Jump to content
Hash, Inc. Forums

frosteternal

Craftsman/Mentor
  • Posts

    826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by frosteternal

  1. ....Like Rodney, I don't see a lot of advantage in Renderman.

    In A:M? Possibly as a new set of materials that one uses in A:M and are recognized only by going to Renderman. I can imagine someone getting that to work but that would be A LOT of new stuff to program and debug. A material to control RM's version of subsurface scattering would be just one example.

    .....

    I suspect most of these additional things RM does would be too many parameters for most A:M users to become good at.

     

    I don't believe that anyone's A:M project will look better by being rendered in Renderman without a very serious reworking to use the additional stuff that RM offers and most A:M users are just scratching the surface of what A:M does already.

     

    Using RM well is something that very devoted lighting and shading professionals make careers out of. By design, A:M is built to be not as demanding to get a result out of.

     

    If the A:M rendering environment is too hard for a user, Renderman is not the answer for them.

    ....

     

     

    If RM is somehow dramatically faster at the same tasks as A:M is, that would also be a reason to investigate it even if it were just to directly transfer A:M projects to have their math done in RM. But I don't think there is any claim that it is a dramatically fast renderer.

     

    ....

     

    All of the stuff I've said above applies to other 3rd party renderers: How do you get it to work with A:M without requiring the user to redo all the lights and cameras and textures and materials in that other rendering environment?

     

    Getting it to work with A:M's settings etc wouldn't be the worst thing ever. Current A:M materials lights etc would ideally be converted on the fly to Prman shaders.

     

    The main advantage that PRman has is its a VERY extensible renderer. Shaders can be written to incorporate any new tech or custom effects that a TD and an army of coders can imagine.

     

    However, there are also other advantages:

    -Motion blur. Prman motion blur is outstanding. (Not always physically accurate, but usually "looks right")

    -Complex scenes. The renderer can power through pretty much anything you throw at it, given enough time and computing power.

    -Hair rendering. Again, PRMan excels at complex scenes. Hair can be rendered directly as shaded curves or geometry. There's no reason A:M hair couldn't be exported at render time.

    -Network rendering optimized. Because it's built for large scale production, distributed rendering was built in early on.

    -Displacement mapping. PRman displacements are relatively fast and very robust.

    -Constantly Updated. This is HUGE. The renderer is CONSTANTLY being improved. New lighting models, shading methods, features, speed improvements, stability.

    -Industry standard. (Supporting PRman in some way definitely improves the prestige of a 3D software. That seems pretty minor, but A:M has a pretty bad reputation of being a closed system. Adding Renderman support would be a great answer to that.)

     

    I'm not sure that's it's necessary, but with this new noncommercial license, many hobbyists are going to want their software to support their ability to play with this new toy.

  2. I'll just toss in my 2 cents regarding rendering engines in general:

    Different rendering systems excel in different areas. One of the most-used production renderers is Pixar's PRMan - but one of the reasons it remains popular is it is entirely customizable. New shading methods can be written for any imaginable effect or surface, and it has been highly optimized for that sort of rigorous and highly extensible environment. PRMan is optimized for animation, it is not, however, optimized for a single artist doing an entire project on their lonesome.

     

    As people have already pointed out, A:M is designed to be accessible to a single artist - as much power as possible with the least amount of technical obfuscation. This is definitely a strong point.

    I personally use rendering features that A:M is not as good at - advanced lighting models, certain blurring effects, instancing, etc etc and while I model many organic forms in A:M, I do move into other packages for texturing and lighting (Texturing, by the way, is MUCH easier in A:M than other packages.)

     

    Really, though, depending on what a client needs, I use the best tool for the job. I did a whole project modeled, animated, and rendered in A:M a couple years ago - and the client loved it. It was a cartoon-world theme park project and A:M's renderer was perfect for rendering all the scenes, characters, etc. It was a dream doing everything in one package =)

     

    However another project called for a near-photo-real monster that needed matted fur and fire-laced breath. I ended up using three different programs to achieve that. (A:M was used for a multi-limbed humanoid creature in the same project. Renderer and all.)

     

    Most recently I needed to model and render a hi-res still of completely photo-real pen. I actually had to switch renderers mid-project to achieve the perfect result and still finish by the deadline. (Client was EXTREMELY picky)

     

    Basically, push your tools to their limits, but be willing to learn a new tool if your creative vision demands it =)

     

    Okay, done babbling. =)

  3. Ok, now I am officially abit confused.

    I am working on windows 7, and on AM version 18.0 SSE 4.

    I am not getting the "Average Normals", its simpy ot there ...

    I attached a screen how the surface menue looks here ...

    Any ideas ... ?

    Thanks

    Heiner

    Do you have "show Advanced Properties" turned on in the options?

    Screen_Shot_2014_01_09_at_12.46.17_PM.png

  4. I'd recommend first of all changing the neon green color that encompasses the scene. Something a bit more muted will light much better. Also, do what Rodney says - dump all the default lighting. Figure out what you want to highlight and show in your scene and add lights that achieve those goals. Lighting should reveal your scene, not simple flood it. Also, make sure that ambient settings are turned off in camera.

  5. That's not a bad idea. What would you suggest as a "nominal" licensing fee?

    Depends on market and your own personal pricing. Just understand that as long as you stay in the same market, your rate will be some multiple of the initial fee. Don't low-ball too much.

  6. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to do a few things "on spec", then shop them around to local businesses for advertising purposes.

    I know few that might be receptive to something like that. Maybe I could offer a 15 to 30 second public access spot, along with finished clips to put on their website. Can't hurt, other than time spent if I can't sell the work. Even then, it would still be a portfolio piece.

    Just beware of doing too much work for absolutely free. Better would be to approach the client, explain that you are looking to create clips to help them advertise, and you would like their feedback along the way. Treat them like a real client. Explain that they will get "free" design and animation services in exchange for helping you build a portfolio piece - but if they like what is finally created, they will have to pay a nominal licensing fee to use the project (assuming of course that they will love it.)

    This is a nice compromise because you will benefit from the valuable experience of dealing with a client, and if they like what you create - all the better.

  7. ...

    Now the guy starts back-pedaling, admitting that he can't promise those kind of numbers, basically exposing that he can't really offer much in the way of exposure for the cartoonist.

     

    I loved it!

    I might use this ;)

  8. So I've been thinking about doing something part-time for extra money and am considering doing 3d on the side.

    I have most of the hardware and software for doing this already, so there is not a huge financial commitment required, just a commitment of time.

     

    Is there still a market at the low end for this sort of thing? Or has the commoditization of 3d made this unprofitable? For instance, an independent videographer would be more likely to pick up AM and do their own stuff as opposed to paying someone else.

     

    I can't really think of anything I could knock out very quickly other than the ubiquitous flying logos of yore. I just don't know there is a market for that sort of thing these days. I could probably use AM to do short character animation sequences but I honestly don't know what is realistic in terms of project length. I think trying to do more than 30 seconds is asking for trouble. 15 to 30 seconds is about right for public access type commericals, for instance.

     

    My goal here is two-fold: make some extra money and also build my skills by stepping back a bit from my short film. I think not having a huge emotional investment in a specific project, combined with shorter projects, would let me get back up to speed without feeling like I'm digging out from under a mountain. What do you think?

    You need to build up a portfolio. You could have all the experience inn the world but if you can't show some of your work, nobody will want to pay you. Also, I would HIGHLY recommend asking around and finding local work. A few have mentioned sites like eLance etc and as noted, you are competing with people in other countries who are pleased to work for pennies. But in your own locale, you have the advantage of face-to-face contact with clients and often no language barriers either.

    Build a small but loyal customer base - ask them for referrals - this is all part of networking.

    Also, be prepared to offer something more than just technical skill - often a client, even without asking, is seeking some fort of creative direction or ideation as well. Suggest ways to improve on concepts - even a simple logo animation can be improved in a multitude of ways. Be confident about your advice and ideas, but also know that you are within realistic restrictions such as your skill level, time available, and project budget.

    Is there a low-end market for 3D and motion design? Absolutely - but there is an even bigger market for low-cost work that looks more expensive than it really is. =)

  9. The sad thing about this is, that because of censorship and siccors in the head a genius like Myazaki would never have been possible in the USA.

    All the interesting and fresh stuff comes from outside the Hollywood industry like Persepolis and Walz with Bashir.

    I wonder how that really great TV series from HBO like Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Six Feet Under have been possible...

    A live action cable show has a good deal less risk, loss-wise, than an animated feature-length film.

  10. This is really interesting. I wasn't aware that something like a character smoking would be seen as a liability nowadays. I mean, look at Pinocchio - the main character himself is seen smoking.

    Times sure have changed. People are unreasonably jumpy.

    I'm glad I'm in LA - we usually get films when they say "limited release." Hopefully this is playing somewhere around here it sounds worth a viewing.

  11. I'd certainly hope that nobody is attempting to fault Steffen for any of this ...and if they are/were, they were clearly proceeding from ignorance.

    ...

    I certainly won't regret the time spent using A:M. It's been a blast, and as long as some version of it still exists, I'm sure I'll still be supporting it.

    Agreed 100%

  12. Sebastian,

    I'm not sure what to say.

    I can't help but think you were already moving that direction.

     

    It seems for the present a few doom and gloomers have once again convinced someone to put A:M on the shelf (for invalid reasons).

    Way to convince Steffen maintaining A:M on the Mac isn't going to be worth the effort Mac heads!

     

    A minor history lesson: Five to six years ago a group of A:M Users decided it was the end of the world because Ken Baer had left and there was no more hope for A:M on the Mac. Despite their dire predictions both Mac and PC versions have consistently improved since then. The tragedy of this... if they had continued to support A:M, we might not be at this 'Mavericks' debacle today.

     

    How can we learn from the errors (all errors) of the past?

    Perhaps those who prefer A:M can learn a new software to allay their fears while still supporting and using A:M?

    Now, that'd be a novel concept.

     

    By all means learn new software but save a few bucks and stick with A:M as well.

    You'll have the best of all worlds for a few more dollars a year.

     

    Rodney, I'd be glad to stick with A:M as well as using other software. In fact, that's what I was doing, as I often use several programs to complete jobs. However, my favorite organic modeler just stopped working on my computer.I've always had a soft spot for A:M but if it can't be relied upon to launch after a routine upgrade (Mac users generally consider OS upgrades routine) then I can't rely upon it as a tool in my day to day workflow. Calling out people as "doom and gloom" when some of us express concern over a major failure (inability to launch software at all) that jeopardizes our work and income doesn't help either. A:M is a tool. If it breaks, expect people to be wary of a relying upon it. If the trouble with running A:M on the current OS is fixed, I will of course continue to use it, albeit cautiously. And other Mac users will too. But I think it is reasonable to expect that A:M going forward be made more modern and Mac compatible so that we don't have to live in fear of updating our computers. :)

  13. If A:M had been natively coded in the first place for Mac we would NOT be having this problem now.

     

    Back in the day, Hash Inc had to develop code (custom libraries, etc.) that didn't exist in the Mac world from scratch to support A:M on the Mac.

    Apple didn't have the tools for it yet (probably still doesn't) and certainly weren't going to build cross compilers to help push code toward their PC competitors.

    So Hash Inc had to go the hard route to support their Mac users.

    Which BTW, they gladly did.

     

    In hindsight it's easy to surmise what should've been done where reality dictated it couldn't.

    The real lesson learned here: Do not make major upgrades to your operating system in the middle of a production cycle.

    This is especially true for those who are oft tempted to be early adopters.

    The results: predictable.

    That is not true. There was a conscious decision made to support one code base for both PC and Mac. It wasn't that the tools "weren't there" - A:M had been running a separate codebase, albeit a bit behind the Win version, for the PPC Macs. The decisions was made to use the cross-platform approach when Mac switched to Intel chips. It wasn't that there wasn't any other way, the easiest solution at the time was chosen. Now that that solution has begun to fall apart, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the current efficacy of that path.

    It still should have been caught before the new OS went live. 6 months is more than enough time to install a beta and notice that A:M doesn't launch.

    Then there could have been a warning issued - not a fix, but a warning - not to upgrade until the problem was ironed out.

    Over a week later, there still isn't a warning on the web store.

  14. But it wasn't realistically possible to pure code it. Not realistically possible to start over and rebuild it from scratch after it was already done once in a way that Apple allowed.

     

    Repeatedly saying it's "unacceptable" now won't make more possible for it to be possible.

     

    If the cost of Windows (way less than $110) is the deal breaker for you, then it's a deal breaker for you, and you need to learn some other 3D program. If that inconvenience is smaller that running Windows, that's the way to go for you.

     

    I know you want to be angry and want us to know you're angry but that won't get A:M recoded.

     

    My suggestion is a simple solution that is proven to work. If you don't want to do that, then so be it.

    My point is that this a program we pay for. It isn't a hobby, it isn't a lark. This is a product that people pay for, and it does not work on the system that it is advertised to work on. That should be unacceptable to everyone.

    I understand limited resources. But there is NO excuse for a commercial software program to be "maintained" by a single person in his "spare time".

    No it won't be fixed by my being upset, but it's really only a matter of time before this kind of shoddy and unprofessional approach pinches someone on the windows version.

    This really should concern everyone.

    I have a been a loyal user of the software since 1994. That is almost TWENTY YEARS. I have purchased countless versions and upgrades, multiple licenses. No company in their right mind blows off long time users like this.

    Again, I point out - WE KNEW THE OS UPGRADE WAS COMING IN ADVANCE.

    The problem should have been tested and discovered IN ADVANCE.

    This will affect new users as well as old.

    Saying "buy a new license AND a new operating system" is not a fix. It's a kludge. And fairly useless.

    Can't maintain the Mac version? Well then A:M needs to no longer be marketed as a Mac compatible application. Problem solved.

  15. I asked Steffen if he could make it still run on Windows 2000. No, the new compiler he uses now has many important advantages but it can't do windows 2K code. I would have to upgrade. A:M was the only reason i had to make that upgrade.

     

    I didn't get all angry about Hash refusing to support its Windows 2000 users. My judgement was that it was easier to upgrade my computer than to learn a new 3D software. Those of you on the Mac may have to weigh that choice yourselves if the Mac version can't be retained.

     

    If i told you there was a plugin for $80 that would make A:M run again on your computer you'd probably say that was worth it to not have to migrate to a different 3D program.

     

    That's the cost of adding Windows to your Mac to run the PC version of A:M. $80

    Expecting new software to run on an old system is not a generally expected feature. Expecting new software to run on THE CURRENT OS is not an unreasonable expectation.

    If A:M had been natively coded in the first place for Mac we would NOT be having this problem now.

     

    Paying $110 to install windows on a Mac is not a good solution either. Running a separate system compromises efficiency in workflow (ALL other software used is Mac Mavericks compatible) Also, that entails buying yet another license for A:M.

     

    Unacceptable.

  16. Apple is VERY developer friendly.

     

    Sorry, but just not right. They force you to use a Mac-System with the current MacOS, pay money to be able to develope for their platform, use their IDE and so on.

    It really is not developer friendly. Play after their rules and everything is fine, but try to play outside of them (like using a Linux or Windows system, use a OS which is not current, etc.) and you are not able to develope at all.

    This has some advantages (at least for apple) but all in all it is very hard for someone who wants to develope for different platforms.

     

    For Windows you can at least compile many applications (MFC-based once are tricky, everything else is not) from other OSes without having to use their IDE (Visual Studio is only needed for MFC-based applications) if the compiler runs on it

    (like GCC+, which runs on Macs, Windows and Linux and is free).

     

    For Linux you can compile with any OS and any IDE you want.

     

    Apple may be developer friendly for (no other but current) Mac-developers, but that is the only aspect they tolerate at all. It is a pure "one to rule the world"-approach and the biggest disadvantage Macs have if you ask me.

    And it is important for a developer that the OS is backward compatible which ApplesOS is not that good at. This is a advantage for developing the OS (or for Apple) because you do not have to careful about what you change, but it is a real pain in the ass for developers...

     

    See you

    *Fuchur*

     

    Yeah, except that is *how* you write a program for a Mac. If one don't use the proper tools in the first place then one can expect things to break. Just because one can use whatever IDE etc for developing on X system doesn't mean that that approach does, or should be expected to work for another system.

    That's like driving the wrong way on a one way street and then getting mad at the road when you get in an accident.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to develop for the Mac.

    It's annoying that one of my favorite software programs doesn't follow developer standards and now is broken because of it.

    It's annoying that no testing was done in the six months that a beta of the new OS has been available to developers.

    It's annoying because I purchased a brand new second license an hour before finding out that A:M does not run on current OS X. (I feel I am due a refund, which I have requested.)

    Actually no.

    It's just sad. This one's a dealbreaker.

     

    Bye guys. It's been fun. =(

  17. If you want a transparent image of the character, with cast shadows, that you can overlay on live action, you need to render two passes, minimum.

    One is the shadow pass, use "shadow only" with alpha turned off. You will add this to your live action scene with a multiply blend, which will make the white transparent anyhow.

     

    The next layer is JUST the character. Make sure alpha channel is on, and add this over your live action shot.

     

    You will have two image sequences to composite with the live action.

     

    (You can't render the character + alpha + cast shadows as one image, if you intend to seamlessly overlay on live action)

  18. Uh...I have to ask...$25K why? why? why? when it will be obsolete in 1 year?

     

    Must be a guy thing? Who's got the bigger...er...ego bragging boost?

     

    I don't see the point either, I see this as a way to move more hardware since most systems and even mobile devices can handle 1080P playback now. Gotta sell computers somehow I guess.

    Those of us who work with 4k video find this very valuable. It's more common than you think. Even pulling a simple key in 4k is a dream compared to 1080P.

    Give me 4k footage any day over 1080 if you expect FX work.

    They are flawed though in their video card estimations - as far as I know, the video cards are maxed out as standard. I don't think they can be customized.

  19. What does Apple typically do when an upgrade is breaking other programs? Nothing?

    Apple encourages and makes it easy for developers to update their software along with the operating system. In advance of a new OS, developers (who pay a subscription fee of $99 a year) are given first access to betas and development tools are automatically updated so that native mac apps just need to be recompiled. When features are deprecated, a list of the out of date libraries is made available far in advance.

    Apple is VERY developer friendly.

    However, in exchange for this ease of development, they also demand that you build using xCode (the free Apple dev tools) and keep your code up to date and modern.

    It's a different ecosystem than windows. An old windows app is expected to be able to run on new systems, but not vice versa, an old Mac app is expected to be updated.

    There are disadvantages and advantages to each approach. The Apple way allows Apple to strongly encourage compliance with new systems, which helps apple, who sells the hardware, and promotes a good user experience because apps are generally kept in step with new OS versions. (I was a long-time windows user - rabidly anti-mac, but I decided to give apple a go and found it more suited for my needs)

    Also, as several people have pointed out, Mac users actually update their OS, Windows users drag their feet because the cost of updating is prohibitive.

     

    So why would a Mac user update? I updated because Mavericks 1) streamlined multi-monitor setups to great advantage, which I really needed 2) actually runs faster and more efficiently, and 3) increases the battery life on my Macbook significantly. (about 25% more time between charges!)

    I didn't know at the time that A:M was not written directly in native mac code.

  20. I was meaning A:M. Appzapper tells me that there are some preference files that A:M places in the Library that could have been corrupted in the same way as Parallels' system files were corrupted.

     

    As I understand it: Try to uninstall A:M and re-install it after the OS update.

    If the preference-files are only corrupted while updating the OS (not constantly while using it) it may be as simple as that.

    Worth a try if you ask me.

     

    Be sure to move your master0.lic to another location before uninstalling to be able to put it back into the same folder after you have reinstalled.

     

    See you

    *Fuchur*

    That does not fix the crashing on launch problem. I tried it just to be sure. =(

    However, an unistall and reinstall of v16 (which is odd, because it was a fresh install to begin with) yields a working A:M.

    So something within v17 crashes while 16 does not. Odd.

  21. Jesse, here's another thing to try.

     

    I'm reading that people are having trouble with Parallels not starting after upgrading to Mavericks. The solution they are going with is to uninstall the software, use Disk Utility to Repair Permissions to your boot drive, restart and reinstall the software.

     

    They say the problem is that the OS X upgrade is corrupting Parallels system files.

     

    I don't use Parallels, but thanks for the confirmation on v16... It wasn't saving models from the save dialog box for me when I tried to export my model to ObJ. Good to know that I can cobble together functionality across two versions though. I had to move to another program to finish the project but look forward to v18 or other possible fix, hopefully sooner than later :/

  22. My point is that if there is a problem, it's not because of incompetence or failure to notice that a new OS revision was coming out nor is it a sign of disinterest in Mac users, it's the result of what is possible to do so far with the available resources.

     

    Microsoft and Apple both have enormous R&D and testing resources and yet they still put out software with showstopping problems. A:M doesn't have those resources and yet still works pretty well.

     

    Stay calm for at least a little while.

     

    I just purchased a 2nd license yesterday before I discovered the new issue, so I am annoyed. A:M isn't some free/open source program, it costs money, and I expect it to work even under the latest OS. I purchased a second license because I had a modeling job I needed to work on ASAP, and didn't want to be stuck on my laptop. Little did I know it wouldn't work - it activated just fine. There was no caveat listed in the store that it might not work on a recent OS. That is just silly. I understand there is a resource issue, but Mavericks was released as beta MONTHS ago. The last A:M release was March. More than enough time to test the new system and fix a launch exception bug.

    As others have noted, there are issues with Mac file dialogs not working properly, except by a workaround - um...that's just half-assed. Certainly a non-standard file dialog could be used, like a few other 3D softwares use in their Mac versions. If the Mac support keeps slipping, then it shouldn't be sold for Mac.

     

    I'm very frustrated because this surprise glitch threatened my ability to get this project done on time, and there is really no reason it shouldn't have been caught well in advance of the public release of the OS.

  23. although stepping down to v15 is a life-saving workaround.

     

    Here's a clue.

     

    The fact that v15 was working before and still is working on Mavericks is a great omen.

    Steffen now just needs quality feedback to determine what got broke in Maverick that was working in previous releases of OSX.

    As has been noted... it takes time to account for breaking changes in Apple and Microsoft code.

    The good news is that because A:M was working before we are likely looking at a nasty bug rather than the end of the world.

    The file open dialogues don't work consistently in v15...Can't import images at all. I exported my model, and moved to a different modeling program because I have a deadline.

×
×
  • Create New...