NancyGormezano

I like! and I like the propeller.

I haven't looked at your project. But I looked at both your movies. Both QT movies are reported as having a frame rate of 25 (window/show movie info). The movie labeled "30" appears smoother to me. I assume this was generated with A:M project rate =30. How are you making the QT movie? 1) Are you loading into QT PRO a png image sequence, setting a frame rate, compressing there with h264? or 2) Are you creating the movie from A:M ONLY? I would suggest doing the first option. IF you create your frames at 30 fps it will look smoother than 25 fps.

You didn't use the material twice. What I believe is confusing everyone are the 2 sets of properties shown in your screen capture for the emitter (chor data). The first set represents those properties you change in the chor. I believe the 2nd set represents those properties that are available to change in the material. I notice when I was playing that even tho I hadn't changed object collisions to ON, and the default was set to OFF, it was set to on, in the 2nd set of props. The other errant behavior that I notice is if I "bake particles" - then the simulation goes icky, and unpredictable, even if one changes the baked particle property to OFF. I suspect you would be better off for now, not baking particles for consistent behavior. I think there is conflict between the baked particle data (stored in a file) and using the "on the fly" data for fluids.

neato!

looks terrific

I see a more stepped animation. but I think that is a result of it being a gif, and how gif's play back. BUT it looks cute! and the way I would expect for a stylized old car. I can't compare with lcd display, because I don't have any.

I don't see any difference - and I don't see any jerkiness. I am using a crt, not lcd. Perhaps the compressed animation plays smoother on your system because your system can handle it better? EG, your refresh/redraw rate of your display/graphics card is slow? The other thing I notice is that your fps =25 (European convention, I assume). If you using any of the expressions you've been talking with David about, I wonder if any of them use "24" or a multiple of "24" as part of their assumptions? Wouldn't seem likely, but had to ask.

The paint doesn't stick. Nice eggs John!

nice new windows!

Skin tone is fantastic ! Would love to know your settings.

Especially like the reflection of the umbrella, table in the 2nd image. Do all the glass panes have the same settings? I keep thinking there should be reflections in all the windows, especially the window with woman standing in front. Or is my mind deceiving me, and is the image technically correct?

It wasn't the palette, it was the composition! (bridge, sky, clouds, water). I was actually surprised to find out that the palette was similar when I just looked it up. In my mind's eye, the painting was much darker, drabber, somber than it really is. I'm guessing that I had always focused my attention on the "screamer" and not the background. Interesting.

The last clip and the still you posted above definitely have that hand drawn/painted look. I was assuming you were going for "oil type painting" The clip with water reminds me of Edvard Munch's "The Scream". Is that intentional?

Yes, better with sound, Fun ending!

Thanks John! The world will rejoice when you finally get enough time to play with A:M. Thanks Bruce! Yes. I have thought of it & might try eventually. His belly screams out for some jiggling. Would require some reweighting, as well as rig mods. Not major. But I'm sure to flounder around. I'm struggling with tail currently and dynamic constraints, and pass thrus. BUT - I think I've got that figured out as to how to "sorta" work with it. I have a control bone that I can tweak after simulating, rather than tweaking the actual bones that get the automatic channels generated from the dynamic constraints. The ears, whiskers, hair are also dynamic. They each have their pass-thru problems to deal with as well. Hmmm...I only shortened the tail length, did not think that I increased the size of fluff puff...perhaps it's an illusion, or maybe it happened inadvertently? I do think it might look better/funnier smaller. Thanks again dblhelix, for more story seeds. The song lyrics (if I use that part) suggests some other ideas as well. Pure? Moi? My mantra is: "Do whatever works easiest & fastest, even if it takes you twice as long to figure out what that is, and would have been easier if you had done it the right way from the beginning"

Testing new music! "I'll Get Over You", the opening track from Myron LeRoy's CD "Nice Rack"! Myron sent me this 3? years ago. I had forgotten all about it until yesterday. It works! He is graciously letting me use it. So far I intend to use just the opening instrumental part, but ya never can tell. I might extend this animation to include the vocal part as well. I could use the lip sync, and acting practice, and it gives me a basis for a "story". However, this would extend animation from about 1.5 minutes to 3. We'll see. Also, shortened Lotharios tail & changed shape. I think looks much better proportionally. I turned on the dynamic constraints to test (for tail, ears, whiskers), and rendered at 12 fps (half size). I think 12fps might work. Dynamic constraints work well for whiskers and ears, & looks good for the tail in general. BUT: I don't know how to handle getting rid of pass thrus for the tail. It's tricky, because the channels aren't available any more for the bones that have dynamic constraints (after simulating). After simulating, there are now new dynamic channels along with the regular channels for rotaton. But I can't get ahold of either one to modify. Is this new, or was it always like that? I haven't tryed motion blur yet. This will probably be the last post for awhile, until I make more progress on the dance. Y'all must be getting tired of this sequence by now. shortail12fpssoundH2640000_0624.mov

Excellent! - love the colors, love the effect. I like it moving like a fast river. It works well.

I believe they are from jirard?

clever! and interesting

Yes I could view it, now. The one thing that stands out to me (aside from awful sound quality), is that the dude's shadow gets lost after he turns the corner - like it continues on without him. I wonder if the aspect ratio will work on their page? It's surreal alright. (I also wonder if the aspect ratio was the problem with the sorenson 3 compression as well with 7.1.6)

H264, however I do seem to have the sorenson 3 codec. There is some setting that you are using in the newer player (to compress) that, I suspect is causing an overrun of sorts in the older player. I do normally download QT movs from forum first before trying to play, rather than using browser window, especially with firefox. I don't know what to say either. Except at some point I should probably upgrade my QT player (will probably mean I have to buy QT pro again, and will probably cause problems in other programs)

Stomp sounds good ! I just replayed it - did you change the file? When I first tryed it, it wasn't coordinated with both feet - but now it seems like it is? I like.

Nice tractor! (trecker)

I suppose it wouldn't have to always be a Bee. All sorts of creatures would have reason to go by a flower... bees, butterfly, worms, mice... dinosaurs, robots, pigs, trolls, hippos, dancing lions and ragdolls... Everyday life in a magical garden. Although making different versions of bees has a certain charm (zombie bees, dumbo bees, robot bees, etc etc)

I am unable to view - I have an old player of QT (7.1.6 - for a variety of reasons) - and somehow your movie causes the QT player on xp pro to consume 100% of my cpu usage, I have to kill the process. I can normally play large QT files - eg some of mine are 300 mbytes - so is there something peculiar about your file?