high polycount (I think 256 or 1024 subdivisions, I am not sure...), brought the model with the UV-set to 3dCoat v4. There I painted all the little dots, shades and the displacementmaps (bump is done using a procentual material in A:M), saved the textures and back in A:M I rendered it out... it worked very well and I could paint over seams in the UV-set without any trouble. It worked better than I had expeceted. The image used close to any more advanced rendering technique I could imagine including: - SSS - DisplacementMaps - Bumps - procentual materials - a small amount of hair and sprite-particles, - Real AO (very slightly used) - quite large textures. (since I only got 3dCoat for private use, the texture-sizes are limited to 2048 x 2048 pixels...) Attached you can find some screens from A:M and 3dCoat showing the chameleon for the contest. Additional how it would have looked like as a splash screen and the final images again. I sure had fun creating it and even so I did not win anything for it, it still was a lot of fun! I'd love to see from others how they created their entries . If you have any time, please let us know about the great images which were created for this contest! See you *Fuchur*

There is a quite big link to the FTP-server under "Support & Contact". See you *Fuchur*

Not so fast, I do have V12 and V17. I find that V12 renders the old porcelain better than any version from 13 on. V12 makes nice Quicktime previews and with the disk and or a mounted ISO file is very portable. Its also the last dongle version for XP. The things I do like about 17 is the IK switch possibility and the MDD exporter which lets You use any render engine out there which are all faster than the native one. U may want to leave porceilan behind and use average normals and normalweight instead. In v17 u need to switch on and off render as line in the surfaceproperties to see them if i am not wrong.... See u *Fuchur*

Very well done everyone . Well deserved! See u *Fuchur*

This is an very unfair example: KillerBean 2 was created when? I think it surfaced somewhere inbetween 1999 and 2001 if I am not wrong. He remastered it later on, but it was still years before GPU rendering has been established at all or AO and stuff like that became useable. KillerBean Forever has been published in the year 2009 and was created in Maya... I am not sure if it has been rendered with Octane or not, but there are many years inbetween. Today A:M can archieve such an image quite easily too... but it will very likely take much longer to render since it is a CPU based calculation... That is not to say that I would not like this to be implemented or that I do not admire Cycles... it is only about being fair here. See you *Fuchur*

There are just too many factors to determine all of that. Since the GPU will do it you need a good GPU. For instance most laptop-GPUs in general qualify as bad. A more expensive GPU will in general get you better results. Depending if this is OpenCL or CUDA (or both) and Nvidia may be better than an ATI or the other way round. (AMD/ATI cant do CUDA, OpenCL is often (not always) a little faster on AMDs of the same price range, etc. And of course it highly depends on the scene you want to render. Some scence can be better parallized than others. Since GPUs are in fact "just" slow CPUs (this is a very simplified way of looking at it) BUT with a high a mount of cores (for instance 2048 cores) it is necessary that the tasks to be done can be sepearted in small parts to be rendered, etc. There is nothing that will bring you to 50x faster in all situations. In the best situations this can happen, in worse situations you may just get 10 or even only the same speed as with an CPU-rendering... MOST situations however will give you a more or less high advantage. Keep in mind: Even 2x as fast as before is extremly useful... rendering something in 10 hours compared to 20 hours is still a big deal... See you *Fuchur*

Same here ... I'd say it is bound to the IP... are you trying to vote from the same office? (since you are both from Soulcage?) See you *Fuchur*

There is nothing too late and nothing to be sure of for now... we are in ALPHA-testing! Alpha means, everything is not final yet and it can be that features will vanish or appear till the beta or final version for technically, logical or user experience reasons. Alpha: In general closed and not public for the reason to not spoil too much especially since there are sometimes experimental features which will not make their way to the final release. This is why in general Alpha is closed: People should not be getting too existed about features which for some reason or the other will not be in the final release. In general I prefer it when people wait with such spoilers till the beta version. Beta: This can be open to the public or not, depending on the company. It means: Features which are in this are very likely to be in the final release and just need testing to get rid of the bugs they may have introduced. Since there is no Beta yet, we are not at all able to say what new features there will be in the new A:M version. Steffen has added several features on the way to beta in the last versions and it may (or may not) be that way this time again. We have hints what MAY be added but we are not sure about that. OpenGL 3 for instance was not mentioned till now but is a quite big thing that has been changed... it should increase realtime speed, decrease problems with Aero (and other modern interface-features in Windows and maybe Mac-versions) and possibilities drastically, but we will see... as I said before: NOTHING is final for now. v18 will very likely not be released before spring or summer 2014... lets be patient till AT LEAST beta to make such assumptions... Steffen is currently quite busy with his daytime job... it will very likely not be a monster release because of that, but who knows? We can't say that right now. See you *Fuchur*

I knew it! You r a werewolf too right? See u *Fuchur*

Did it crash or did it just take a VERY long time? Because that may be happening there... tried to export something at 4096 but it really takes LOOOOOONG... See you *Fuchur*

As the original poster hasn't clarified their request (assuming it was a request) it's rather hard to say. The original post was mostly undecipherable and posted at the end of an unrelated thread. No problem, I think we figured the request out quite well... at least it is not the first time this has been asked for and like that it may be needed. Steffen has to decide about it finally. See you *Fuchur*

You are highly overcomplicating this feature request. It is really very very simple and has a quite straight forward purpose. No 5 Windows open, no "i'd like to remove the default view / camera view...". It is just about: click a button or press a key or a menu entry and the camera will place and orient itself as the current view is. Nothing more. The purpose is: I have a few which I like and found it in Birds View. I like to use it in my animation. To do that now, I would need to approximate it using the camera (which is possible but much work and quite tricky). I'll ask for it in A:M Reports and we shall see what will happen. It may be included or not. Steffen's decission. See you *Fuchur*

I think it is not that complex Rodney. 1.) Someone places a nice object in the chor. 2.) The Turns and zooms around it to see which is the nicest way to look at it. 3.) He wants to get the camera (to render with it in an animation) to exactly that view because that is what he wants to show the audience. 4.) > Right-Click on the camera in the PWS and choose: "Move camera to current viewport". > The position of the view is given to the camera to key it at the current position. The advantage is: Everybody knows very well how to move the viewport and it is easy to do that. Moving the camera is often harder (even with the shortcuts to move in its view, although this is a great help). It sounds simple and is simple but I do not know if it is easy to programm. See you *Fuchur*

... would be hard to do since it is not even written in Java... Windows Surface Pro could run it but i still do not see the advantage that would give u. Mouse and keyboard are faster and more precise in close to everything... See u *Fuchur*

It does. In general the higher the better. Never even tried 4096 till now but 1024. In my cases there was just no use of going higher till now. He is just having problems with printing these stls. It sometimes can be tricky since certain spline structures in A:M which tend to produce problems but runing it through fabb studio i could print each one i wanted without a bigger problem.