robcat2075

This angle that I've put the blue markers on appears as nearly 90° in the image plane. If that is a 90° angle on the real object the camera would have to be close to directly over that corner for it not to be flattened by perspective into a wider angle. But obviously the camera is not close to directly over that corner.

What if the "vertical" side is not actually vertical? We've been presuming it is vertical, but we don't have any proof it is vertical. What if it is leaning in slightly over the base? That might explain why my alignment attempt produces an impossible camera elevation. What if the base is not rectangular? What if it is slightly trapezoidal?

You can use the 1, 2 or 3 keys to constrain CP moves to the X Y or Z axis

Note that even slight distortion by the original camera lens may make it impossible for any of these digital reconstruction techniques to yield an exact replica of the original shape. It is odd that they want you to produce an exact copy of the shape but are not able to give exact measurements.

@rijklauCheck out the models bobby attached, they look like plausible solutions.

Here are the three vanishing points. How can we use this to ascertain the camera location? Can we?

Here's what I have so far... This is three sides of a square and one vertical edge aligned (almost) with the rotoscope image. To simplify it I rotated the first rotoscope to get one edge of the shape horizontal. clip4930Alignment.mp4 Unfortunately this view point does not correctly find a height above the ground plane for the camera. Knowing only one dimension of the shape is a serious limitation. Is there a reason they can not take measurements? Are you expected to duplicate the ABSOLUTELY EXACT shape of the object?

This would be much easier if we knew the angle of view of the camera. Can the customer take more pictures? When is your deadline?

Do you have the camera? Can you show the picture?

I think he even was President for a while.

It needs to have Thom on the front, with a mask on.

It seems there is no Stereomix like there was on Windows 7 And it is set to show disabled devices... After looking on the web it seems this functionality has been removed from current audio drivers for Windows 10. However, I was able to find an old audio driver for this computer on Dell's website and installed that. Now "Stereo Mix" appears as an option for recording.

Does Windows 10 no longer allow you to record from the Windows audio output? Neither my tuning apps nor screencams nor audio recorders can hears the regular Windows sound that goes to speakers.

Boom! I have previously wondered about using A:M to prototype "pop-up" greeting cards. You've got me thinking about that again.

Happy Easter, John, and to all the rest of you A:Mers!

i re-compressed it to a quarter-size version that should load and play easier... SimonTest.mp4

You can have the camera background color be any color you want if that is what you want to show through the holes that make the letters. It was the alpha channel effect that was making the background appear black..

Perhaps just try saving to a different directory, with a simpler path. Are you on a Mac? Are you still using the OS that is compatible with A:M?

The white portion of your scene is the camera background color. If that is rendered to a format like PNG or TGA that includes a transparency channel, the background will be made transparent and probably appear as black depending on how it is used. JPG doesn't include transparency. Or you can turn "Alpha" buffer OFF in your render settings when rendering to TGA. The "Intensity" of the Spot light is only 50%. If i increase it to 200% the volumetric effect is more obvious.

Hi Simon, I did a quick render to numbered jpgs and this is what i got. It looks a bit like your first screen capture. Tell me more about how this does or doesn't fit your expectations and we can advance from there. SimonTest000.mp4

You can either make the emitter part of the model, or if it HAS to be a separate model you can TranslateTo and OrientLike constrain it to your model. Either way, it doesn't matter how the model turns or is initially positioned, the streaks will be emitted perpendicular to the emitter surface.

I hope you are staying safe!

If you need an absolutely rigid trailing flame, then the modeled flame will be easier... RocketStreaks03_modeleldFlame.prj

In your project 02_emitter.prj you have the fire and smoke emitters as separate models from the rocket and you are keyframing them to follow the motion of the rocket. That is unnecessarily complicated. It is easier and better to make them part of the rocket model and then they will always follow it exactly. Here is a simple rocket that emits streaks. The streaks always follow the rocket as it turns and always emit straight out the back of it. Load this PRJ, watch it, and then tell me in what way it is not what you are trying to do. RocketStreaks01.prj

I'm still not sure what you regard as the problem. When I looked a Emit08.avi, the flame was slightly behind the rotation of the rocket. Is that what you wanted or didn't want? Did you want it to lag more or less?