phatso

I haven't looked at the hair machine for a while - is there a way to transition gradually from "bald" to "hairy"? Few people have a hairline that's that well defined. When I look in a mirror I see a gradual transition. (Well, actually, two mirrors. For some years now, I've had to look at the back of my head to see the hairline. )

AHA! She admitted it! She doesn't just do computer stuff, she does real live paintings! I've told nancy privately that she has a unique style and she should exhibit in galleries. Maybe if a few more of us nudge her, she'll stop hiding her talent from the public.

You said you wanted him to look like a kid. Young goat. Was that an intentional pun? Try a wider, more prominent forehead and narrower jaw. Just a touch. It might help to do a morph all the way to a baby. When you find the combination of factors that make a believable baby goat, you can then choose where along that continuum you want your final model to be. I was trying to morph one of the cartoon models on the Extras CD into a 14-year-old and it eluded me until I turned him into a 6-year-old. After that it was easy, like adjusting the proportions in a recipe for soup.

Obviously, a TEXAS cowgirl. Wearing the flag and all. Something maybe Rodney can give a hint on, cuz I don't know that much about decals - The star stretches as it goes around her side. Rodney, what's the setting to get a decal to wrap without that stretch?

Thanks luuk, that was interesting and useful. Based on that article, I have decided not to buy a better projector than the one I've got. Summary from the article: in the theater, you get 650-750 horizontal lines of resolution. The very best results they got in one test where everything was tuned to perfection was about 850. This is a gross oversimplification and anyone seriously interested should read the whole article, but it gives an idea of what you're seeing when you watch a film. Of course, IMAX and OMNIMAX use larger frames and get better resolution, but they need to, since the screen image is so much larger. I have to say, I've seen the restored Lawrence of Arabia in 70MM and Oklahoma in Todd-A-O, and there's a lot to be said for higher than normal resolution. I'd think, though, that beyond about 2000 lines the eye couldn't resolve anything, even if the mechanical system could. I like to zoom in too, but for that I just re-render a small patch of the image. Much faster.

Actually, just a gut feeling, I think she's doing a lot of work for not much forward movement. If you kept her animation just the same but let her cover more ground per second, you'd have it.

Just for comparison, anybody know what the resolution of a 35MM print is? They blow that up to 20ft. wide and wider. What's good enough for a movie screen has to be good enough for anything.

Once you've done the modelling tutorials, you'll have no problems attaching fins & eyes and such. The main thing with spline modelling is, you're using paths instead of pieces. A spline has to start somewhere specific and end somewhere specific. There are rules about how many splines can end at a control point and so on. Once you have those firmly in mind, it's a snap. Speaking of fish, A:M is aimed specifically at animating organic objects. Once splines are joined, it's not like the parts are "attached" - they flow naturally, as in real life, and once rigged, they move naturally. It often takes a lot of tweaking to get fully natural movement, if that matters to you, but by starting with A:M and spline modelling you are like a sprinter whose starting position is halfway down the track. If you intend to make and animate primarily organic models, the person who sold you an outdated disc for too much may have done you a favor anyway, by directing you to A:M.

There's a funny bump in the skirt at one point that damages the realism. And I wouldn't want to damage the realism of that particular model.

kouwill. on the next one, howbout a spiral part of the track? when you put the camera at the ball, that'll be a real mind bender.

You could also constrain the hand to the pencil and then move the pencil around.

I was going to say, Stian, how do you happen to have such detailed knowledge of what a slot machine looks like? Been wasting your paycheck, have you?

somebody mentioned skydome. I've never done that. An anthology of set creation tutes would be a good place to start.

That's the best idea I've seen in ages. It could start with a bang by bringing together all the existing tutes on the subject that those of us who haven't been around forever don't even know about. And then it could go into (a new section of?) the archives all sorted and organized and ready for each successive batch of A:Mers to get up to speed on.

Dunno if the original question about support needs any more discussion but... Take it from someone (me) who's in the business of making training software: creating a comprehensive training program for any animation package is an extremely large, complex and expensive undertaking. I would like to see a fully developed A:M school as much as anyone, but it would push the price to $1,000 or more. What good is beautifully executed training for a program that is thereby made unaffordable? A:M has plenty of training available; it's just that you have to sort thru it to find what you want. This is because it comes from many individual contributors who are the best A:M animators in the world. It seems to me that the opportunity to be taught by the best (for free!) is worth a little effort. It should not be overlooked that A:M is built to require less training than most programs in the first place. Animation programs that are not toys usually require a huge up-front time commitment before you can do anything with them. With A:M you can start using what you learn right away, and expand your skills as you go. I personally have mastered perhaps 10% of what A:M can do. But that's been good enough for me to make hundreds of 3D images and animations that set my Powerpoint presentations apart and make others in my field green with envy. With most programs, a person with 10% mastery would have nothing.

"This" is some a**hole who's pushed his way onto the board to hawk a product. He'll get excised soon.

Yeah - there's 12-year-olds here. Wouldn't want them lookin' at those red shoes. Now, turn those shoes into hooves and put some fur on her.

Which method did you use to get the green cords to hang correctly?

What's wrong with being paid in beverages? Especially in Germany. Compared with your beer, ours tastes like water that dead animals have been soaked in.

"Milburne?" I can see why someone whose parents did that to him would grow up a little odd.

32.53mb? Have mercy on us peasants with slow internet; do a render at lower quality.

your materials turn out too unreaslistic... show example?

I'm having a senior moment; I can't remember what you call those wooden figures with articulated joints that artists use. I have one myself. (A really small, cheap one - that was a mistake.) Anyway...I don't understand the appeal of programs that substitute GCI for the wood figure. It is much easier to pose, re-pose, and rotate the real thing than the computer-generated equivalent.

I've always put my lights in the model when and only when the model will always just be a model - e.g. not animated- and it's an isolated model, not part of a scene.

It would be interesting to run a poll to see how often people model to fit a story, versus making the model first and letting the finished model tell them what the story will be. Music analogy. The other day I heard Manahem Pressler (Pianist of the soon-to-disband Beaux Arts Trio) saying that it's wrong to follow a composer's intentions slavishly. The music itself tells you how it wants to be performed, and that may differ from what the composer had in mind. That's what I've felt for a long time, but I'm nobody. It's nice to hear a Somebody say it. So, Spleen, is a script developing in your mind? Is this guy an arsonist or ax murderer? Do you identify with him? Should we call the authorities?