Jeetman

Fuchur, I went to the site and it up and running!! I started to watch the video turial but realized I better get some sleep for work in the morning but I'll be watching it tomorrow. Thanks again. George

WOW!!! Robert, This is an incredible amount of work. You are an Animation Master Guru and a Great animation teacher. I've learned so much from your videos and it was fun working under your tutelage on TWO. Thank you for compiling this in one post. George

That is a known bug with a workaround... something like CMD + Q or CMD + C if I am not wrong. Anyway: Since Apple has changed much with the Maverik-Update, it is a little bit unknown what will happen in the future. If they leave many libraries behind (like they did with Maverick) it may become very hard to get A:M to work on the Mac any longer on OS 11.0 and above. The Windows-version is however working much better. See you *Fuchur* Fuchur, I'm trying to import an A:M model into Unity. All I can import is the mesh. I saw your link and was very excited until I clicked on it and it seems to be a broken link. Would you please attach the FBX converter? there is no fbx exporter. please go to patchwork3d.de and than click on tutorial > video tutorials to open my website. edit: just saw that my website has a problem. i will fix it when i am back home. see u *fuchur* Awesome! Thank you very much.

That is a known bug with a workaround... something like CMD + Q or CMD + C if I am not wrong. Anyway: Since Apple has changed much with the Maverik-Update, it is a little bit unknown what will happen in the future. If they leave many libraries behind (like they did with Maverick) it may become very hard to get A:M to work on the Mac any longer on OS 11.0 and above. The Windows-version is however working much better. See you *Fuchur* Fuchur, I'm trying to import an A:M model into Unity. All I can import is the mesh. I saw your link and was very excited until I clicked on it and it seems to be a broken link. Would you please attach the FBX converter?

So was this project completed?

This is fantastic work!! I love the props and characters!!

I'll give it a shot. thanks Michel

I edited my reply post to correct the path I put. Next time I'll just repost to avoid this confusion. Sorry. The choreography is in the Path1 location.

In the shortcut to table, under actions, there's a choreography action2 that is suppose to transition the walk to a stop. It should be there. I just downloaded the project from the site to test it and it's in mine. Thanks for the help. [edit] Sorry it's under the path1. path1, actions, Choreography Action2

Hi all, I created a simple table that I made an action for that does a basic walk cycle on a path. I also created a choreography action that transitions the walk to a stop. It worked great last night but for some reason it doesn't appear to be working now. Would someone please take a look at the project (I'm using V15.0i) and see what I'm doing wrong? I'm sure it's something simple that I'm just not seeing. Thanks, George table_walk.prj

It's looking real good. The thing that stood out to me was the hand pound on the knee. It needs an "ease in" to the up pose and a little ease out to the return pose. It looks too mechanical right now. You might want to consider adding a little bend at the wrist with a little follow through as the hand hits the knee. It would add flexibility and look better. Also adding a slight ark (as you probably know) to the motion will really loosen it up too. Keep up the good work! George

Looks good! I liked the shift from shaded to cartoon. I also liked how you captured the emotions. George

I think it looks great Darkwing. quick question about your rendering. Are you rendering your whole project in one shot? If so, you can actually speed your process up quite a bit if you rendered out as TGA's using several instances of A:M and assemble your shots in a video editing program like Vegas or A:M can do it too. If you have a single frame that takes 4 minutes to render and say your rendering is going to take you about 7 hours then you're planning on rendering approximately 105 frames. OK, so if you render the whole project in one render, it takes 7 hours but if you break it up and render to TGA's in sets of frames with instances of A:M all running simultaneously, then you cut your render time down substantially. 105 frames - 4 mins per frame - one render = 7 hours 105 frames - 4 mins per frame - render 5 frames using 25 A:M instances simultaneously = 25 mins Make sure to render your shots with sequential numbers (I.E space0 for 1st instance of 5 frames, space6 for 2nd, etc) The only limitation would be your computer. You need a good processor with ample memory and a good video card to run this many instances. But you could still cut your time using less instances. 105 frames - 4 instances - 1 hour and 45 minutes (much faster than 7 hours). You'd then assemble your frames and add your sound in your editing program and render your finished work. You can also do it in A:M but I'm not sure how long it would take to do the final render. I'd think though that because all you'd be rendering would be a layer sequence, lighting and added sound, that it would take less time than the total 7 hours. Here's a way you could do it in A:M: After you have rendered all your shots to TGA's, open a new project (make sure to save your existing project) import your TGA shots as sequential images. open a new choreograpy. Delete the rim and the ground plane. create a new layer using the 1st image (I.E space0) adjust the camera so it has no angle and adjust the layer so it is slightly outside the camera's field do a quick render test to determine if you need to adjust the lighting Import your sounds and position them Do final render George

That looks awesome!!! I like the character and the expressions and the lighting and feel is perfect!! Great work! George

Ken, That train looks incredible. Thank you for sharing such an awesomely done model. George

Mark, The tree, stand, lights and train rig are fantastic!!! Are you going to share the rigged train when you're done? I'd love to play around with that. Well once I get my A:M working. George

Black gloves? I remember him having green mittens but definitely the hat would add to it. In any case Mark, that IS a GREAT Santa makeover hehe. George

Look really good!! George

OH MY GOD!!!! I'm so jealous. I tried to model this a while ago and gave up after I couldn't get the cut out for the neon voice light look right. HOW THE HECK DID YOU DO THIS?!?!?!? I had asked Stian for his help and even with Stian's model example, I still couldn't get it smooth. Al, would you PLEASE post a wire frame so I could at least see the splinage? George

WOW! That looks great!! The detail is outstanding!! George

Hey good job! The tree and face look great! I'd experiment more with the bark though. Maybe find a bark jpg and make a material bitmap? Here's an example of a quick bark material I made using the material plugin. Here's a pic Here's the project and model if interested. tree_bark.zip George

The final product came out great!!!!! I think you'll win. Good luck! George

WOW! That's a cool effect!!!! I know it's a quick test but when you do the final where it lines up perfectly, it's going to look great!!! Excellent work!!! George

That's looking good!!! Keep it up!!

Technically, you could export from Inventor into A:M but the results would be no better than any polygon conversions. You'd still be doing so much spline adjusting that it would not be worth it. Much better to just model in A:M. One point about the CAD programs mentioned here: The programs TNT mentioned cost thousands of dollars I believe (I know Pro-E is in the thousands at least). Inventor is about $2000.00 and is designed for mechanical applications and would in NO WAY compete with A:M with rendering, organic modeling or even hold a candle to A:M in animation. It was this reason that I added my post without worrying about competing with A:M. Why would ANYONE pay thousands for basically a mechanical engineering program if your goal is to created CG graphics, animations, and very detailed renders? It was off topic but I didn't think it would be that big a deal to respond to TNT's post. George