largento

Hey, can someone check to see if creating a pose and editing it works correctly in version 19F? I'm in the middle of something and had to go back a version to get it to work, so can't make a choreography to report it. On the Mac side, it makes the indicator on the pose slider bar disappear. You can click on it and move around and things will happen, but the bar remains blank. On the Windows side, it seemed to appear while you were actually clicking on it, but then disappeared once you unclicked. It might just be something on my side, but wanted to make sure.

Just to test, I followed Rob's link to that benchmark and just ran it on the 64-bit version of the Windows A:M (v19f) on Parallels and the small test rendered in 17:58. It says when I ran it on the Mac version, it took 21:51. That was using the version of A:M from May of 2017, so it's not quite a direct-to-direct, but it does seem like the Windows version renders faster ...even under emulation.

I would expect the Windows app running on Windows to be the fastest version. Just on a couple of rudimentary tests, I didn't notice a large difference between the Windows version running Parallels and the Mac version. I haven't attempted a very large render on it, though.

Being able to hide the pieces easily definitely was a thought at the time, but the reality is that I can open up the model and hide portions nearly as easily or make copies of the model with different sections deleted or patches changed. If I were making a new episode every week, the modularity would be more advantageous. As it is, I only have one sequence on the bridge and it since it didn't require the full 360, I didn't model the parts I know won't be seen.

As a MacOS user, I would say go for the Windows side. Running the latest MacOS (High Sierra, which your iMac would be), you get a warning message when you launch A:M that it won't be supported in the near future because they are phasing out support for 32-bit apps. Beyond that, there are a few plug-ins and things that only work on the Windows side.

The only other option is BootCamp, which would require me to partition my hard drive and restart my computer every time I wanted to use Windows. It's definitely in the "as a last resort" category. David, I do have a graphics card (it's an AMD Radeon R9 M390 with 2GB of VRAM), but for whatever reason, Parallels doesn't use it and there's no way to make it use it. They explain it this way:

Yes, but switching it didn't fix the problem. There's also an option in Parallels to switch between DirectX 10 or 9 and that didn't fix it, either. According to the company:

Well, I got A:M running and it's unfortunately, a mixed bag. The application runs perfectly well with no lag. The only downside is that Parallels uses a virtualization of the graphics card and it makes viewing realtime shaded view unusable. I can work in wireframe and just do lots of quick renders to see what things look like, but if I switch to shaded or shaded-wireframe, I get artifact on top of artifact and it all becomes pixelated static. It seems to me that I ran into this problem before and that's why I abandoned it before. On the positive side, interaction with my Mac files is seamless. I don't have to make copies of files and put them in the virtualization. Windows' desktop mirrors my Mac desktop and I can access my Mac directory via Windows to open a file. It handles the retina display very well, too.

Thanks, guys! For the most part, I'm starting from scratch. The old models were a bit too clunky and all of them were 6 1/2 years old. I like to think I've improved a little in that amount of time. :-) I really wanted to rebuild the bridge after visiting the Star Trek Tours set in Ticonderoga last year. It was definitely helpful to have walked around on the set and I took lots of reference photos. The new model (which isn't quite complete yet) has a much lower patch count and makes liberal use of decals. The scale is more accurate and it's mostly a single model, whereas the old set was broken up into many pieces. The advantage here is that I can easily set up a new choreography and move the set. The old one was a hodgepodge of different sized elements that had to be assembled and couldn't be moved as a group very easily. We learn our lessons. I also knew that the old puppet models had been viewed (rightly or wrongly) as making it look like a kiddie show. That prompted me to try to make them look a little more sophisticated. I am going to make use of the backlot buildings I built for The Wobbling Dead, though. My reasoning for choosing to model that particular backlot was that I knew I'd need those buildings when/if I ever got around to this.

I've been keeping hush about this one for the last month waiting to see if I was really going to jump on the wagon again, but am happy to announce that I'm well-in on doing my next Stalled Trek parody!

I bit the bullet and updated my Parallels and downloaded Windows X. Crossing my fingers that this will work better than it has in the past. :-) I'll have to wait for an activation code from Hash, but once I've got that, I'm going to give it a go.

I don't really have the option of staying too far behind, because I do a lot of freelance work that uses the current Adobe apps. As much as I love doing this animation stuff, it's just a hobby and even though I put more work hours into it than I do the freelance stuff, it always costs me money instead of making me money. :-) Maybe by the time I need to do something, my situation will have improved.

Not that I could tell. I believe it uses the Wine emulator and it states on their website that they have not written enough code to handle every windows os command.

Right now, the $150 for Windows X plus $50 for Parallels (assuming I can upgrade from my old license, otherwise $80). :-) I'll keep my Mac on Sierra until I finish this movie project I've got going on and then evaluate what to do once it's finished. I've used the parallels thing before, and it's a lot of hoop-jumping. Sharing files between the two wasn't great.

Apple would disagree with you on that last point (and basically said so at the keynote of the Developer's conference last month.) They are putting out a new version of the macOS about every 18 months and after coming out with the iMac Pro are promising the new Mac Pro in the near future. Windows 10 came out in 2015? Since 2015, we've had El Capitan, Sierra, High Sierra and Mojave is coming out later this year. If they weren't continuing to develop the MacOS, I wouldn't be running into this problem. :-) I tried doing some stuff on A:M under High Sierra and I can unfortunately report that it's not for the faint of heart. Importing models was dicey. The only reliable way to get them in was to double-click the model file's icon. Importing it was hit and miss and mostly miss. It would go through the motions, but the file wouldn't appear. It also seemed to ignore that I was right clicking on Objects in the PWS and import the model into an open model. The UI breaks for asking for linked files (materials, decals, etc.) It gives you the import window, but doesn't tell you what it is looking for. In my case, I was trying to finish up some rigging and setting my CP weights. This seemed to work fine, but I couldn't complete the process because the MirroBones plug-in didn't work as expected (it seemed to ignore fan bones.) I haven't done much else with it, yet, but I'm glad I've kept my home computer on Sierra. I wonder if this CrossOver app would work... I don't know how I could test it with the licensing for A:M. [EDIT: Downloaded the trial of Crossover. It would install the 32-bit version of A:M, but couldn't launch it.]

Does make you wonder if the porting software will be updated given it won't be useful after the transition otherwise.

I get a "No."

I opened A:M at work for the first time since I'd updated the OS to High Sierra 10.13.4. When I did, I got this message box: Clicking on the "Learn More" button takes you this this page. It basically warns that macOS is transitioning to 64-bit applications only. They aren't saying when, but they've made it so that if you open a 32-bit app, you get a one-time alert. Is porting A:M to macOS as a 64-bit app possible?

I don't see why you couldn't build a model with the cameras built into it. It could be as simple as a cube, with six cameras. Then you could move the model around in your space. You'd have to render six times, but that's to be expected. Adobe has simple instructions for how to create a 360° panorama in PS here.

In real life, a colored light casts a shadow that is its opposite on the color wheel. We did this in one of my freshman art classes. We took a white cue ball on a white poster board and put colored gels on a light in a photo darkroom. A red light would cast green shadows. The point of the exercise was to expose us to the idea that shadows weren't simply black.

So happy to see this! Thanks!

I'm guessing you were using the Porcelain material. It's really picky about the normals. You just have to go in and manually change the normals until you get them all. On the plus side, it's a handy way to find normals that aren't going the right way.

That would make for a great psychedelic sequence. or horror sequence.

I remember reading the fine print back when they started this and thinking it didn't sound like a great deal. Basically, they gave you a one-time payment and then kept everything. Great, I suppose, if you're looking just to sell a script, but crummy if you wanted to be any kind of creative part of the process or share in future earnings. I've debated putting up a short or two on their Prime video service, but haven't seriously looked into it. I know just from watching Prime Video that they seem to willing to publish just about anything, but that comes with the downside of getting lost in the ocean of content. Also, they pay by the hour watched, so mine would have to be watched several times to add up to an hour.

Thanks, Matt. If I do, I'll come up with a credit like "Weed Supplier" :-) That was kind of thrown together. I once again used my "only tree." That is the only tree I used in the Wobbling Dead. Drop it down where you can't see the trunk and it becomes bushes. :-) A beauty thing about doing it in black and white is that ground texture could literally be anything. Robert, there's some mystery surrounding the show's quality. I came across a story that was published a few days before production started on the show and it was touting that the show was going to be filmed on 35mm even if they had to provide 16mm versions of it to the television stations. ABC's "Telemen" were going to watch the dailies via a connection to a television, so they could see how the show looked and offer their "expert advice." :-) Unfortunately, only the 16mm films that were part of syndication have been used for video release and they were chopped versions of the originals. Given how poorly the property has been treated over the last few decades, I don't know if there's any chance that the original negatives exist and if they are even salvageable. If they did shoot the show on 35mm and the negatives were preserved, they could release a great looking version of the episodes, but there's no will or profit margin to make that happen. The only ray of hope is that it's currently owned by Universal Pictures, so they'd at least have the means to keep those reels if they are still around.