robcat2075

real pendulum are not floppy, but some animation school somewhere says they are. Here's one way to do it with minimal keyframing and mostly curve-editing...

Set the "Collision Tolerance" in the Chor Properties>Plugin properties>SimCloth to some low value. I believe it represents cm.

Looks like there's lots of blow-by-blow on how to use the radiosity to get that look. Long render times though!

That looks like a bathroom that was used to demo some other renderer?

The only AVI compression supported by 64-bit A:M is, ironically, "uncompressed" (file will be huge) 32-bit A:M can also do "Cinepac" AVI Quicktime has many better choices but 64-bit A:M doesn't have Quicktime.

Simcloth is in the textures folder... SimCloth_64.atx

Just out of curiosity... try dragging the v17a simcloth plugin to v17e and see what happens.

did you ever post a sample PRJ that crashes for you?

Welcome to A:M! It's Y2K ready!

I'll be curious to see how you place the shadow people.

If it was good in 2003 it is good now. The interface has stayed put. Offhand I can't think of any of the new features that would obsolete what is taught in videos from that time. Sometimes someone thinks of a more clever way to do something Which videos are you watching? "The Art of Animation:Master" tutorials? One change I can think of is that the "Compensate Mode" button turns itself on by default when you create a constraint. That does affect one tut that presumes it will be off by default. That's the only one that has come up in my recollection. If you get stuck, ask!

I think that's great that Grandma saved it!

The OBJ exporter has options for more than 4 polys. Is there a reason to not use more, other than file size?

If you could make a button to press in A:M that would export something that would render that same in this GPU renderer as it looked in A:M that would be a very useful thing. But it looks like you will have to know quite a bit about lighting and texturing in Blender to re-create what ever look you had in A:M.

Did you export the chor as a single model or were the blocks and the character separate OBJs? How much does the GPU result look like the A:M render?

perfect likeness!

You can use an extremely long focal length camera which will look almost the same, but for my depth mapping purposes i found the gradient material pretty much got me what i wanted with an orthogonal camera.

Last I tried, Fog and orthogonal views don't work together.

I forgot... i also raised the middle of the jump up. You can see the bottom of the frame move up briefly to simulate that.

the BIG thing... it's too slow. I retimed it a bit in Aftereffects; something like this would feel more natural: JobeJumpRetimed.mov

Possibly, but note that depth map details are typically very subtle shades of gray. I do know that OpenEXR depth buffer do work correctly and my gradient material technique also works, having used it in the past to make displacement maps.. I'd have to see your non-working example to know more.

You mean A:M objects, right? One way is to take the depth buffer that A:M can render in OpenEXR format and scale/clip that in a paint program to extract teh range you need for your object inthe scene. You can also do that in A:M http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showt...p;hl=extracting If the objects you want to convert to grayscale map are all in one model you could apply a white to black gradient material on them and render that inthe model window.

A few things about walking.... - we almost always have the toes pointed out when we stand or walk. The straight-forward-feet looks very Frankenstein-ish. (I noticed Daniel Day Lewis was dong something like that for "Lincoln" ) - our feet tend to land much closer to a center line than we imagine. On men the heels will just barely be missing each other as they pass and sexy women will do a catwalk where the feet may even be crossing in front of each other. There are some very wide, stiff people who have to lurch from side to side to crane their legs around but it's a very awkward look. - the slower the walk, the longer both feet are touching the ground. The rear foot will still be pushing off with the toe on the ground after the front foot has landed on the heel.

I would honestly have to watch you do it. One of the things you have described doesn't belong and I'm not sure which one it is without seeing what you are looking at. Either the Chor window is open or it is not. If you don't have the "Workbook" on you should turn it on that makes it easier to bring back background windows.

in the chor window>>View>Camera1 In Tools>Customize you can also turn on the tool panel that has view buttons on it.