Fuchur

Hi guys, thank you very much for your comments and critics. I highly appreciate them . I now realigned the texture for the cheeks to make it less distorted and I realigned the texture of the nose a little bit. But the more noticeable difference to the first version is the hair. I increased the density, made a transparency-gradient and made it much thinner while aligning the dynamic options. Additional I gave it a litle bit of curl. I think it looks much more lifelike now. Next tests will be about the eyes and of course the teeth... have to see what I can do there... The bad thing: Rendertimes have massivly gone up with that... I'll have to check what I can do with FastAO to get them down... See you *Fuchur*

Hi guys, just wanted to show a WIP of my latest try to create a realistic girl character. I am quite happy with it, so there are a few problems I want to address before going on. Hope you like it! Let me know what you think! *Fuchur* realistic_head_model.mp4

Have a very nice birthday Will! See you *Fuchur*

Have a look at "Render As Line"... you can create quite nice thunderbolts with that. It is a property-value for groups in A:M. See you *Fuchur*

I do it this way: - First all my models etc. are embedded in the project-file. I often save in several versions (depending on the project I can save 100 different versions). - When I reach a state where a model is very complex and cool, I save it externally to backup it. - After saving the model externally, I reembed everything in the project-file again. That way I can open the project-file in a year again and I will get the same state I had a year before... that is often very important if you are doing something for a customer, etc. - When I need the model (etc.) from the project for another model, I will use the externally saved model-file... it is important, that it is no longer connected to the project-file for two reasons: 1.) I can alter the model-file and still keep the same state of the other project-file so in a year, when the customer wants me to for example render another perspective of the same scene, I don't run into trouble. 2.) Sometimes you will move a model-file away, because of some new folder-structure, etc. This is no problem, when everything is still embedded in the projectfile... In other situations, it can be useful to use only an external saved file so... - The project-file can get corrupt... but you still have your model. Be careful so... you should save that one although in several versions! - If you change something important and want it to effect all the projects it is used in, it is very easy to do it this way. - You can easily create a large library of objects etc. from which you will just reference your models. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It highly depends on what you want to do... For me it is important to save something and get it back later on in the exact same state. If this isnt important you can do it the other way and it will offer the advantages mentioned above. See you *Fuchur*

You used a Surface-Constraint and a Path-Constraint, right? If both didnt work you may want to try a surface-constraint with a pose-slider-walk-cycle... See you *Fuchur*

Wow you've got a massive amount of RAM there . Have fun with the powerful toy . Sounds like a hell of a machine... See u *Fuchur*

If you would talk about modelling and not CP-weights, I would ask: MirrorMode on? See you *Fuchur*

We will see... it really doesn't matter which map we are talking about if the projection/transfer of the UVs from the reference-model to the patch-model is possible... after that it is easy. But as I said... lets wait if that is possible... See you *Fuchur*

At least you will have it very easy to create a character looking close to the one created with other modeling-software. We will see if transfering of Displacement-Maps is an option or not... but you will at least be able to use the high-poly-model as a 3d-template to create patch-models with it. And this alone is very huge... See you *Fuchur*

What about using the predefined night and day-lightening and if you want to introduce more lights, you have to bring them into and out of the scene in some way, so that the beginning and the end are always default. Could for example be done if the character carries a flash light with him/her, etc. See you *Fuchur* PS: Just to mention it: Very cool looking set!

Steffen is currently implementing the Retopology-Tool and he is quite far with it. It will be available in v17. If you are only talking about unity-games, etc.: I didnt find the time to create much more with unity at the moment, so I plan to do more in future. See you *Fuchur*

One of the best 2d-/3d-animation-combinations I have ever seen, especially since it is so seamless and everything works so great with eachother! Congratulations for the cool animation! See you *Fuchur*

I started to do more with Poses than I did before. For example you can create a quite nice walk-cycle with a pose and it is easier to handle different and blending speed with that, than with normal actions. It is however only a matter of taste, if you ask me... Still I like "Pose-Cycles" more than Action-Cycles... the disadvantages is, that A:M won't handle the step-length for you like you can do with a path and the "Stride Length"-Features. See you *Fuchur*

In general, A:M can embed all the files that has been created in itself. If you import textures, movie-files or audio-files into A:M, they are not saved in the projectfile itself but are referenced from where you imported them. "Embed All" doesn't embed them into the project. (which is very good, because the filessizes would be unhandy if you had to save in versions with all rotoscope-videos embedded in the file. That would only save the same data over and over again. However if you want to make your project available for another person, there is another method to do it which is very handy: A:M can do the embedding for you, if you wish too and without really embedding it for your original projectfile (very handy for giving a project to someone else). For that go to "Project > Consolidate". The non-zip-option will create a new folder-structure at the destination you choose and consolidate everything into it. (all files will be copied, not moved) The second one will do the same but zip the folder-structure afterwards. See you *Fuchur*

These bugs have been fixed and will be away in the next version. See u *Fuchur*

You can try the following: The folder "Images" in the PWS has got a property named "Preview Resolution". You may want to set that to a higher value (for example 2048 x 2048) and see if that changes something for you. See you *Fuchur*

Best wishes! See you *Fuchur*

With a watercooling device! If you are a little into overclocking: That will get that cores up in the sky too .

Hi Jason, since you are going for rendertime, I would recommend you to get the 8-core. I would go for the 8150 and at least 16 GB of RAM so. (2 GB of RAM per core should at least be) In general I tend to buy RAM at 1333 MHz, because for most operations you dont notice 1600 MHz or more... I dont have a 8-core AMD-CPU so, but it sounds promising for A:M netrenderer and you get a nice SSD-drive for the price-difference. For not singlecore-operations (if your software can't use several cores) I would get an AMD x6 because it is less expensive or if money isnt the problem an i7 2600. The biggest question for me is, when to get it. Maybe if you wait a month you get some pricesavings on the new CPUs, so I am not sure about that... just a guess. See you *Fuchur*

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T at 3,4 GHz, using 1 of 6 cores, 8 GB DDR3-1333MHz RAM, ATI HD 4870 1GB (so I dont think that that contributes to the rendering till now. > 3:35 min while importing an obj with Troer and surfing... (so I dont think that that really took some time from my rendering). Compared to that: > 2:32 with 1/4-core-system. 3:35 => 215 seconds. 2:32 => 152 seconds. > calculated times per frame with 6 cores / 4 cores rendering: 215 / 6 = 35,83 seconds per frame 152 / 4 = 38 seconds per frame It all depends on what you want to do... on 1-core-operations, Intel i7s (4 cores but the 980x) are faster. But they are although more expensive. On a per frame rate, AMD x6 are (really slightly) faster. (not to talk about Bulldozer-Systems with 8 cores... these, even so they are even less fast on 1-core-base would be even faster on multi-core-base) So for rendering-purposes with A:M, AMDs Flagships are the better choice... for working in A:M, i7 960 (for instance) are the better choice. But both choices should work very well with A:M and none of them is a bad choice neigther. See you *Fuchur*

I made tests with Steffen concerning that compiler... Intels compiler is just better than the one from Microsoft... both platforms gain from that, while Intel-CPUs gain a little more it is not really mentionable (9% to 8% or something like that). See you *Fuchur*

Thanks Gerald for your input, yes the dell ram sounded expensive. I looked up 16GB DDR3 1333 at Frys - $89.99! I'm assuming this would work on the Dell system. Does one have to be careful with respect to manufacturers? or any other form factors to consider for compatibility? I noticed that there is now 1600mhz available, but I assume that wouldn't work with the dell system? EDIT: My husband just told me he doesn't like Fry's (they don't guarantee their RAM, costs extra for them to guarantee it!), nor does he like patriot mfg, so he just told me about Crucial.com, says they are more reliable. Anyway that is a price that is totally acceptable and even the 54 Dollars at Crucial for 8 GB sound much better for me. As Robert said: Dell is using 4 slots for their RAM even with 8GB installed, so you need to buy 2 x 8GB kits. But 108 to 360 Dollars still sounds like a great deal to me. I don't see what should not work with that RAM-chip there, especially since they are claiming that they are working with the Dell system. I'd say, buy it there. Now it is a good deal for the pc . See you *Fuchur*

Thanks - that's good to know about the OS. Not sure what else my Ram options would be, or if dual channel DDR3, 1333 is anything special. Sounds fast to me, but I am a know nuthin about what's out there currently. DualChannel means, that two RAM-chips CAN run in "ganged-mode". That is better than single-channel (there is no ganged-mode here) but not as good as tripple-channel (which is available for some intel-cpus / motherboards). DualChannel is the most common RAM-type today and should be supported by any RAM you buy. In general it is not that much faster so... you gain a little performance for some RAM-related operations. More specific: When the computer wants to write data from one part of the RAM to another part of the RAM. It is better, but it is not worth anything like 360 Dollars. You may gain about 2-5% for THOSE situations where the computer wants to write from one part of the RAM to another part, which is not the most common situation AND it is only for accessing the new data, not the real writing-part of the process... in short: If you are not a really dedicated gamer who notices micro-lags and such things and needs at least 90 fps to be happy, you will never notice the performance-gain. See you *Fuchur*

Hi Nancy... In general I don't suggest top-level-systems... I think that the money you have to pay for them compared to the processing-power you get is not worth it... any mid-range computer in 2 years will be faster than todays high-end-model and will cost half of the money... but I think you want to do it once and get rid of buying anything for the next view years... that is more expensive, but less troublesome, so it is your decision. But okay, lets see what you got there: About Win7 pro / home: Do you need RemoteControl? I although think that Win 7 Pro has XP-Mode but Home doesnt... so I have to look at that. You dont need Ultimate so... just not worth the money for private persons. 16 GB RAM for 360 Dollars more? That is really epensive... Currently RAM is very cheap... I can get 16 GB DDR3 at 1333 MHz (Kingston, 9-9-9-24, 4 x 4 GB-parts) for about 80 Euros at my reseller... But since you want it and you want the warranty you may consider by yourself if you think it is worth the extra-money... anyway that is really expensive... You may want to go with the 8GB and buy the other 8GB somewhere else afterwards. (or if you see that you need it even more GB ). However I would never buy speakers or a monitor from Dell... that is something you can really easily buy anywhere else for less money (and/or better quality). USB 3.0 is something, that isnt very important today but may become important in future... My mother-boards support it already, so I never used anything with it till now... It shouldnt be your primary sorrow so... if you need it in future, you can always buy a PCI-extension-card and put it into your computer (not very hard to do: clip it in a slot (it will only be suited for one sort of slot) and it should work). Today such an card costs about 25-35 dollars... Other than that, the system looks powerful... a little pricy, but quite powerful. See you *Fuchur*