oakchas

Stian, Great stuff as usual... Just a couple of pointers. 1. Stop 2. Being 3. So good! Okay, that's three... I really like it! Job well done... I look forward to seeing the animation at home tomorrow.

Dan, you're scarin' me... half an hour.... Stop it! It took you a week! don't fib! Your fingers were bleeding when you were done... and you melted your mouse or pen or whatever it is you use.... (Harry Potter's magic wand?)

Dang! Is this a two seater or a two + two (very small rear seat)... or is it a 4-5 seater? Here's why: Door too small to allow anyone in the back seat probably. Rear side window leads me to expect a rear seat. 2 door cars have looongggg doors... Even little coupes like Saturns with long doors are adding a short 3rd door (backwards opening) to allow more room for getting in and out of rear seat. Stretching the door (and the rest of the body in that area only) will make more sense... the wheel base appears very short once you look at the wireframe. The car exudes the feeling of looongg... The wheelbase says shorty? Wide White sidewalls show virtually no black on the sidewall ~1/2" around the rim... the white goes allaway to the tread... if you want narrower WSWs, the white is usually a bit closer to the wheel. This is all technical BS... the car still looks very cool.... reference pix: Wide Whites...... normal WSW......... low pros [attachmentid=13536] [attachmentid=13537] [attachmentid=13538]

Robert, Why not try tools/options (I'm not certain of that but fairly sure) and reset to defaults... I guess I'd make certain the models/actions/etc. were saved seperately instead of imbedded in the project before I did that. just a thought, but I'm away from my A:M machine right now, so I can't confirm.

David, You deserve an award for all your work! The fellows ought to take you through Mount Wannahockaloogie, and make you one of them, at the very least. Thanks for all you are doing!

She sure looks better in red. Are you done? Up to you, and John, I guess... still wanna see inside. Here's what I noticed: [attachmentid=13476] I don't understand what I think are creases from splines in the front fender. and I had to bump up the brightness/contrast on my monitor to see the tires/wheels.. I think you need something to bring them out... and I put lo-pros on it. and somehow, the wheels look a bit small for the mass of the vehicle... but with the low profile tires, it gives the gangster whitewall look "Wide Whites".... they're just too small. I know you were running into interference with the fenders... so don't know the solution. Far better job of modelling/lighting than i can do.

yeah, well... One could always hope... It is still a bodacious new tool! You could always put your tree up in the air... and adjust the map to reach it? Or not, it really doesn't matter... it would just be fun to try. I may have to give it a go...

Stoopid Noobee question... I think I know the answer If you place an object on the patch that is being displaced... Is the object "raised" to the level of the map? In other words, if you put a (splined) tree on the mountain, is the tree placed on the map displaced patch where it should be in elevation? Probably not, I think... but what happens to the tree? is it covered by the "mountain"... or does it muck everything up? I'm not in a position to try from here... but even a box on a displaced surface would show what happens. Curious noobees wanna know!

Of course you won the bet... It is called Animation MASTER for a reason! One caveat though... I've had emailed pizza before... it's pretty bland, but the crust is really thin if you like thin crust....

it's a marshmallow, turning into a morel mushroom tidbit.... Or a sponge. But I like it and it sure looks like the D mapping is powerful stuff... In V13.

Wow! Thanks Martin! To show my age here.... IIRC, the original MYST game used a displacement map to make the island in a terrain prog, like terragen... At the time there were some general tutorials on how to do this with a grey scale image in that program. But then, it all had to be exported into another program and they made the game... etc... etc. If I'm smart enough to understand what this means... any topo map could be shaded to give you accurate landscape. Put in the dirt, grass, tree lines, etc. with a colormap. Yes you'ld still need to make trees and grass... but, well... there's too much to consider for my limited brain cells. Whoa! this will be very nice.... patch counts remain low... goodby dense grids... no need for a "terrain wizard"... The addled mind simply boggles at the thoughts... and if only half of them are right.... Well.... Thanks again, Martin and the rest of the Hash crew! You guys ROCK (MOUNTAIN, SKIN, BEACH, STREET, ORANGE, PLANET, SPACESHIP... )!

somebody else was looking for this very thing... I hope they find it! Very nice start on this John!

Lookin' good! Would it ride that low? Well 2" exhaust hangin under the bumper... leaves 2.5" ground clearance. might cross RR tracks okay. Speed bumps? Prolly not... but with an air suspension... it could rise to the occasion. As it is, (parked, that is) 4.5" may be a skosh high... but fully acceptable. Hiway cruisin... another 1-2" be okay. Urban pothole and cobblestone environment pavement... maybe another inch more. Dan, you can quit fiddlin' any time... don't let me push you... It looks really great. Too much better and too much more practical reality, and you might as well start production... It's a nice thing to look at. Martin's prolly the only one among us who could afford to get it built, and it's almost really buildable now... at least from the concept viewpoint. There would (undoubtedly)have to be a couple of tweaks to make it more than a trailer queen. And it would prolly never get approved for road use in California! I've really enjoyed watching this thing "become." Great work... Thanks for sharing it.

John B, So you noticed she may not be a natural blonde? I noticed that detail as well... She is a beaut' ain't she?

Martin, as soon as TWO is a success, you may have one built! (like you need my permission!) Dan, I owned a Subaru 360 (imagine, a 360 cc 2 cycle motor!) that had 10" wheels (entire vehicle weighed in at about 850# and it was street legal). It looked a bit like a "toy" VW Beetle. So add about 3" of sidewall, and you have 16" tire/wheel diameter. I may be mistaken, but I believe the current lower legal limit is 12" wheel. Some of the Festivas, or Metros had them. But... A car with that much "bonnet" (hood) must have at least a V10 under her. 12-13" wheels too small... Go for a 16" wheel with a very low profile (the low profile eliminates all that sidewall rubber) tire... 20 or 30 series. Chrome rims... Please, no spinners! Be a good "gangsta" look, it would suit the "line" of the car... Or, at least not hurt it. Of course many low riders feature an air suspension that will let them park "slammed" (let all the air out of the shocks, and she sits right on the tarmac) Ride in them that way, it's horrible. But, raise them up to standard height, and they ride like a submarine under water..... Smoooooooooth! PS> Showed your Retro to the Gearhead here, he likes it.... And offered a suggestion for the door hinging. Gullwing! Ala Mercedes! Gives enough clearance for ease of ingress/egress, you have enough roof support with the center pillar in the windshield. Downside is splitting the roof a bit so it is a tru gull wing... front view open: _ _ \_/ || This is the pillar----^

Good luck with the car, that's quite a project! I looked at pengo... lot of promise, but VERRRRRY Spline heavy! Why? oh, and you could have probably uploaded him as a zip file.

I think she looks pretty good.... well, not that good! I agree with ken and eric, she seems a bit spline heavy. You could probably get the same effects by tweaking the splines after removing some. As far as her unsymmetrical (-ity/-ness?) nature, I am not seeing it.. but Ken has a finer eye for that... Though I have to say real people are not symmetrical either (but that can be fixed after mirroring, of course). Keep posting improvements and such... and do point out the areas that are troubling you.

Great Job, Dan! Now, finish the inside and open a door!

Stian, Looks a bit like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! I love it... EXCELLENT MODELLING, yet again... Did I mention I love it? It looks even better (in a different way) than the McClaren... Look forward to seeing more!

yeah, what Mike said! Looks alot better! I see you brought the glass out a bit, that's great! The hood appears to have a bit more crown to it, that's better (not quite enough, but thats okay, too)! great job! Now, here's a real chalenge for you! Open one of the doors, on hinges, at least 80°, without it hitting any other body panel. I think it's gonna take some engineering! Dan, I keep telling you it's your car, and it is. But you have real talent for modelling, and while the car's a fantasy, someday, when you (and your designing partner) get real jobs... you are gonna have to deal with this type of stuff all the time... It seems, out there in the real world, that perfect, many times, is not good enough! I've really enjoyed watching the development of the Retro, and if you don't do one more thing to it, I'll understand. I'm just sayin'.

let me know, I'm at your disposal.

looks can be decieving, Ken! I'd gladly model some TWO props, but I'm so much of a perfectionist... If somebody pointed me in the direction of something needed, any little ol' thing, I'd certainly try. But it would make me nervous.

Trying to build a fedora, felt, from the "dapper" '50's. Here's a screen cap of it with A:M's Chor standard lighting. The bow on the left isn't done yet, so this shot hides that fact. porcelain applied to smooth it out, A tiny bit of surface roughness. No decals or maps as yet. comments appreciated. [attachmentid=12914]

Purple shoes? or just the lighting? Hair should fall straight down in back, not cling to her back like a backpack. Blue microphone. Would rather see it silver or chrome. Eyes look like aflicted with cataracts, prolly the reflection of the light. But, man, I can't model this good, so you fix as you see fit. She's a beaut! You are prolonging my Christmas every time you post her!

Rodney, I've worked on and posted a few of the excercises in TAO A:M. Digression: (I always capitalize the O too, making it a single word, because I always knew it meant something profound. Today, for grins, I checked it out... One Look Dictionary defines it as: end digression I agree that the excercises are a good foundation for many of the features in the software, and that there is a lot of information in TAO A:M that is not evident on first perusal or even completion of the execises, there seems to always be a bit more to glean from each page. However, I, like many newbies, want to get on with it! I really would like a button that would extrapolate my minds' ideas to a finished animation, instantly! I know that won't happen. After all, it took more than two years to complete Harouwo (sp?). And many many people do not have a vision that drives them to complete such a task alone without helpful support and collaborators. I think Mr. Reynolds is saying some people like to just model; to try to re-create a certain reality in their PCs, and have little interest in actually making an animation with characters that can talk, interact with each other, etc. Even A:M (paraphrasing the Grand Poo Bah) was geared a little more toward that (stills/photorealism) in previous versions, what with radiosity, etc. Some people enjoy just the challenge of looking at a thing, or drawings of a thing, and making it real-looking on the screen. (after all, we have a stills area as well as a movie area). Rigging is hard, even for experts... Look at all the convolutions/evolutions of the Simmons squetch rig... a monumental task. There are so many nuances in animating. Just as an example Animators' Survival Kit is a huge book that spends the largest chunk of itself dissecting walks alone. Libraries are fantastic, they give you tweakable re-useability in modeling, action, etc. But animation is still daunting. Now we have compositing giving us more depth (and more work). Stills can be completed in exponentially less time, providing satisfaction for the modeler and certainly a lot of oohs and ahhhs from the spectators. Animations are fantastic, but "feel" shortlived... once you've seen it a couple of times, unless it is "perfect" (or you created it)... It does not bring you back to it over and over again. For example, Killer Bean was cute but Alien Song was probably re-visited more often because it is a better, shorter, more acessible, quicker... punch. Now, I know that's subjective... but it's an example of what I mean. Stills, like Agep's or Reynolds' (not to fault anybody elses, please) make you come back to them to look at details and wonder how they were accomplshed. One can use some of the "tricks" in stills to improve the modeling in a still or an animation. Stills, being more accessible (download time if nothing else) are more accessed, some are used as wallpaper on PCs. Animations (I think) don't get as much constant use. Even the pros (take for example, Soulcage) don't use all the latest tools to make their inspired animations. I think Martin is right to refine the program's stability at this point. We already have more tools available to us in one package than anybody else provides. Sometimes (based on observation, not use), the features are a bit 'wonky". But most of those 'wonky' features appear to affect animation more than stills. Anyway, I've gotten way off the path here. I understand what Roger is saying, though I don't think I've elucidated it well enough, and probably sound like I just like to hear myself talk. Yadadayadada...