robcat2075

I'd load them until you find one with an "eyelids" or "blink" pose slider.

We're like an elephant.

We don't do much with them. I'd have to try it again to see but I think if you do muscle mode animation in the chor or an action those CPs in the spline folders will get channels with keyframes in the timeline which can be slid, cut and pasted.

You can still select the rotoscope in the PWS even if it is unpick-able. The Pickable control is only about view window selecting.

I believe that is the intended functionality. You can drag a model from the library into a chor. I think you can also drag it into the objects folder and double click on it there to open it i a model window. I never use the Library. I open models from where they are stored on my hard drive, much in the same way that all other files in all other programs are managed.

that's a big hippo.

that has high-dollar peculiarness to it.

Yes, there is a workaround... http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44545&hl=

in the PWS, under the model, the rotoscope has a pickable switch that can be toggled.

Watch in action!

For me to be interested it would have to be a turn-key addition... you don't have to retexture or relight a scene for this other renderer. How much faster are these for an exactly equivalent render? They aren't instantaneous. Has anyone compared?

I think we can presume the CPs are placed as accurately as digital measurement will permit and the splines between them are a fair approximation of circledom. I woudl say the approximation is good enough to pass any scrutiny that would be incurred in story telling animation, which is all A:M is intended for. It is certainly superior to any polygon approximation of a circle.

An A:M patch will display only one normal to give us a clue as to how it is facing. However every point on a surface has its own unique normal that is calculated at render time to control, for example, how the light hitting it shades it.

It is an approximation. You can test that by reducing the lathe sections to three to see the roughest circle that A:M will make. Still not bad however. Of course, a true perfect circle is achievable by neither man nor machine, we are all making approximations.

When I look at these charts both of my monitors are very, very close to being on target. Here's your avatar loaded into Photoshop. I'm sure that is not intended to be completely black, but looking at the levels, all the pixels are black or nearly black and it appears black on my monitors, which are correctly adjusted by the measure of the gamma test charts and display all other images that appear on them with a normal, expected appearance. There is some combination of things trying to set gamma on your computer that are creating a viewing environment that is wildly different than what the rest of the world sees.

If my monitor settings were the problem then everything else on the web would look unnaturally dark too. But they don't, everything else looks normal. There's gotta be something wrong. Do you have Photoshop installed?

I've circled the only parts that do not appear totally black here. Is it really your intention that this shot be almost entirely black and that none of the details of the room are visible at all?

I just did a gamma adjustment on your avatar and found out that it's not a black square, there is a face there! Can you reset your monitor and graphics card to their default settings?

All I see are the volumetric cones from the lights. I can't imagine that is what you really intend. If I take that into a paint program and do a huge gamma adjustment I start to see some details in the room. Something is seriously misadjusted. Either your monitor (causing you to under light scenes) or A:M. What is the gamma setting in your A:M render panel set to?

And there was much rejoicing! Nice ducks, Rodney!

That happens if you choose Shaded or Wireframe to render. It's fixed in the upcoming v17g. Make sure you have Final rendering chosen. BTW, I was able to do a shaded render by running the 32-bit version and changing from OpenGL to Direct3D in the Options tab.

Here's an idea. Find out what the Octane people would charge to create a plugin to integrate Octane with A:M. Then bargain them down... and then do a Kickstarter to fund it, with the provision that the plugin itself is free, it doesn't add to the cost of an Octane license purchase.

Martin told me that the situation with NVidia was unworkable. If they asked a question on NVIDIA's Gelato user forum they wouldn't get an answer and if they went the official support route they had to pay some huge chunk of cash upfront to pose the question and if the answer to the question was "we don't know" the money wouldn't be refunded. Those were GPU based like A:M's shaded render is GPU based. No shadows? What good is that? Geez, A:M is faster if you turn off the shadows.

We had a brief discussion about them a while back... http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showt...3&hl=biased

It's faster when it's faster, but not if it's not. There have been two serious runs at GPU rendering for A:M that I know of. When the first GPU rendering scheme came out ("Gelato") Martin says they tried to implement it but it was never faster than what A:M did already and NVIDIA wouldn't answer their technical questions about how to make it work better. Steffen tried again for V17 using OpenCL but said it wasn't reliable and what worked wasn't much faster. Perhaps the OpenCL software will improve in the future to make it more feasible.