robcat2075

An ON/OFF Pose in the model would be the way to do that.

In the choreography, turn on Show More Than Drivers that will expose the properties for the decal and you can animate the Percentage property to 100% or 0% for showing or hiding it.

According to a Facebook conversation it is called Kingwood Hospital in Houston, I think.

Welcome to the forum! Yes, it does sometimes take a while to go through as it is managed by a human rather than an automatic bot. Wait a few days longer and then rattle the cage some more.

Hurray for Rodney!

I'll also note that any files made with v13 or later will not load in V11. The file format changed from a nonstandard text markup scheme to something more resembling the XML standard.

I immediately recognized him so you must be on the right track!

The interface for v18 will look just about identical and A:M still works the same way. Since v11 we have many bug fixes, speed improvements and new features however. A one year license for v18 is only $79, there's no more CD like with v11.

That's what this endeavor is for. If it can be done in A:M, we'll show how to do it.

For anyone looking in (detbear already knows this stuff...) That Realflow demo looks great and I think it pretty much represents state-of-the-art water simulation, which is why it it costs $250 to license Realflow. That's not $250 for one year... that's $250 for one week! The Realflow "Starter Pack" (I presume that is more of a regular purchase) is $7495... on sale now for $6360! Because render nodes are a big part of their business I presume that render times are excruciating for highly detailed scenes like that killer whale thing. I can't find any claims of render time associated with their example videos. If anyone does, point me to it. No, I don't think A:M's fluid simulator can be managed as realistically as that Realflow demo but if that were the scene we needed for a movie we were making I think something could be crafted using traditional techniques that most audience members would see as the same shot. Identical, no, but same shot, yeah. Maybe that would make for a good "It can't be done" project.

My original notion was projects like "I've seen famous, expensive 3D program X do _________, and I don't think it can be done in A:M" but I'm open to any interpretation that suggests an interesting project will inform future use of A:M. Since I get to decide what I'm going to do, anyone can suggest anything!

Roger, is it enough for him to fit through the hole or does he have to be exactly keyshaped when he does it?

btw... if there's something you wish A:M could do but think it can't... you can nominate a topic in my "It can't be done" thread.

the motion blur will definitely work better in multipass those are funny, Nancy!

Heres' something that is the inverse of what Fuchur was looking for. A flock of swallows are tracked in the sky... Swallows of Essex and some starlings... 2014 Starlings

You'll need more blur. Here's a quick attempt that uses 9 keyframes to circuit the loop twice. That is so when it is going around the second time it is not exactly duplicating the placement of the first circuit. This helps reduce the appearance of the object showing up inteh same place too soon. i think Richard Williams touches on his in his book. Footblur.mov This effect could be improved with refinements. RoadRunnerBlur.prj

I think we need a less severe edge to that dimple.

I'm not sure I understand teh PRJ. The path is SO huge compared to the feet. Is it really the motion they are supposed to be making under the body? If you are wanting feet to do a circular motion under the body in an Action it will be vastly simpler to keyframe that circular motion. Four keys, maybe 8 at most? I'll note that making them blur like the road runner's feet will probably take another technique to create that appearance rather than actual moving, modeled feet.

Welcome back to A:M!

Jumpin' and a' jivin'! Very cool!

Go for it! Eager to see what you come up with.

If it works it works, and there's no such thing as "cheating" in CG when it's all artificial anyway.

If I raise the color saturation on the top image I can get a very similar result. Saturated color was sort of what Technicolor was about.

To convince people I think we'd to have the same models in the scene presenting the same textures and shapes that need to be lit. This particular one appeals to me and I think would interest many people. Perhaps we can keep it in mind for a future installment of "It Can't be Done" if the models are not immediately obtainable.

I'm not doubtful that it can be done. If someone were to provide the models for such a scene that might make for a good WIP thread. I'll note some things I see working in this TS shot -lots of AO. Note the unnatural amount of AO surrounding the door knob in the upper left corner. Maybe it's supposed to be dirt? -soft focus. Nothing is pixel sharp in this image. Woody is "in focus" but you still can barely read "SHERIFF" on his badge. -DOF. The background is even a bit more out of focus. -Bloom. On real film that bright window would bleed into the surrounding image. They are simulating that effect of course. It's also entirely possible that this image didn't come straight out of the PIXAR render farm. The characters and background may have been rendered separately for ease of lighting and combined in post. I can see getting all of that done in A:M.