robcat2075

What's a bridged connection? Is that a networking thing?

Looks like Rodney did a good job of recovering that. I took that and deleted the rotoscopes and the weird chor and action folders. I wonder how those ever got into a MDL file? Deer_Whitetail_3_recover__best_B.zip

Stop right there. This will only end in tears. One CP should have one spline going thru it or two splines going thru it. Anything more is trouble. If you don't want creases at that point, you want to respline so there aren't 10 splines heading into one CP.

you can get two chors into the same PRJ by saving a chor from one PRJ and opening it into another. But making one Chor play right after another isn't something you can do. you can edit two or more rendered animations together with A:M's Non Linear Editing feature http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=244717

That turned out pretty well! In terms of animation I suppose the "weak point" would be the way the cars turn corners. A little too much turning in place and too much hugging the road too well. You might take a look at some of those really bad cop movies from the 70's that were half car chase and see how the cars would skid their way thru turns.

front view only make sure the center spline is really all on x=0 after you group select your half-model, shift-select a CP on the center spline

A:M has a chat built in already. But really, post your questions to the forum and you'll get help from a wider pool of knowledgeable people than whoever happens to be on chat at the time.

http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=244717

I guess you mean more than one chor. No you can't link them in real time, but V15 has editing capability. You can edit together the renders of each of your chors to make one long movie.

how about scaling the one you dont' want to see to .01% or, moving it way off screen. It will need a bone to do either.

Of course, the right image looks way too washed out. What else did you expect Robert? You have a scene designed to look good in non-linear light. Of course, once you apply a gamma 2.2 on it, it will look bad. This scene does not look realistic at all. There are shadows on the floor but not inside the boxed cube. So I guess you used z-buffered shadows with shadows set to 80% which means that once gamma 2.2 is applied will results in shadows of only 60%. This poll just proves that with hacks and tweaks, you can get an image to look good under any specifically selected circumstances. Yeah, absolutely. I took cleverly took stock objects off the CD and sneakily put them in A:M's default lighting setup all for the purpose of making you look silly. It's all I have to do with my time. I'm sure that's the only reason I've used A:M at all for the last 12 years I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm not trying pass off a hoax. I tried to make an honest test case. I'm trying to figure out why what the authorities say must be doesn't work in practice.

Yes. Yves, take a look at my gamma poll. which image looks right on your monitor? That is very unlikely. If your workflow is setup right, then your image will look right on any monitor. At least it will look just as right as any digital photos on the same monitor. It can't be all that unlikely since everyone who answered the poll chose the gamma 1.0 version

That's not a "demo" and isn't presented as a demo by that site. Their link is to the regular installer file on Hash's website. It will need a version 14 CD in your CD drive to run. That is how it is copyprotected. You can buy a 1 year subscription to V15 at Hash.com for $50

I believe you, this is basically what works for me. But how do we explain this gamma calibration chart that is always presented as the way to calibrate a monitor? The idea is that you adjust your gamma until the 50% grey bars seem to match the bars that simulate 50% with alternating black and white lines. If i do that I do indeed move the gamma setting to "2.2". Since gamma doesn't affect pure black or pure white this should be a correct setting for the gray inbetween. That's the theory anyway. But our experience is that 2.2 is way off.

two ways... -you can grab all the keyframes in the timeline and squish them down to 2 seconds -after you put the action on a model inthe chor, you can use its "ease" property to change its speed. Norally the action will show 0% in the ease and run automatically. But you can type in 0% on the frame you want the action to start and 100% at the frame you want it to end to make an action run over any number of frames you want. you can even put values in between to make it pause or go backwards.

I'm still confused... am i supposed to set A:M to 2.2? If everything is supposed to be 2.2 why is A:M defaulted to 1.0? If I do a render with the gamma set to 1.0 things look normal. If I do a render with the gamma set to 2.2 they are absurdly washed out and bright. Maybe my display isn't set right? Maybe I need to set it to 2.2 also? If I do things get even brighter. Any image I try to make look "right" with these 2.2 settings will end up impossibly dark on other people's monitors. So there has to be more to it than settting everything to 2.2

I suspect a video version of giraffe hasn't been made yet. But dont' start with #11. Start at #8. The earlier ones cover important concepts that you'll need for #11

Hm... Giraffe tutorial is offline. Any idea where to get my hand on it? Waldo the print version is in "The Art of A:M" book which you got with your CD or in a downloadable pdf file if you bought a "subscription" i believe.

If you've been doing polygon modeling before, i'd recommend doing all the modeling tuts in TAoA:M (#8-11) to get that out of your system.

Have you done the giraffe tutorial in TAoA:M? part of that is attaching and splicing two parts together. you could use the y key to add a CP on each side and then draw new splines to connect them across the square

the y key will add a point on a spline next to a selected point. the p key will "peak" a spline for sharp corners patches and splines are infinitely thin. for thickness you need to model an inner and outer surface.

ok, i looked again and another thing hit me.... there seems to be no direction to the light, it sees to be coming from the direction of the camera which makes for a very flat appearance. move the light more to the side so the asteroids have a shadowed part.

I think the asteroids have too much detail and too much contrast. They look a bit more like small rocks close-up rather than large asteroids far-off. That makes the apparent scale of the scene ambiguous. The ships, on the other hand, are very low contrast seem to not be in the same light that the asteroids are.

that looks better. I think you got a lot of polish done on that. The facial expressions work well, although the one in the middle may stay around too long. I just noticed the corner of the chair is vibrating. I wonder what did that?

if saving, quitting and restarting doesn't fix it, try Help>Reset Settings