OdinsEye2k

And the Z-direction: zfan.mov

This is just a place where I'm posting some movies of my shoulder rig trials. But you also get to see the model in development xcog.mov

I think that the texturing is meant to be the high-heat reentry shield: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534782.html I really hope NASA gives metallic shield a try this time around. It should be easier to install and more durable than the Shuttle tiles (although there are the so-called TUFI tiles that should boost their strength). There's a weight and maximum heating hit you take (which is why they did the tiles to begin with - no matter how much NASA gets mocked for their decisions they are often quite intelligent for the time), but I think enhanced re-usability should be the goal this time. Go easy and go often.

Sorry, nibble. That was expressed sloppily. What I meant was that the process is to win over the consensus. Since most people have built-in biases in many directions, the ability to win over the crowd so to speak is a gauge of a theory's strength. It doesn't guarantee that the theory is correct, but the ability to have observations that answer (or work with) everyone's biases makes it more and more likely that it does indeed work. And everyone's bias leads them to attack a theory, so it's ability to fend off factual challenges also increases its strength (often through an adjustment).

Glad to see you enjoyed the vacation Daniel. Yeah, I think we both would enjoy the debate to some extent. I also agree that "science vs. religion" is a non-starter for debate. An irony here is that evolution didn't destroy Christianity for me, but it has been pretty steadily eroding my faith in another field - and that is the wisdom of central planning. But, I will save all that for another day - congratulations on getting 100,000 people to see you work. I haven't managed 1/1000 of that number just yet.

Looks like a Crew Exploration Vehicle to me. Very cool, Ben. I also like the design - I think your dad's group is looking very much in the right direction. As a small crit, it may be worth making the clouds more opaque in some places to add reality to the earth - really cover up some land. I really like the pattern in the clouds though (the perpetual low pressure over Seattle - heh, rain city).

It's all right, Vern. I mix it up with fellow designers on all kinds of things, never mean it personally although it may sound that way. One minute, we are hacking up a tough problem, I start off with a Bush crack or someone calls me a pinko and we go into it for a few minutes. One of us ends up ruffled, (often me), and then there's a Simpsons or Family Guy reference and we're back to work soon after. I've even had a couple of friends from my undergrad days that have been very much interested in science even as evangelical Christian types. One would ask me questions from time to time about what I thought was interesting. But when I tried to explain meme theory (which is genetics and evolution applied to ideas), she became very upset and asked me to leave. That's just something that I don't understand. It almost hurts to look at someone and ask, don't you want to know the truth? I wish I could explain more, but I don't entirely know why this topic brings up such a hot fuse with me. I seem to associate many of the more vocal religious tenets with anger nowadays. That goes for Christian and Muslim sects. Although, to be honest with you - the more I read, the more it looks like all 'visions' seem to go horribly wrong. And any vision that regards its own truth and the highest priority almost always winds its way to moral backrupcy in some way or another.

Vern, I completely agree. If I had title and web work to do, and he was in grabbing distance, I would happily employ Daniel. He would do a nice job with whatever concept I came up with, I'm sure. Just as he's done with this piece. The comment was aimed more at this Ken Ham fellow and his organization. Since some folks here obviously know him, I was wondering if AiG has any ministry other than creationism. If they do other things, then I would be more than willing to say, hey, some misguided efforts there, but probably an all-round decent group.

Just out of curiosity, does AiG do any ministry other than blow hard against established scientific theory? I find it hard to find on the website. I heard one of the best explanations on C-Span a couple of days ago. Science has a thorough and brutal vetting process for all theories. You don't go directly from idea to textbooks - you've got to win over the crowd first. You start as fringe science, become frontier science (when people rush to your schools to learn what's happening and big research grants show up) and eventually become mainstream science. That is when you get your textbooks. Even quantum theory has made it through this gamut, despite rejecting many pre-conceived notions about a smooth, deterministic universe. It can be done - you just need to not be full of crap. Meanwhile, you're more than welcome to burn money on private museums of dubious scientific value. Lots of tourist attractions do that with varying degrees of technical accuracy (you usually spare the public the details).

That's fine to my knowledge.

If I'm not on travel, I can certainly try to make it. Been meaning to meet some of you folks for quite some time.

last one ... back wires.

front wires

back after

back before

Apologies for the coming abuse...

Hey all, I added some new splines to an old model to try and make it more realistic with proper muscles. With anatomy books in hand, I laid in some new splines to try and make the things look right. Let me know what you think about my first iteration on this effort:

Well, I mean, do you want the rotation to appear to be forward or backwards? Nyquist just says that you lose a true appreciation for the underlying signal if you sample at too low a rate (FPS). If you don't care about the look, just go for whatever rotation speed you want to show up on screen (below the 1800) and then use a phony motion blur or extra set of 'virtual' propeller blades to give the illusion of really fast travel. It was used to great effect in Bob Fleeman's "Skeeters" sketch.

I'd probably agree with the Nyquist thing. But, then again, you'll be Nyquist limited at anything over 30 RPS (1 rev/frame), so why bother? It will give the "authentic" look that you would expect on TV or film.

That's cool from a Sweeper point of view, but a technical nitpick... Would you really want the track to be that curvy? I would think in the early days of Mars if outposts are spread far around the planet, you would want to be able to travel fast, meaning a straight track. Also, having it that curvy also seems to defeat the purpose of having risers underneath. I know - too nitpicky - it is a fun use of the Sweeper. But I know that I would make the tracks as straight as possible since there aren't any obnoxious county folk or anyone to get in my way yet. Anyways, carry on, nice-looking picture.

Feel free to WINK, link or whatever seven. I tried the speed Expressions, and managed to crash AM a few times. It really does not like self-referencing. If I could figure out a way to do numerical integration with Expressions, I see a lot of possibility. Of course, if I could figure out GetWorldPos and GetWorldDir, that would make a lot of neat stuff possible too....

Sorry for the multipost, but did those quick to ensure the file worked. Small explanation - the Tornado was implemented as described in my Expressions tute. I just did two keyframes on the radius in the movie - more are certainly possible for more interesting behavior.

And the movie: Tornado.mov

Here's the Tornado project file and a movie (if size limits allow the post): Tornado.prj

Hey folks, I was requested by seven to add something to the discussion. As I had written in that tornado example, it is possible to use a pose percentage slider as a kind of "dummy variable," simply inputting whatever numbers you wish over time to change the outcome of the Expression. The drawback to this that I have yet to solve is that A:M currently does not do well with velocities or accelerations. The reason is that you can only deal with properties directly (position, rotation). Normally, in a program, I would write something like: Pos = Pos + speed*time in order to update the position based on a speed function that changes over time. This is an illegal Expression as far as I know. I'm curious to see how the pose enforcement trick works. In my mind, I don't see how it would work with speed any better than the Expression.