robcat2075

That is interesting. I have never encountered "script lining" before in film making discussions. I had no idea what you were talking about when you mentioned it at LAT!

One problem with moving to a new licensing scheme is that all of our old versions use the current one and won't be able to migrate. Hash would have to continue to maintain the old system just so we could use old versions when we need to. That would be uneconomical for them.

Find out. What are the costs. If it's something they licensed, is there a cost per user? Do they maintain a server for this themselves or contract that out?

Wouldn't a Dropbox location be simpler?

Sorry to hear about your back injuries!

I'm sure it's possible but I imagine it would mean a more expensive subscription price. Something I found very useful with my Cintiq is a chair at my desk that is adjustable height so i can be over my Cintiq instead of in front of it. Alternate idea... get a cheap stool of suitable height that you can quickly switch out with your desk chair when you want to draw on your Cintiq. I presume your Cintiq already has the stand that lets you flatten it out quickly.

Sprites can rotate on the axis that faces the camera but they always face the camera. You might be able to make a sprite that appears to spin. Alternatively, small pieces of cloth can be dropped in a scene and fully turn in 3 dimensions.. https://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=47931&p=410996

I just find it very time-consuming, weighting a shoulder that needs to be able to rotate 180 degrees, for instance, is no fun whatsoever. That post was made right after I'd asked the mirror bones tool to rig me a left arm just like I'd rigged the right and it made some very questionable CP allocations (Like attaching parts of the right arm to the left arm and half of Bernie's face to his left shoulder) and I was feeling a little miffed. If you have a case you'd like to present here definitely do that. Bringing it to Live Answer Time is good too!

From Tom, in another thread... I'm not sure what AVX is. Are you checking "Import as an animation or a sequence of images" when you choose your targa series?

Rolling flat tire effect made by rotating a projection map on a tire. The tire itself doesn't need to rotate. Flat Tire! on YouTube

Comparison of three different anti-alliasing results (click to see full-res)

For most purposes Yes. For most images, regular render will be faster and of the same quality. Regular render generally takes about as long as a 4-pass render but has anti-aliasing that is (usually) as good as a 16 pass render. For extreme anti-aliasing needs you can either render at a higher res with regular render and scale the image down or use a higher multipass setting.

The high quality DOF and motion blur can only work in multi-pass. AFAIK there is no way to skip sub pixels in the way that adaptive anti-aliasing does. Sub-sampling every pixel is how they work.

The results for most rendering should be the same between the two. The same rendering engine is drawing the pixels. A noticeable difference should be brought up as a possible bug. There are some effects that only work in Multi-pass. The dig difference between regular and multipass is how the anti-aliasing is done. Multi-pass subdivides each pixel (16 passes would be a 4 x 4 subdivision) and does a full render for each sub pixel then averages the sub pixels together. However, a pixel that is among other pixels of similar color (like in a blue sky) needs no anti-aliasing and won't benefit from it. Multipass rendering wastes time subdividing it. Regular render does "adaptive anti-aliasing." Every pixel is rendered, then the contrast between pairs of pixels is compared. If the contrast is above some threshold the pixels are subdivided and re-rendered on a 2x2 grid. The sub pixels are again compared for contrast and if any pairs are above the threshold they are subdivided again and rendered. The result is that regular rendering has anti-aliasing detail equivalent to 16-pass rendering, but usually in far less time. It is possible for an extremely detailed scene to take longer in regular rendering and I have noticed that objects with thin lines look better with multipass.

Happy Valentine's to you, John!

It's possible Jason is still on his vacation. Try the email again tomorrow. First, let me note that every version of A:M installs to its own folder. All v19 updates go to the v19 folder, all v18 updates go to the v18 folder... etc. and you can have multiple version of A:M on the same computer with the same subscription. I note that so i can ask this next question without you thinking that you have to uninstall v19... What happens when you install v18 and run that? or v17?

I'll note again that you can get your current activation codes at the Hash store. That should solve it, along with using the right one on the right computer.

It has a thread with instructions and samples stickied for it... https://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=33795 I've never installed the 2008 rig so i'm not sure what is involved but don't recall anyone saying the process didn't work anymore. I suggest trying it out on a simple test case which is what one might do anyway to learn a new rig.

I always save old installers, with a version number, just in case there's a reason to roll back

Great looking character head!

How did you get to that screen if A:M isn't running? Are you installing v19d to some directory other than the one v19c was in? Normally they overwrite to the same directory. Is this the first v19 you've installed and run? Then you can copy the master0.lic file from your v18 directory to your v19 directory If you still need an activation code and don't have the email that contained your activation code you can log into your account at Hash.com/store, then go to My Account at the top, and "view" your most recent purchase of the A:M sub. The "Order Information" will show your activation code.

Yes. It's a subtle change but I think it makes for a more organic-looking hand. Small detail... notice the difference in the shape of the thumb webbing. It occurs to me that I have misidentified the axis of rotation with my blue line. If the first Phalanges bone slides on the stump of the Metacarpal then the apparent axis is probably inside the stump rather than in the gap between the two bones.

If you think you had it bad... The Four Yorkshiremen

Hands certainly have come a long way since barbarian days. I still think you could go bigger on the arc of the knuckles and either move them farther into the hand or move the webbing farther out.

Can you post a sample PRJ with that set up?