Stuart Rogers

I think you mean the H.264 codec that comes with QT7. I find it produces file sizes about half that of Sorensen for similar levels of quality. Compression times are longer.. It does require a beefy machine to play them back, though - my G3 iBook can play Sorensn 3 files smoothly, but most H.264s will stutter. LazyDude: For anything other than short, quickly rendered work, I recommend rendering to separate TGAs and then gluing them together (and compressing) afterwards. That way you can experiment with different compression settings without having to re-render. You can do this glue/compress process within A:M, although I prefer to use QuickTime Pro (US$30). JohnL3D: Your movie wouldn't play on my Mac. Ho hum.

Are you using QuickTime Pro? If so, set your running movie to looping (View->Loop, or Control-L on a PC (IIRC)) and then simply save the movie (that's save, not export). Ta-da! (Well, it works on my Mac.) The WalkCycle3 movie especially could do with some head movement. (My iBook can't play back smoothly enoughfor me to comment further.)

If you have the 'show advanced properties' enabled in Tools->Options->Global, then if you click the reveal triangle on your model in the PWS/Objects folder you will see your poses there. Right click on one you want to delete and select 'delete'. You might also have to delete the associated relationship in the object's 'Relationship' folder. (Reality might vary a bit - I'm away from my A:M machine right now.)

I dunno... I've used it repeatedly to rig characters... they are completely well behaved.Can I point out that I didn't actually say anything about the TSM2 rig?

If that doesn't sell air conditioners, I don't know what will!

I never could get on with the 'official' rigs. After so much frustration (probably a mind-set problem on my part) I forced myself to pull them apart, see what they were doing, and cook up my own rigs as best I could (I'm *nearly* at a rig I'm happy with). As for 'what is this telling me?' - probably that you're using FK for everything above the belt, and IK for everything below. BTW I came to the conclusion a long time back that spherical limits were almost never the solution to any biped rig problem.

The right DivX codec, probably. According to QT on my iBook, it's a DivX 5.0 file. (It played fine for me.)

I don't know what drugs Serg is on, but I want some! Nice work!

Keep in mind that in this case you need to set keyframes for the start and end of each movement. So, you have a key set that puts the foot on the door, another one a while later (still with the foot on the door) at the point where you want the foot to move away from the door, and then another one a few frames later placing the foot back on the floor again.

Excellent work! I love the sheen on those feathers.

Yes, I've come across this on occasion (although the worst case was only about three frames from the end). Another thing to check is the blue bar that shows up for the choreography in the keyframe view of the Timeline (rather than graph view), and make sure it extends for the required period.

I have to squint a bit to see it as anything other than a rotating distorted vase (which it is). But it does suggest an interesting development. Don't spin the vase but rig it so that the 'faces' on each side can be fully animated as true faces, with a conversation sound track. If I can find a suitable sound track, I might just steal that idea!

Is the end of the volumetric cone within the scene? (i.e. is it between the camera and the distant wall?) If so, have you tried extending it beyond the far end of the room (you might have to play with the fall-off). I have no idea if this will work, but it must be worth a try.

Thanks.

That's really nice - I do like the secondary motion of the buckles. Any chance of a rough translation?

Rule number one: Never, ever, make a change like that without taking back ups beforehand in case the results aren't what you expected them to be! BTW In case you're not aware, A:M ignores the DPI of an image, as not all image formats store this. Absolute pixels numbers is what counts.

So I hope you don't mind me posting this just to make suggestions...! I would put a more extreme movement on the water surface at the end of the pipe, with a more violent rebound. Also, I think water droplets distort quite a lot once they detach from the liquid bulk, and take some time to settle down. That said, they leave your frame to soon to reaally show this. Finally, the droplet looks a little too reflective, even to the point of looking like liquid metal. But, as usual, I'm being picky. It's very good work.

You'd be surprised how broadly some people interpret the contest theme. Your image or Steve?

Probably not - you're probably missing a codec, although that does seem unlikely as you have the latest version of QT. Have you tried downloading the movie file directly instead of using iTunes? That's what I did (I have QT 7.0 on a Mac) and had no problems.

Speaking as someone who's too short of talent and material to able to put together his own showreel yet... I would put contact details on those opening credits. And then, follow that with a snappier opening shot than the one you have, something to really make you want to watch the rest. The one you have is a little slow, and it's not clear what the robot is doing, so it makes me wonder if the animator doesn't know either. Otherwise, there's some great stuff here. Not so sure about the moonwalking iPod ad (the the first one), although I do like all the others.

Picky picky picky... Perhaps you should have the truck lift off it's driver-side wheels for a moment too, although maybe that won't show so much once you've speeded things up. The crumples on the CGI look good to me.

In A:M you don't delete patches per se - you simply prevent A:M from making them. The main rule is: a patch consists of three or four CPs that aren't all part of the same spline. If you modify your splines so that the four CPs you have selected in your image don't follow that rule, then the patch won't exist. One way to do this is to add at least one more CP to the ring of CPs.

How hard it will be depends upon so many things. Your aptitude for learning this software, and your prior ability in animation, lighting, shading, etc., what kind of end result you'll be happy with, and so much more. Add to that your ability to write a good script/storyboard. Any idea how long a piece of string is, exactly? I've been playing with this software for years and have barely managed to get a mattress walking and talking, and a nondescript guy staring blankly into the corner of a room. In the meantime others have produced movies of unutterable grace and style. The software is a tool, and it can do fabulous things, but how good the results are depend on your abilities, and we don't know what they are yet, so we can't answer your question yet. Is that the quality you want?

Y2CMV ("Your Two Cents Might Vary")yeah, these days I doubt it's even worth 1.5cI can afford the inflation - I've only been in the USA a few days and I've already amassed a pile of pennies. <SFX: Clink of pennies being counted> Yup, 10c.

Along with many others mentioned in that thread. GeForce is an Nvidea brand.