robcat2075

It's promising but that's only 3 steps. Can you do at least 4 (6 would be better) and then we have something to work with. With more steps it's easier to see if something wrong is just a fluke or if you are posing it that way repeatedly. Leave out the "passing pose" And to make it easier to see, pull the light back so his feet are casting shadows for every step. When his feet don't cast shadows it's near impossible to tell if they are contacting the ground. You got the Hold interpolation right! Most people are baffled by that.

Heavenly!

0:57 on my new PC with the v16 beta! That's smoking! v15 comes in at 1:39 which is still dramatically better than the ~6 minutes it got on my old PC.

What version of A:M are you using? The small data folder is installed with the regular installer if you have the download A:M If you have the CD the file is on the CD.

Very impressive. You should make a "tour" video when you are done.

Wonderful model and wonderful texturing! This was my inaugural attempt to watch HD Youtubes on my new computer and it looks great. My suggestion on the render would be to find a way to soften the edge on the highlight reflection. Is that a card you have off camera? Or maybe the highlight needs to be not so straight? Maybe some sort of slight bump map on the larger flat surfaces would give it the waviness of a real sheet metal part.

That's looking better. The foot is being lifted higher than is really should. however, lets try an experiment Start a new chor and pose out just the heel contact poses for about 4-6 steps. pose the whole body, arms and torso and everything, but for now just key frames at the moment of the heel contact poses. Like Richard Williams has drawn in his book. Use hold interpolation so the character snap's from one key to the next with no in between. Then post that and we'll look at it.

An A:M success story! I was impressed that the girl seemed to be looking in the right place. That's the sort of thing that can end up very wrong.

I don't think I've seen that version before. That turned out well!

Which nobody can deny! Keep cranking out those tunes!

You got at least until Oct 6. Which ever you think is the best of the two. No specific time limit. I was guessing most entries would be around 10 secs. Hold off on sending it. We may need to use some intermediary service like "drop box". And I need to get my new PC going.

Render settings update 8) Rendering In your Options Panel set rendering to "use camera Settings". That will load the settings stored with the camera when you go to render. The camera is set to render to a JPG series. An image series was chosen instead of Quicktime so you wouldn't have to render your animation frames all in one stretch. Resolution: The camera is set to render at 720x405. If you prefer you may up the resolution to 854x480 when you go to render. This is 40% more pixels and will take 40% more time to render. I'll edit the video at the larger size and upscale smaller renders to fit. Either size is acceptable and both look fine for most purposes.

Ok, i understand. Before you do a final render, find out what is making them appear so bright. i don't think they are supposed to look that way. They my have an ambiance setting on by mistake.

Welcome back! Turning on "Caustics" in an AO render is what you want I think. "Dispersion" can be simulated with a multipass technique "birefringence"? I just read the Wikipedia article on that... i thing some sort of compositing or multipass trick is in order there too. My experience is that things like refraction are best when adjusted for end result rather than a "correct" value.

If the bottle is constrained to something and you are animating it, the keyframes will be in the offset channels of the constraint.

Are there dots in the channels?

Well, you got two months. Keep thinking about it.

My first inclination is to go back to the last saved version of the PRJ that rendered right and start hunting for differences.

Don't do that unless you already have it. I don't' know that this will solve your problem, It would just be an easy experiment to try if you had it already. How big is the file?

JPGS because they're going to send them to me and it has to be feasible for them to upload and for me to down load. JPGs because the visible difference is negligible. JPGs because the final compression on Youtube or DVD will far surpass any damage that JPG will do. JPGS because the plan is to render the scene without need for further compositing. (I'm going to composite everyone's background, character and shadow pass? Nope) What are the chances of everyone getting that right? A character pass and a shadow pass. Besides, the set has to be there for the AO to work on the characters. The objects in the set are what "occludes" the "ambient" light. The hedge and sky are front projected already. Render time for their imagery is minimal. The ground plane has to be there to there to catch shadows (and cast occlusion) even if you were going to render the characters separately to composite on an image later. Total render time would not be significantly different. For most users, total frustration time would be hugely larger, particularly since most will not be able to test out any compositing. Those would be the items. But glad to see you back Bruce! I expect to see a fabulous entry from you. (Without any pee, of course)

Quat is the default. Are you sure you haven't turned the "A" key off?

For some reason that looks like Bill Clinton and Bob Dole to me. Why is so much of the set black?

Freaky! (I'm not sure I could follow the plot, but interesting none-the-less)

I think we'll make 480x854 an option. That matches YouTube and DVD res. I can edit at that res and I can up-res any that are at 720x405. Someone try a 480x854 render and see if the camera rotoscope is still matching the set.

One easy check in a basic walk... is the body moving forward at a consistent speed? Frame after frame after frame after frame... It almost always should. Is yours?