NancyGormezano

I think? I agree: exaggerated squash & stretch is not plausible for realistic motion, realistic character animation, body mechanics. As soon as you start squetching, you add personality, interpretation and distorts physical reality. Likewise, molecular physics has nothing to do with toon, stylized motion (in response to your critique of David's squetching). Animation gets muddied mixing toon type behavior & accurate physics. It then starts to become a "taste" issue, where there are many choices.

Happy Healthy Wealthy Wise and more day!

I think I regard squash & stretch (stretch in particular) as to not really being based strictly on physics (conservation of energy, mass, elasticity, PE, KE, force, gravity, etc). The concepts of squishy squashy are used to give personality to the ball. Not reality. So IMO, trying to define it in terms of reality is weird. Any strobed photo of any ball (of most any ball type material) will show that there really isn't much stretching going on - but yes there is some compression on impact. Balls/objects especially don't stretch on the way down. Probably don't deform on the way up all that much either beyond their original shape Regurgitating what I believe might be Keith Lango's thoughts: The concept of exaggerating stretch came about with 2D animation - the ART of shapes in transition being drawn at 10-12fps. The stretch image of a ball (or character) is more like a smear frame, or drawn breakdown/inbetween image or as you say possibly "overlap, ease stylistic behavior" : the image shows where we've been, where we are, and where we're going. It gives the character/ball personality, and also lets us not have to hand draw as many frames. To combine toon behavior in CG, where we can have faster frame rates, accurate textures, shading, lighting, very human models can produce some mighty muddy looking uncomfortable stuff when combined with SQ& ST. If one is going for reality - then probably best to stick to the accurate physics. If you're going for stylistic - it's open to interpretation. And the more the models/environment are presented realistically, the harder it will be for people to suspend belief and accept the style. If you go for looney toon, ANYTHING goes, as long as it's consistent with the toon universe. So I don't think a discussion of moleculer, inertial behavior has any bearing on stretchy squishy squashy toon or even stylistic behavior.

happp happpp ah-happeee!

great looking characters!

It may look nice, but the use of transparency will increase your render time. I just ran a simple test and the render time doubled for 5 pass (no soften). However you can increase jitter, decrease your hair density, and render time will go down.

Happy happy happy !

If you were able to import them as a image sequence - you should be able to use the sequence as a camera rotoscope. They should play at the same speed as the chor/project. You can change that by setting the frame property for the rotoscope, if that's not what you want. EG if you only want frame 10 of your image sequence - then set the frame property of the rotoscope to 10 on frame 0 of the chor. Not exactly sure what problem you are having.

Look at my screen grab above - you have to first select the path (either in the pws or in the modeling window) then right click , plugins/wizards sweeper. It looks to me that you did not select the path first and only rt clicked in the modeling window

I find I have better luck with sweeper plugin select your path, rt click/plugins/sweeper - select the cross section and voila! Note that in this example the cross section is modeled at 0,0,0 facing front. You will get different results depending on where, how you model the cross section which is to be swept. I also find I have better luck if I do the sweep in a different temporary model, and then copy the result (sweptobject) to the model I want to use it in, as sometimes sweeper make A:M go boom.

I do not have a special version of makenormal - it is probably the same as anyone else's (date is 2005). But anyhow here it is. MakeNormalMap001.zip

You have your 8x8 grid set with 100% TRANSLUCENCY. If you change that to 0%, then the shadows show on the grid. Not sure I understand what you want to do. However I am guessing you want the shadows on a ground plane? Or on the grid? If on the ground plane, I do not see a ground plane in the chor. If you set your 8x8 grid to 100% TRANSPARENT (not translucent), then there is nothing under Eddie to catch the shadows. Add a ground plane

The makenormal plugin works in my ver 16b, 32 (reported above). My makenormal plugin is an old version. Whether it is correctly rendered or not, I can't say. But I am not having the same problems that Rodger is having. I think the problem might be when 32 bit & 64 bit versions are both installed.

This does not sound like normal behavior. Does the same thing happen when you import the chor into a brand new project ? (not episode 2.prj) Quickest way to solution: Upload to the forum your lightroom.cho file and we can see what might be going on.

Not exactly sure what you are asking or are having problems with ...but it sounds to me that you probably want to 1) open the project that you have in which you like the lighting setup 2) delete all the models that you don't want in the chor, but leave the lighting, ground plane probably, camera 3) SAVE this modified CHOR (not the project) as "mydefault.cho" or whatever you want, so that it is separate file from the project file When you want to use this chor as a starting point: 1) New/Project 2) import mydefault.cho

Is that a name you created manually? I've never had "Subscription" show up when I've been running a an installer Yes I usually create my own folder names

Perhaps check Tools/Options/folders to see where A:M is looking for plugins, etc? I only have 32 bit installed, & I installed 16b to C:\Program Files\Hash Inc\V16.0Subscription\. However it appears that I also have another folder C:\Program Files\Hash Inc\V16.0, with all the sub folders. I don't know when that got created. All the tools/options/folders are pointing to the subdirectories in the V16.0 folder (not the folder I installed 16b). Perhaps your 32 bit version is looking in the wrong place for textures, shaders, hxt etc?

yes. (create a normal map image to be used as a decal/patch image on some other surface) It does not seem to have any problems in my version 32bit 16b. Perhaps there is some problem/confusion on those systems that also have 64 bit?

nice car! nice fly thru!

me guste!

Yes, hair is quite intensive render wise especially if you do AO. Try fakeao? He/she is looking good. Perhaps your original model with the sloping back combined with adding a back hump would get you closer to the shape of a polar bear? I loved this video! Made me smile! AND fortunately at around 5 secs there was a small side view of a polar bear shape - so here is a rough outline of that polar bear with your model (not exactly side view). Maybe this helps get closer to the shape?

Nice!

Most excellent, stunning!

Yes...I have the same concern. The females appear in a different style. I would rather see them with a muppet mouth, as well as ball nose, eyes, similar to the guys. It would be funnier, and more consistent. You could add thick "felt lipstick" lips to their muppet mouth, to further enhance and distinguish their femininity. I love where this is going - very engaging!

Feliz Cumpleaños! Enjoy! Enjoy!