Fuchur

one thing u can do is to increase the cp size for cps. *Fuchur* PS: To get this sorted out I think you need to talk to Steffen... I am no longer experiencing this problem. It is in fact better for me than ever before... just tried another retoplogy and it looks great. Transparency is fully okay, etc.

No, but it is easier to work with it that way. See my tutorial on my website about Retoplogy for the process: Retopology-Tool See you *Fuchur*

This is a problem I reported which might be related: A:M Report I had this problems too before, but I am now using another graphiccard (newer generation, to be specific a ATI Radeon HD7850) and since than it is gone. Is there a driver update you can install? See you *Fuchur*

Hi Elm, As far as I understand it (please correct my if I am wrong Jason) there are two version available: - A:M Subscription for 1 year ($79.99) - Never expiring version ($299.00) Both are download-products today. (only manual + ExtraDVD can be selected to be shipped with the never expiring version). Both are software-dongled to one computer per license. > Infos on hash.com: A:M Versions See you *Fuchur*

I can't see the patches that are co-planer to the obj file. You can see where they clip out as well as the settings on the side which seems to have no affect. I'm thinking it's my vid card. I am thinking this is a limitation of realtimeviews in A:M / the version of OpenGL A:M is using. See you *Fuchur*

This is comon. I just use the hybrid realtimerendering for that and make the underlying object wireframed and the new object shaded-fireframe or only shaded. See you *Fuchur*

You have activated "Render to file" > "Output" > "Buffers" > "Apply camera's PostEffects to renderings", right? See you *Fuchur* PS: Just tried a Tint-Posteffect with Cobalt-Style and it worked as it should.

Would it not be possible to just delete the texture-files? Like that you just have to click cancel several times and it should be done, right? See you *Fuchur*

Is there a horizontal scrollbar or something like that? My Windows-Version does show those icons where they should be. See you *Fuchur*

Have a look at my signature... Video-Tutorials on exactly that subject. See you *Fuchur*

I like her alot Steve! She really gives the impression of being female in her looks and the pose and so on. Nicely done! Keep on working on her! See you *Fuchur*

There are several plugins for that. Two can be used in the modellingwindow and two in the chor: a.) "Multiple copies / Multiple import" > Chor b.) "Duplicator" > Modelling window c.) "Simple Scatter" > Chor d.) "Sweeper" > Modelling window ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Advantages and disadvantages: for a.): Pro: This can be used with a much heavier patch-count, since the chor can handle many many times more patches than a single model without massive slowdown. Con: It is often harder to manipulate the position of many 100 models etc. afterwards in the chor. For me the modelling window is easier in this direction. for b.): Pro: Everything in one model, so you can use it as you are very likely more used too. Con: At some time you will hit the patch-limit for one modellingwindow (depending on your hardware and the software itself, will hit in at about 20-30k per model). for c.): Pro: Same as a.) BUT with a more random approach. Con: Same as a.). for d.): Pro: see b.) + mode controlable approach because you can for instance use an spline to place the copies on automatically. Con: At some time you will hit the patch-limit for one modellingwindow (depending on your hardware and the software itself, will hit in at about 20-30k per model). ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Basicly both are used more or less them same. How to use them: for a.): 1.) Create the model you want to be repeated. 2.) Drag and Drop it into a chor. 3.) RightClick on the model and choose "Plugins > Wizards > Multiple copies". 4.) Set in how many instances you want to create and how far the instances will be place away from eachother. > Good for very repeative structures (like for instance a roof) for b.): 1.) Create the model you want to duplicate. 2.) Stay in the modelling-window, select the CPs of the model to be duplicated. 3.) RightClick on the selected group of CPs and choose "Plugins > Wizards > Duplicator". 4.) Set in how many instances you want to create and how far the instances will be place away from eachother. > Good for very repeative structures (like for instance a roof) for c.): 1.) Create the model you want to duplicate. 2.) Drag and Drop it into a chor. 3.) RightClick on the model and choose "Plugins > Wizards > Simple Scatter". 4.) You will be asked for a model you want to place the copies on. For instance you can choose the ground here or any other model. A:M will place the newly created instances on the surface of the model (quite randomly) > Good for creating for instance a wood of trees. for d.): 1.) Create the model you want to duplicate and create a group containing the structur you want to duplicate. 2.) Create another spline which will be used as a path in your modellingwindow. Make a group with only this path in it. (this will be used to define where the duplicated group will be place at.) 3.) RightClick on the model and choose "Plugins > Wizards > Sweeper". 4.) At operation select "Duplicate". 5.) Select the group you want to be duplicated. 6.) Tell it whether you want to use a specific distance to create your duplications (Final + degrees) or if you want it to create a model at every CP you have placed in your path-group (Each step). You can tell it to use regular steps to create a specific amount of models here too. Hope this gives a good overview and that it helps! See you *Fuchur* > Good for creating for instance a wood of trees.

Snap To Surface... this is one of the greatest new features... dont forget it! See you *Fuchur*

In the end you are not forced to buy those tutorials... I never ever read many tutorials of A:M or splines and I never even complete the TAO itself. I just found out by trial and error, because this is the way I can learn best. Barrys tutorials are great, but you dont need them to learn patches. Even if you have run into trouble, it is very unlikely that you run into that very often and the good thing about this learning-method is: You really learn... you are not just a repeater, but a understanding person... Barry is not employed at hash, nor is he connected to Hash in any form other than that he has been using A:M for years. His tutorials are out of questions very good. They are all worth $5 (some of them are even cheaper). I'll see if I will do a tutorial on basic splining... but I am not sure when I will complete them. Anybody know where the "Basic Splinemanship"-tutorials are found at today? See you *Fuchur*

... dont want to be picky here, but you got my name totally wrong on the blog-entry. It is not "Gerald Gum Zhar" (the fun thing: I actually like that better than my real name ) but "Gerald Zum Gahr"... See you *Fuchur*

The problem is, that it can not be said which way of modelling you like and which is "the best". We all use slightly different approaches, which in the end can result in very nice work. Which one suits you best is your own decission... and a hard one . If I am going for mechanical models I have learned that with mechanical models it is better for me to peak the CPs and after that use the bias-handlers to get the curve right (mechanical models often need very straight parts and they can be very frustrating to create without peaking the CPs used, especially if you try to move the CPs after the Bias-Adjustment. For organical modelling I would as good as never use peaked CPs. That can result in problems when trying to create very nice curves. It is my opinion so... other people love to use non-peaked CPs for mechanical modelling. It is all about what you like to do. This is something that you have to find out for yourself and I absolutley agree that this is a hard process and that you will sometime be desperate about it. For beginners it is said, that using no bias-handlers is better at the beginning, because they can be hard to overview and handle. This is totally fine for organic models (since A:M is quite aimed at character-animation this is okay too) but can be problematic for mechanical once. The best way to handle that is: Choose one and start with it. You will go a long way before you really run into disadvantages of the different methodes. See you *Fuchur*

Normals are okay? See you *Fuchur*

I think the most important thing about OpenGL being popular is, that it is available for any widely used OS. Windows, MacOS and Linux. There is a distribution for all of these OSes. I am not sure if there is one for all of these today for DirectX too (MacOS and Linux... do they use it today?) but a few years back there was no way to use it on Linux or MacOS. Because of that, OpenGL has spread widely. You want your computergame to work on all Computer-systems? OpenGL is the way to go. If you can limit the market to Windows only (which is very likely close to 95% of the market of computer-based games (!= consoles) it was a good use directx too... I THINK today it is different and Direct3d / DirectX is available for more than just for Windows, but I am not sure, and since OpenGL is very useable too, it is widely common. See you *Fuchur*

I would bevel the inner part too. Like that you avoid that large 3-point-patch you've got there robert. See you *Fuchur*

Thanks for the feedback! Ack! I never even thought of that, the other dead-end splines in the window. So, I failed my self-test in other words. And here I thought I'd gotten it figured out. Well that's a downer. I guess you can't take anything for granted when it comes to using splines. Even in the simplest tasks, something's always going to pose a potential problem. I'm not able to envision what you mean by beveling getting rid of the dead-end spline though? Is there an example you can point to to demonstrate that? As for the curving I actually went back into A:M after posting that and tried it out for myself. The idea of working with the CP handles occurred to me literally while I was typing that post, so I hadn't actually tried it yet lol. Here's the results. Could use a bit of tweaking, but it's pretty much what I'm after. I would say, just try it out That will help you learning the most. If it is to hard, could you upload your model? I'll show you. See you *Fuchur*

Hi Mike, the first approach with the 3-point-patches is the one I would not use. It has dead-end-splines and may give you trouble lateron. The other two are more or less equally good, BUT hooks can be trouble-some in some situations too... nevertheless in 99 of 100 times it will be a good solution and it will result in lower patchcounts which is (in most cases) a good thing. Here you just need to decide, if a lower patchcount is important. (can have impacts on rendering-times, export, animation, etc.) There still is a dead-spline in all of the approaches at the "window-like" structure (the area which is stamped embossed into the object) but it will very likely be okay in this situation. The other question about the smoother edges, etc.: There a several approaches: 1.) Bevel the edges. 2.) Use the bias-handlers to make it smooth. 3.) Do both and get the best of both. For mechnical modelling I would recommend to use peaked splines and AFTER peaking, change the bias-handlers. This will give you a huge amount of control and will very likely result in better results and less afterwork than using curved-splines and bias-handlers. The trick is to use the bias-handlers in a way, that the resulting direction of both of them will become a tangent for the point you are changing the biases for. That will result in a smooth, but still mechanical look. Of course if you bevel the edges and then make the beveled areas smooth (if this is look is what you are looking for) can create very neat looking edges. Hope this leads in the right direction. See you *Fuchur* PS: Just a hint: If you bevel the edges, the problem with the deadend-spline can be solved too.

I think A:M is more optimised for OpenGL. (mainly because it is os-independent) Which version of A:M do you use and which OS do you use? Windows 7 / Vista uses Aero, which can result in the selection-box-problems. To solve that, v16 and up deactives Aero by default on startup for A:M. (it can be reactivated using the options). See you *Fuchur*

For a beginner these are already very well done Keep up learning and you will become a real master See you *Fuchur*

Often used for chimenyes or stuff like that (copper can be a problem too)... but if it is a roof-system, they very likely thought about that before... so should not be a bigger problem. See you *Fuchur*

Dont underestimate the interchange effects of metall on metall etc. (for instance connected aluminium and steal will result in a much higher corrosion and stuff like that) so there is more work to be done and metall is harder to work with in general, but yes 30.000 more sounds a little over the edge. See you *Fuchur*