robcat2075

I believe this, and it makes me think we should somehow try to shop TWO around when we get a trailer done, and not tell them that we were going to do it all anyway for next to nothing.

I thought I was. Alonso even complimented me on them. Where's Robcat? He'll sort this out. Hmmm, my mouse was burning. Well, since we're being merciless... If we track a few significant landmarks we can see several instances of linear motion (neck, waist, cam movement) and hard to follow paths (wrist, nose-head, ankle). The thing i would most revise first is the "staging"... how it is presented to the camera. I had to watch it several times to figure out what the scuffle in the middle was all about; the key elements like the foot to the crotch are hard to see, perhaps because there is no visible set up to it, and because they don't appear as a clear form to the camera. I think the camera is moving too much and is too rigourously tracking the subjects. Real life cameras lag their subject usually. the punk's head smash into the camera works well, but the motion to get him there is taking too long. Too graceful. The tough guy's impact onthe wall is odd, perhaps because his torso, arms and head all arrive at the same time. How about Torso first , then head, then arms. I like the "look" of this production. It's quite promising. I could wish for some "enhancements" to A:M cel-shading to improve the look. The characters look good too. ebonmarked.mov

The glow in the first pic is the falloff envelope . you can turn it off or edit it's dimensions in the property window for that bone. if you want to manipulate a bone you can select it and then hit n, r, or s to move, rotate or scale it. can't see the second pic, it doesn't download. (if you save the screencaps as JPGs, you can display them directly inthe post)

A classic. ALT+3 to open the Properties window for the character. Under "User Properites" select the pose you want to delete. Press Delete.

Par tof the confusion may be that his tut was written for an earlier version of A:M. The interface has changed since then, but the concepts are still the same. But maybe too detailed for a brand new user. Still, I think that's the good way tro do it. Yes. I thought that was part of the Babbage method actually. I haven't read it in a while. His tut on water surfaces could give you some ideas for creating that gel

True caustics would be very long to render. Simulated caustics like most 3D apps do can be had http://www.babbagepatch.com/underwater.htm

A fine start! congratulations. It's tough lighting dark object like that bishop (?). Since it's a chess piece and probably made out some shiny material, how about turning on the "specularity" on its material, then the glints off it's edges would help show off the shape more.

Welcome to A:M! Render To File (button)> Render to File Output Settings, Output (Tab)>Format>Compression....Set Compression Settings: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=145375 WMV may not be as viewable to the many Mac users on this forum.

The last time I heard a Hash person speak on it, they said that A:M doesn't really benefit from a top-of-the-line card. It doesn't depend on the video card for performance as much as other 3D apps. If you have a 128 mb card you're probably set. increasing your RAM will probably let you run more apps with A:M better, but won't increase performance unless you have complex elements that exceed your RAM and the computer has to begin swapping from the hard drive. Hard to predict the tipping point for that. going up to 1GB probably isn't too expensive though. But really, a faster CPU (and motherboard and RAM) is most likely to produce perceptible gains.

Wonderful model and wonderful splining! The wireframe should be in the A:M encyclopedia under "less is more"

pretty hard to tell from that small pic what is smeared and not smeared. remember a spherically or cylinderically wrapped image has to be pretty wide to not get stretched as it is made to fit all the way around an object.

This struck me too. The smoothness with which it slides across the ground, and rigidity it displays when landing. I'd start investigating some extra jiggles and shakes as skids out. And if it were possible to rig that canopy that's over the driver... just a little overlapping motion on impact might go a long way to selling this shot. I also think the camera shake is way too slow. I'm sure sound effects will help when you put them in, but if you can get it to work even without the sound that would be great. But, as always, I love the whole idea of this movie, and am eager to see it. One more thing, I think the cat's legs could be off set just a hair front to back. They look exactly in synch right now.

I like the new tripod legs. Will be interesting to animate them. Can't recall how they handled it in WotW. I'm not sure we ever got a look at them taking more than a step or two.

"Preview" mode is a term encountered when the render panel does not have "advanced" checked. It equates to "final" render with multipass ON and set to 1 pass. Shadows are enabled. "Real-time" equates to shaded mode, which cannot do shadows.

If you're judging lighting or appearance, just render a few representative frames, like every 50th. Don't bother with a full render until those look good. seconds/frame is not fps

7200 seconds/491 frames = ~15 seconds/frame. That's pretty fast. But it all depends on what is in your scene. If you're just testing motion, rendering in shaded mode (AKA "real-time") is faster.

"minimum contents 6 fluid ozs." that is truly from a bygone era in which people had a "sip" of coke and not a bucket. Maybe you should add the thin people from "American Gothic" in the background just to establish that human beings once flourished in that form.

Wonderful looking images. That centurion should have a short to star in.

That's a very dusty room!

That's not an attack. That's offering to help. When I said show us the bad result, I really meant show us the bad result. Really. It's real tough to diagnose the trouble by words. The problems you are describing seem not to be TSM problems at all and yet are attributed to TSM. Here's a strong indicator of why TSM rigs are so good: They were made by people who need to put out fine animation, for paying customers, on a deadline. They use it themselves. They made it so it would be easier to animate characters well, not harder. (But they still have to do their own smartskin. No way around that.) Here's one little animation example: TSM characters can raise their heel and leave the toe of the foot in place. AM2001 can't. You have to rotate the whole foot then reposition it so the toe looks like it stayed. And what are the chances of that looking good between keyframes? Here's a big giant one: TSM has an IK spine; it controls all the spine bones with just two bones. AM2001 is FK spine; you have to rotate each spine bone individually in increments from the butt to the shoulders and hope you end up at the right place. Yuk. Again, show us the problem. Then it can be figured out.

Without spending alot of time with other rigs you won't know the difference. TSM1 was great, TSM2 is even better. However most animators are not at the level where they can discern the advantages of them. They don't understand what rigs really do. And most modelers are not at the point where they can properly assign CPs to bones for character animation. It's something you learn to do by experimentation. No rig, even one you make yourself, will do that correctly automatically. What step would you not have to do with your own rig that you have to do with TSM? It is easier to make bad animation with simpler rigs. A lot of the stiff, floaty, weightless animation we've seen over that last 20 years is the result of rigs that make it hard to put the character where it needs to be. Show us the bad result. then we'll know what the problem is.

I can't really tell what it is about from the trailer. The "handcart" reference suggests something to do with the Mormon's trek across the plains to Utah. But the dress of the characters doesn't look to be from that period. So I'm stumped.

AFAIK, light lists work on objects, not parts of objects. If the eyes are separate objects from all else then you could do light lists.

How about adding two lights to the model that just shine on the eyes?

Hey, that was charming! Everything I always wanted to know about snowmen but was afraid to ask. I enjoyed watching that. And the music was fun too. Burn it on a DVD and send it to friend and foe alike for the holidays.