pming

Hiya! IANAL, so... The main "reason", IMHO, for a lot (if not MOST) of the stuff in many TOS's isn't to proove their case in court and win...it's to proove to the court that "you" willingly violated the agreement, thusly they have the right to take you to court. That's usually all they need. I mean, to them it may cost $10,000 to start all this and go to the first court appearance. Of course, YOU have to do this too, in order to defend yourself. I'm not sure about you, but there is *no way in HELL* I could afford $10k just to tell a judge "WTF? Does this even make sense?", and, by some mirical, have the judge say "Yeah, sorry apple, unenforceable in this case. Case dismissed". It STILL cost me $10k. It STILL cost Apple $10k. How much of a dent would that amount put in your bank account vs. Apples? Many TOS's are like this; with much of them completely unenforceable. However, they "get you to court" because of them. You agreed, you broke it; court time. These big corportations have MUCH more money than you (probably), so spending $3 million a year on silly court cases like this would be is expensive, but factored into their "cost of doing business". But you and me, the little guy? Hooped. All that said...unless you suddenly make a dent into Apples bottom line one way or another, they aren't likely going to care. But if you DO (like make a video that is so anti-Apple that it starts to cost them sales), well, *now* they become interested in what you "broke" in the TOS. Welcome to court! As for "They've always had the upper hand". Yes, but it's not because of the TOS. It's because they have more money and the US (in particular) has a judicial system that is basically "he with the most money, wins". Most of the time, anyway. Paul L. Ming

Hiya! I've recently purchased MODO Indi (to give it a serious look see to see if I want to save up to buy a full-on version of MODO), and so far I'm rather impressed. It hasn't crashed once on me, and it's work flow and my brain flow seem to be more or less on the same page. Anyway... ...I was fartin' around on their site looking for any of the extra stuff for MODO that I don't get with MODO Indi (mainly the scripting and plugins stuff), and came across something called "ACS 2 Kit" ("Automatic Character Setup 2 Kit"). One thing that instantly popped out at me was just how similar it seemed to be to a lot of the built-in stuff we have here in A:M. One thing in particular made me think, "Hey! That's a cool idea for A:M to implement!". It was, as my title suggestions, a "Thumbnail" of various 'poses' for stuff.... hands, legs, bodies, etc. (re: "Actions" and "Pose Sliders"). I would love to see this in A:M! To be able to make a pose, say, a "strong pointing finger", a "loose pointing finger", a "crooked pointing finger" and a "exaggerated pointing finger"... and have a thumbnail of said 'pose' right there with it. Our "Pose Sliders" and "Actions" could have the ability to store a thumbnail for it. When we needed a "loose pointing finger" we could pop it up, see it right away, and click. If we didn't know exactly what kind of point we wanted, we could see the thumbnails until we saw one that might work... click! Applied to our character via bone naming convention. Anyway, something like that would be pretty cool and useful to me. (MODO ACS thing...: http://www.thefoundry.co.uk/products/modo/kits/acs/ ) Paul L. Ming

Hiya. How much will it cost to get the Pro version? Where I don't have to update? I honestly *hate* updating...every update slows my computer down more and more. Right now, I'm at a start up time of roughly 3 minutes from when I see the "Windows" log-in password screen. I use some old programs, and some 'simplistic' ones... I've had windows Update totally screw with too many of them. Anyway...auto-update required = no f'in way. So...anyone know the price of the Pro version? Paul L. Ming

Hiya. @Rodney. I get what you're saying...but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Generally speaking, I'd say it takes me x2 to x10 as long to make something in AM than it does in any of the poly-based programs I know and use most often (Softimage XSI, Hexagon, Lightwave, ZBrush). Now, I know I am MUCH more familiar with the poly-workflow, those programs, and polymodeling in general...so I'm sure if I had as much knowledge/experience in A:M those times would be closer together. However, I don't think they will ever be more than "almost equal" for any but the most simplistic of models. I would LOVE to see an A:M pro-modeler do a time-lapse video of modeling something relatively detailed. Just pop over to something like the ZBrush forums ( http://www.zbrushcentral.com/forum.php ) for the kind of detail I'm talking about. Now, one caveat here... some of those are some seriously high-poly models (like millions to tens of millions of polygons). Those models are then "poly-reduced" to a much lower level (say, 75k or lower), but all that sculpted detail is written out as bump, cavity, normal, AO, etc. maps and applied to the "manageable poly" level models. If an A:M pro could show us all how he would go about doing something equivalent in A:M... I'd probably cream myself. (sorry for the graphic imagery! ) What I mean by "equivalent" is whatever it takes to get an A:M model to have the same level of detail as "detailed poly models", be they ZBrush, Maya, Softimage|XSI, trueSpace or whatever. Using all the tools one would use... mesh modeling, normal maps, area-occlusion maps, and all the other stuff. If the end result didn't take significantly longer than using another poly-based modeler, I'd be one happy camper. As for my other comment about "japanese plugins"... I wish I could remember what site it was. It was a list of several plugins that I had found really useful for modeling in A:M. The guy was japanese, and his page was in japanese...but the plugins were "english". I have searched to no avail...I don't think I have all of them (lost somewhere over the years), but I know they're out there in the internet somewhere... sorry. Anyway... one thing I still stand by; A:M's animation tools are just pure awesome! I got ok at animating in Maya (waaaay back when version 4.0 was new.... yeah, that long ago), and I animate in XSI when I need to (primarily, I just model nowadays)... but I fell in love with A:M's easy and intuitive animation tools back when I first bought it (errr....maybe A:M '98?). That's the one major reason I even pay up every year or two for the subscription; it's a nice, simple, breath of fresh air when all I want to do is just sit down an whip out a funky walk cycle. Relaxing. Enjoyable. Like sitting on my porch in the early morning, sipping a hot cup of strong coffee, listening to the birds and the stream in my backyard, and just soaking in the crisp, clean, air. ....ahhhh.....nice.... But then some yahoo comes along in his revved up car, blasting some gawds-aweful music so loud the bass starts to jar your fillings loose.... that last part is when I am at the end of animating in A:M and have a quick thought of "Man, I wish I could import my ogre character I did in XSI/ZBrush and animate him." That part always sucks. Paul L. Ming

Hiya. I can understand wanting poly's in AM (I did at one point too). I can see the benefit to sticking "with hash patches", though. That said...there really just needs to be a way to "model more quickly" in A:M. In short, I think if we got the ability to model on not just CP's, but with "segments" and "patches" themselves, it would make A:M modeling *significantly* more pleasant for those of us who have been modeling with polygons for 15+ years. For example, being able to click on a segment between two CP's, then right click and choose "Modeling --> Add Segment Loop (even) // or // Add Segment Loop (w/control)". If I wanted a nice even split down the middle, it would do so...just like adding an "edge loop" in a polygon modeler. Or maybe I want to extrude a patch. As it stands now, I have to select the CP's, hit extrude, then go in an detach splines, delete them, reattach and hope for the best...using Peak and Smooth to see which ones I now have to go in and "fix". To put it another way...not worth the effort. I have seen some pretty amazing modeling come out of AM...but I've also heard the people say stuff like "I've been working on this for a few hours every day for the last couple of months". That is terrifying! I can see the same level of detail and quality in "polygon based" modelers and I hear stuff like "Something I did over the weekend seeing as the wife and kids were visiting grandparents". So...MONTHS, vs. a couple of days. 'Nuff said, really. In short, I would love to see some serious effort go into two things: First, get some hash-patch equivilent modeling tools working. Things like Select Loop/Ring, Bevel Edge, Bridge, Cut/Connect, Chamfer, etc. I think adding in "Multi-Bias Mode" may be the way to go (where, basically, each CP has a "bias" going out towards EVERY segment that is attached to it...so there is no more of this 'spline direction' stuff we have to worry about). Second, it would be a nice addition to have a rock-solid and option-riddled FBX export for animation in particular (I'd even be happy with a good, industry-standard-based BVH export). I would be quite happy to make simple character models in AM (hash patches and all) if I could animate it in A:M, and then export it as "animated FBX/BVH" so I could import/attach to my fully-detailed polygon meshes in whatever program I'm using at the time (Lightwave, XSI, Maya, 3DS MAX, etc). I have seen some really creative modeling tools (usually Japanese-made), and some have made it into the core A:M. But if an "equivalent workflow" could be attained in A:M with using Hash Patches...I think a LOT of negative criticism would evaporate (and probably increase the number of A:M users a hundred fold...or more...). Paul L. Ming

Hiya. Thanks for all the kind words! I feel I must point out, however, that DT still does actually have some "in-house" tutorial makers. But for the 'other' programs, it's done by outside folk. For example, people have been asking for Blender and Lightwave tutorials on the DT site for months if not years. The general reply was "We don't have enough interest to justify it ourselves...but if someone put together a great tutorial, we'd be more than happy to do it up DT style"...basically. Blender was a nice surprise a few months ago. The first tutorial for it was building a little robot guy. Why? It was well done and enough people had asked for Blender off and on over the years. Lightwave *just* (as in last month IIRC) got it's very first tutorial; how to model a helicopter. In both cases, the person doing the tutorial is not one of the DT crew. So...someone who really knows their AM stuff should do up a quality (as in well-taught) tutorial. Start small...like "How to create simple character motion" that deals with, say, a character walking forward and then sitting down at a table (as opposed to a just a simple walk cycle). After that, maybe do something about creating and using pose sliders; contiue with said character grabing a pitcher of liquid, pouring it into a glass, and taking a drink (don't have to do particles...just the motion). After that, maybe do up another that adds in the particles/water. That's the kind of thinking and tutorial "planning" that I think DT is looking for. A simple "here's how to model a coffee mug" is simply not going to cut it. Anyway...I just re-upped my DT subscription a few hours ago (yay for tax season!...I always get back a few grand... ). I've found DT to be a great way to spend my "down time". I find myself watching tutorials for programs I don't even own because they are just fun to watch and learn from. I highly suggest that anyone should at least give a Basic month ($30) a try just to see all the cool stuff you can learn. Er...and then post "Give me some Animation:Master tutorials!" in the forums, of course! Paul L. Ming

Hiya. From what I gathered with the threads and whatnot on the DT site (I am/was a full-paying member for months at a time over the years), it's not DT that determines what tutorials get made for what. Basically, I think, people submit proposals to them for a tutorial or series of tutorials. Then the tutorial maker, if accepted, makes a 'trial' or something. If that passes muster, then DT gives the go ahead for a full-on tutorial, pay them, touch up audio and insert all the video swipes, hotlink stuff, etc. As for A:M getting a spot... I think it's totally possible. There are some pretty out-there (re: nitch) programs that have tutorials, so I don't think they'd have any opposition to an A:M tutorial or tutorials. The trick is to have one done WELL. This is the biggest drawback to a newbie learning A:M... lack of decent tutorials that are either dirt cheap or outright free. If A:M wants exposure, they need to put out quality tutorials that showcase how easy it is to animate in A:M, and they need to do it so that cost is no factor at all for the perspective user. Blender had this problem for the longest time. They have only recently (like, last 6 to 8 months or so, IMHO) really started to put out quality tutorials ("they" being "the blender community users"). The problem is...just about all of these quality tutorials are FAR too expensive for people who are interested in Blender. When it costs $15/month for some basic tutorials, and $0 to get the actual program...you have a "user disconnect". They are thinking "Why am I paying $15/mo for this site, plus $30 for that specific tutorial, and another $35 for that one, when the program they go to is FREE?". A:M tutorials on DT would be awesome because I *know* the quality is generally top-notch (however, I have encountered some stinkers where the teacher basically says "Push this button. Now select this option. Now hit that button. Now that one. Now slide this slider.", without actually teaching. Lots of "how", very little "why". But, overall, I'm very happy with the quality of DT tutorials. I frequently take a tutorial for, say, 3DSMAX, but try to follow along using a totally different program, like Lightwave, Hexagon or Softimage. I find that helps me understand 'my' program more as I have to actually figure out/learn how to do stuff over how to do stuff "in that particular program for that particular task". I'd love to see some A:M tutorials on DT. Someone just has to put in the effort to make a REALLY GOOD tutorial and submit it to the DT guys to see if they are interested in a series. Paul L. Ming

Hiya. I love A:M. I've been an "infrequent user" since "A:M 98" I think it was (box/CD is in my parents basement somewhere). Why do I say infrequent? Mainly because of three HUGE reasons: 1. AM's renderer is about as fast as a drunk three-legged dog walking backwards up hill in the mud. (re: s-l-o-o-o-w-!). [although, lately, it has improved ] 2. "Quick" and "Modeling" are never in the same sentence with A:M. 3. A:M does not play well with others. The first point, speed in rendering. I like A:M's renderer....to me, it has a nice, clean look to it with generally wonderful shading. Vibrant may be the best way for me to describe it. But it is so dog-gone slow I just don't do any final renders in it. Ever. Taking a Cornel box, flat colors only, and rendering it in A:M...and taking the same thing with as close to I can get in identical settings into Softimage or Lightwave...not even a contest. SI and LW blow A:M's time out of the water. The second point, there aren't enough tools to help a modeler. In Hexagon (my favorite modeler), I can model, say, a large back-ally dumpster bin in about 20 minutes (with indentations, bevels, dents, etc) because it's polygonal and I have the tools to do it (chamfer, bevel, edge loop, connect, inset, extrude, bridge, etc). Say what you want, but polygon modeling and sub-D surface modifiers are simply faster....by multiple orders of magnitude. IMHO, A:M needs to develop either (A) full support for polygon objects [re: treated same as a spline model in A:M....render, animation, weight map, bones, etc], or ( needs to develop the same "tool set" that polygon modelers have, but in 'patch' form. The third and last point, and this is related to the first two, A:M needs to have some serious rethinking with regards to where and what it wants to be in the current marketplace. In short, do they want to keep doing what they are doing, or do they want to break into the "real' market? Right now, there is a storm brewing from what I see. Newtek is dropping the ball with Lightwave again, IMHO (too long a story to go into). Autodesk sits behind it's massive desk, in the shadows, smoking a big stoggie laughing maniacally, knowing that nobody can really compete with them...so they can do as much or as little as the want with Maya and 3DS MAX (don't even get me started on what they did to my beloved Softimage! > ), really. Cinema4D has the European broadcast/commercial style stuff pretty much wrapped up. Houdini is trying to become more main-stream....but their node-based system is a PITA for modeling or for people coming from a more "common workflow", and their pricing is still too high. Blender...well, blender is doing a LOT better now that they've finally acknowledged the thousands and thousands of people who would love to use it, but find their workflow just outright bizarre. Blender is making great strides in their overall interface/GUI-design. So where does that leave A:M? At the perfect time to just suck it up and put A:M into everyones pipeline. The "we don't want A:M to be just another tool in a pipeline" craziness needs to die. If I could do my modeling in Hexagon, detailing in ZBrush, rigging and animation in Animation:Master, and render in Lightwave....I'd cream myself. Seriously. For me, that would be the perfect pipeline. Right now, that is my pipeline....minus the A:M part. Which is kind of a big part of the pipeline for making short animations... Sorry for the longish reply, but I just wanted to pop in and give my 2¢ on the whole thing. I really think the time is nigh for A:M to step up and say "Hey, world! Here, have all the animation capabilities of the big packages....at a very low price! Add it to your pipeline today!" (or, baring that, "Hey world! A:M has full support for polygon models and modeling!" ). Paul L. Ming

Hiya. Thanks guys! Paul

Hiya. A couple of Q's regarding workflow stuff... Just wondering if there is a way or a plugin that allows the selection of a patch straight away? Basically, I want to select a patch or series of patches and have the CP's attached to that patch selected. Thinking in polygon terms, it would be like selecting a polygonal face, but using hash patches. Is there a way to us "raytrace selection" or "only front-facing" selection? Say I have a simple vase. I want to move a few patches outward. If I drag a rectangle selection box around the CP's I want, it selects the CP's 'behind' the ones I want. I don't want those ones in the back. Is there an option for this somewhere? Is there a "falloff" setting for selection of CP's? Lets say I have a dense mesh. I want to select a couple of CP's and pull them out to create a 'bump'. Is there a way to pull out those CP's and have the surrounding ones (within a certain radius) also get pulled out, gradually fading outward to nothing? That's it for now. Paul L. Ming

Hiya. Yeah, I'm using v14 and I can't use Community either now. Keeps telling me it can't connect to community or somesuch.

Hiya. DarkTree v2.5 Textures from Darkling Simulations (www.darksim.com) can do it. It has a "blend tile" function; and with a few other tweaks/methods, it can produce really nice stuff! (Ex: http://www.darksim.com/html/tdt2_tileblend.html ).

Hiya. I'll do you one better: Here's a link to a site for game developers. It's got a LOT of engines listed...by whatever is key to the game you want to develop (API, rendering engine, world type (BSP, ABT, octree, etc.), price, status, programming language, etc.). Here you go: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/

Hiya. Excellent work! My only critique would be that I think his feet are too small. Make them a little bit bigger and bulkier and I think it would be even better.

Hehe...yeah, "old dog, new tricks" and all that. Mind you, poly modeling has come a LONG way. Especially when you add in advances in displacement mapping and micro-poly modeling (re: ZBrush, Mudbox, etc.). Anyway...woof woof!