Jeetman
-
Posts
902 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Jeetman
-
-
Looks great! But I really wish Trot's run cycle would be adjusted so she'd stop bobbing her head up and down. It looks unnatural to me.
Excellent work!!!
George
-
Ken it looks good!
The only thing that stands out is in Trot's run cycle. I think her head bobbing movement is too wide. If you make that a bit more subtle, I think it would look more natural. And her head snapping up as she stops looks a little too strong as well.
You're an animating machine hehe
George
-
Incredible work as usual. I found this site just searching google images. It has a lot of reference pics you might find useful.
George
-
Hi George
Here is a sample of how I would solve it. Keep in mind that the proportions are not correct, it was just a quick test. However, since I am bad at explaining stuff, I'll just add a render, wireframerender and the model for you to examine. I did break up the model in smaller parts to speed up the modeling and to make it less complicated to make. Hope this helps
Feel free to do what you want with it
Wow!!! Thanks Stian. I really appreciate you taking the time to help me on this. I will be studying your spline layout. When I get a little more time I'll post my version of the robot.
Again Thank you very much!
George
-
Excellent breakdown of your entry Marcos. Thank you. It really helps to understand the capabilities of A:M.
George
-
Bring it onRodger graciously gave me his method and I'm very grateful. If I link my post, would you take a look at it and tell me how you'd do it?
The only thing I got at is a work in progress video (time-laps) of a model I made for David Dustin a few years ago. Feel free to take a look:Do you have any video's of you in action or better, any modeling training videos?Oh my God!!! Just checked out the time lapse and I bow to you at the modeling alter hehe.
I want to model the lost in space robot but everytime I try to cut into the round body for the neon voice part cutout, compartments for the buttons or the large side cut outs for the retractable arms, the smooth cylinder gets distorted.
Here's my link. I attached a picture of the robot. If you're not familiar with the show, the Superman like shape cut out at the top has a neon light that lights up when the robot talks. Thank you very much for checking it out and possibly giving me some pointers.
George
It's post 22
http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showt...mp;#entry279066
-
Stian,
All I can say is I had to pick my jaw up off my desk when I saw this. Words can't describe my respect for your modeling skills.
Do you have any video's of you in action or better, any modeling training videos? I'd buy it in a second. To model with the speed and to the degree of detail that you do, you must have a method /shortcuts/techniques that are unique. I wish you'd share your secrets.
So DO you have any model teaching videos? Would you please think about making one?
When you do mechanical modeling like this, Do you peak everything and go back and adjust the bias?
Lastly,
There's a model I started a while back. I posted a question on the best way to layout the model. Rodger graciously gave me his method and I'm very grateful. If I link my post, would you take a look at it and tell me how you'd do it?
Thanks,
George
-
This is interesting. Now that I've had more time working with my shot (that has a lot of dialog), I have to agree with Ken. I originally felt that I'd be better to do all the facial animation in the action As I did in TWO but after trying it out Ken's way, I've changed to all lower facial animation in an action but leaving eye lids, brows and eye movement to the chor seems to be the better way to reduce bone control conflicts and it does allow for a better workflow I think.
I couldn't argue with a guy who did a minute of animation in about a week
George
-
If I would have only had to choose 1 then it would have been really hard but for me, there were 4 that just jumped out at me making the voting a bit easier thankfully.
Great job on all the entries you guys!!!!!
George
-
LOL I give up. I'd have to write a mini-book to answer Vern and others.
So I'm done with this thread. Thank you. It was very enjoyable trying to debate the undebatable hehe. You can't debate someone who's convinced the President deliberately mislead the American people to start a war and cause thousands of casualties for what oil? Oh and this isn't some leftwing nutty POV. It's an absolute FACT! Just ask Vern. Apparently the Dems who oppose the war and would rather we lose anyway don't have the info to nail Bush. After all it was just for oil. Well one does. Dennis Kusinich. He's been trying to get Bush impeached for the deliberate misleading and intelligence tampering to fool the American public so he could have his war. It's amazing to me that apparently the government doesn't have the same info that Vern has. Vern, you should bring your facts to Washington and help Kusinich Impeach Bush. If you have the absolute proof, then as an American you are obligated to present this evidence.
About gutting the military Vern, You apparently hear something totally different than I do LOL
Robert,
Sorry I wasn't talking about Canada when giving the example of the guy waiting for 3 years for a dentist. He was a Brit. Just do a search for people pulling their own teeth and you'll find a bunch of stories about it. The argument I was making was about socialized medicine so it still fits.
I'll end my post with this observation I've made just talking to people who believe that the government can provide health care for everyone.
The same people who will tell you straight out that our American government is corrupt and all politicians are crooks will tell you in the same breath that these same government corrupt and crooked politicians are going to provide good, honest and legitimate health care for all.
Give that some thought LOL.
All I can say is I seriously hope enough Americans see through the Obama Hype.
OK back to animating now.
George
-
Oh please. He isn't going to "gut it". There is nothing in Obama's plan to gut the military. That is a huge gigantic in your face exaggeration. He can't "gut" the military. He wants to SAVE the military. He wants to make it stronger by cutting back on waste and stupid useless misguided wars.
Vern, you apparently didn't (or didn't want to) listen to his OWN words. I posted his plan on dealing with our military. If you listened to that and some how got the impression that our military is going to be kept the same and not reduced, then I don't know what to say except put the cool aid down.
Oh please! Once again you are mixing up your facts. Afghanistan had the terrorists. We didn't finish the job there. Irag NEVER ATTACKED THE UNITED STATES. If Bush's concern was for the PEOPLE of Irag that should have been his only reason to attack. If he wanted the oil he should have made it clear. He and his administration LIED about terrorists and WMD in Iraq. This is FACT proven over and over and over.
I love this ridiculous comment from people about Bush lying and it being a fact. I can only respond in a way that MIGHT get you to at least say hmmm....
Don't you think that if it was A FACT that Bush DELIBERATELY lied to go to war with Iraq that the DEMS would be ALL OVER IT!?!?!? Don't you think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be the FIRST one to sling the noose? The fact is Vern, there is NO proof of the Bush Admin. lying to the country. If there were, he'd have been impeached and probably imprisoned. I'm not getting my facts mixed up, YOU are distorting the facts!
Obama is NOT a socialist. Also, what is so wrong with a little tiny bit of socialism? People have that word confused with something else. Canada, France, have the BEST "socialized" health care in the world.
Not according to the reports I've heard. I don't think I want a health care system where I have to wait my turn to see a dentist. One guy was on a waiting list for (I'm not making this up) 3 years. To see a dentist??? He decide (as others have also) to pull his own tooth.
True it's an extreme example but do we REALLY want a system where everyone is on a great big list and that you have to wait your turn for medical attention? And who knows what it'd be like with other medical procedures.
Hey Vern, I heard a Canadian guy say that when some Canadian's need urgent medical care they come to America. Why would that be if socialized medicine is so good?
Yes it has some problems BUT IT FREAKING WORKS. It isn't perfect but it's TEN TIMES BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.
I don't know what you have but my current medical coverage is very good and I'm not on a waiting list to get treatment.
The administration is in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies. Do you realize that 60% of all health care casts ARE PAPER WORK? Yes, forms.
Are YOU aware that 30% of all medicare (government controlled medical coverage) is fraudulent (people making false claims)? Imagine how much bigger that'll be when everyone can apply.
Something like 60% of employees that work in medical health care industry only fill out and process forms. Every freaking insurance company has a DIFFERENT FORM. This is because there are no rules, no one telling them to streamline and save money.
Actually, government programs do that. I've seen with my own eyes the quick handout of government assistance with just about no questions asked. You talk about no oversight, that's the problem today with goverment programs on all levels.
Once again, Obama is not a "socialist" and you really need to do some research on that word. You don't really know what it means in todays world.
To say that Obama's not a socialist shows me that YOU don't know what a socialist is. Here's the definition according to dictionary.com:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Obama's plan to pay for the massive healthcare for everyone is to take the capital from the rich guys to pay for his flawed plan for the poor guys.
Sorry Vern, but that's SOCIALISM!!!!!!
I heard his plan may take as much as 80% in taxes on people who make over 200,000 (might be a higher yearly wage but I believe that's it).
I don't make 200,000 so I'm not going to get the hit but if I were to ever make it big with an idea or product, and DID make over 200,000 a year, I would NOT want a socialist government taking 80% of my money from me. If this plan is incorporated it will destroy businesses.
You are repeating the propaganda and lies perpetrated by those who support the current administration. Yes Clinton may have missed the boat but he didn't have hindsight to know. AND HE TOLD THE BUSH WHITEHOUSE TO WATCH OUT FOR BIN LADEN! He warned them. When the Clinton administration left office they told Bush and his people that Al quaida was a bad thing and to keep an eye on them. Bush ignored those warnings. Maybe because he hated Bill so much who knows. Maybe because he didn't agree with it. Doesn't matter now, water under the bridge.
I'm repeating the facts. You are aware of Clinton's administration separating the CIA and the FBI? (Read up on John Ashcroft's statement about Jamie Gorelick ). This one important change alone, hindered our ability to track Bin Laden and the 911 attackers. Clinton was on watch during the 1st attack on the WTC attack in 1993, during the Al Qaeda suicide bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzanian in 1998 and of the Cole (an Al Qaeda attack on a big American ship) that killed 17 Americans in 2000.
To say Clinton missed the boat is an understatement! To say he didn't have hindsight just isn't true. And although he told the Bush admin., he also believed that terrorism is a law inforcement matter and not a military one. It was Bush who actually went to Afghanistan (as opposed to lobbing a few missles) and took out the government that supported Bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization and training camps (the Taliban).
911 happened a year into the Bush presidency. Bush had nearly a YEAR to "fix" any mistakes that Clinton made. Maybe if Gore had won in 2000 he would have LISTENED to the warnings instead of ignoring them. Don't try to shift blame of 911 onto Clinton. That's just ridiculous. 911 was no one's "fault" except the terrorists who perpetrated it. It happened. It was tragic. Our whole government dropped the ball INCLUDING Bush.
WOW finally something we both can agree on (I didn't think it was possible). You are absolutely right. Bush had a year. Clinton only had 8 years. They both missed the boat but I agree, it was the TERRORIST's fault. Not ours. Oh and Gore as president would have been interesting. I wonder how many missiles he'd have lobbed?
Get your facts straight... not much point in asking that because whenever people like you hear the truth you deny it as a cover up or conspiracy. The truth just doesn't work.
Wow! You WERE looking at the mirror as you were typing this right ?
Obama is not a socialist, he is not a muslim, and he isn't going to "gut" the military or turn us into a "third world country".
McCain's money did not come from organized crime, and he is not funded by Alquaida and he is not "just" a wrinkly old man.
Both candidates could run this country without a hitch. I am sure of that. My concern is HOW they will do it. What will happen in the long term? One has a status quo philosophy. The other wants to try a new approach. Neither idea will destroy America. We're to strong for that. A single president couldn't destroy America, although Bush has made a good start. We need some CHANGE. And that word is not some "catch phrase" made up by advertising consultants... it means what it says... CHANGE. We need a new different direction.
-vern
Very well said although I question the varacity of the statement.
I do hope McCain directs the change though.
-
Vern, if you're for a strong military then how can support a guy who's going to gut it?
I disagree with the notion that a country that financies and supports terrorism and convinces morons to blow themselves up to kill innocent people are only developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Iran is governed by wack jobs. Ahmadinejad has repeated many times that Israel will soon be eliminated. This sounds like a peaceful country? You REALLY think we can reason with people who believe that they will be greeted with 24 virgins if they martyr themselves? I've offten wondered what it would have been like if ancient cultures had the technology and weapons we have today. How would the people like the ancient Romans have handled TV, the net and nukes? Well if we keep doing nothing we're going to find out with Iran in the case of having nukes. They may be modernized to some degree but their whole ideology is stuck in the 9th century. We are not going to negotiate with Iran and if they do develop nuclear capability, it won't be for clean energy. It will be to have a nuclear bomb.
If "The Chosen One" Obama is elected and follows through with his dangerous plans to basically make us a 3rd world country because he don't agree with capitolism (He's definitely a socialist), at least I can say I didn't vote for him hehe.
One comment about Clinton...
It was partly HIS administrations failings that lead to us being attacked on 911. Clinton's failure to treat terrorism as a law enforcement and not a military problem prevented him from acting against Al Qaeda when he should have. So to hope Obama is like Clinton (at least on foreign policy) is not a good thing.
-
I highly hope that a democrate will win the elections... we all need a moderate, thoughtful person for such conflicts and someone who can politically stand up against a very clever (evil, but clever) guy like Putin.
See you
*Fuchur*
That has been my point all along. Recently the US has totally rejected Russia's statement that WE manipulated the violence in Georgia for "political purposes". Russian is trying to use our local politics to justify their attack on Georgia. Bush and McCain are both "hard liners", warmongers to use a really strong word... but I think it applies. I agree we need someone with a level head.
Being "diplomatic" does NOT mean being a wimp. You can still be tough, we would still have our military if the absolute need arises, but we can't have a president who threatens military action every time someone makes a move we don't like. It makes US "feel good" to do that... but the other side doesn't see it the same way. Think about it in your own head. When someone is "mean" or "bad" to you and you make threats or get angry, it makes YOU feel good. It has NO effect on the other side. The emotional response is completely different.
Obama says in his speeches one of the important things he learned from his mother was to put himself in the other persons shoes. Imagine how they feel when they are being bullied or pushed. When you can REALLY do that, really imagine how it feels to be on the other side when someone is making bold threats and demands you can better understand the situation. That is DIPLOMACY. You know the other side may not deserve such consideration but you have to at least TRY to find some non violent way to resolve conflicts. If we don't try then... my god... there will be new wars and conflicts popping up every other day.
If the US continues to be a bully in the world's school yard... no one will listen to us. Constantly making threats of military attack isn't going to solve anything. We need to become more of the negotiators and diplomats. Of course, terrorists are a different topic. They aren't from one country, they don't behave like rational individuals, they don't respond to diplomacy. I have no answers or suggestions for dealing with terrorists.
-vern
-vern
I know this is going to seem like I'm for war but I don't believe ANYONE is for war. I certainly am not. However I am for keeping a strong offense and defense especially with terrorism still a threat, Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Pakistan having nukes with an unstable government and now Russia flexing their muscle, I do not want a weak country. Obama's plan is to gut the military, stop ALL nuclear testing, and cut funding for missle defense. This would be crazy in the world that we live in today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxL8NcNACBY
I'd love to sing coombiyah and believe that Iran would give up their ambition for a nuke if we just sit with them and say please don't do that but it's not reality. And as much as I'd like to believe Obama is the chosen one and will get all the rogue nations in the world in one great big group hug, I don't.
We need a strong military to let these countries know not to mess with us. Unfortunately being more powerful than them is all they respect. They look at kindness as weakness. Gut our millitary and show them we are weak, and they will take advantage of it. We saw a perfect example of it when Carter was in office with Iran.
-
She will not attract those who were disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination.
I don't know about this. I heard 30% of Hillary voters have said that they are voting for McCain out of spite because of nominating Obama and not Hillary. That's even before she was announced. The fact that she's a woman might sway some but who knows. Time will tell.
-
Some people are saying it's Elaine from Seinfeld, others are saying it's Tina Fey from SNL... I'm thinking it may be Mary Anne from Gilligan's Island.
LOL she kinda looks like Dawn Wells hehe
Definitely looks better without the glasses
-
OK--- Well, we know Biden is 'owned' by the credit companies... has she caved to any corporates?
I heard a report tonight that she actually took on corruption in Alaska and ousted the corrupt Governor. I know nothing about her and I disagree with her stance if she's against all abortions but I'm a conservative who believes in capitalism and Barrack's vision is socialism and unrealistic and for him to say he's going to get us off of oil (as he claimed in his speech) in 10 years, shows he's either niave or just saying what people want to hear to get elected. unfortunately uninformed people will fall for it.
George
-
*lol* It is really funny... you must have more fun than we when you are electing someone... at out place it is only about: "Is he able to do what he claims and is what he claims something that is near your own wishes..."
At your place it is about every single person in his bloodline, if he drinks the right coffee from the right brand and if he really likes fruitloops better than Brahms...
And it could be so easy:
The only question is - Will this man/woman fight for my wishes or at least is s/he claiming to be closer to my opinions than the other guys?
-> if so: Vote for him, if not dont.
We can't do anything else.
I never understood why Clinton (Bill, not Hillary) was more or less thrown out of the house in shame. I mean, Monica had nothing to do with his ability to rule the country. America was economically (and military, but that didnt change much) strong, he and therefore America had good relations with other nations in the world and he was much more liked and lets face it: he was much smarter than bush jr.
But he did something bad, which if I am not guessing wrong at least 33% of the people who were most pissed off because of his sexual mistakes, did themselfs, and than he wasnt anything of that anymore?
What happend here? Was he another person from one day to the other? No. He was the exact same guy many people liked and many people applauded one day before. The only difference was, that people had found out about his private life, which had nothing to do with his skills for which he was elected to be the president of the US.
*Fuchur*
You guys wouldn't consider who your candidate is associated with? I don't know how you feel about Putin (I think he's a thug myself) but let's say a candidate who's running for Prime minister was found out to have ties to Putin or was getting large financial donations (if you're allow to anyway) from a suspected terrorist organization, you wouldn't take that into consideration before voting?
-
Just saw Episode 4 and I'm hooked!!!!
Great job!!!!!
George
-
True... this was a driverissue around driverbuilt 90-140 or something like that... but after using the newer drivers, I didnt have that problems anymore.
*Fuchur*
awesome thanks!!!
-
Obama is a lawyer and yes he is using legal means to stop someone from slandering him,
It's not slander if it's true. You REALLY need to get your facts straight. He's not using legal means, he using senatorial power to ask the Justice Department to intervene. If he tried to take it to court the judge would laugh at him. He's abusing his power to stifle free speech. Here's a cut from the article I posted.
DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 “Swift Boat” campaign.Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.
but that doesn't mean he is a socialist for doing that. If someone says that your a terrorist and publish that in public then as an American you have a right to sue for slander if they can not prove that you are. In Obama case that he was nine years old makes his case strong that he was not a nine year old terrorist. I be more worried if your afraid of a nine year old boy.
Rustar, did you EVEN read the article? It's not about a book. It's about an "ADVERTISEMENT". Go back and read the article so you get your facts straight. The article doesn't call Barrack a terrorist. It brings up the fact that he is LINKED to a terrorist. Every thing the ad says is true according to reports I've heard. Can you imagine if McCain had this link? The New York Times, MSNBC, NBC would be all over it. I can't believe FOX caved to it. CNN I'd expect.
The socialist comment wasn't about him stifling free speech. It was a reference to his political policies. He wants to redistribute wealth. Sorry but that's right out of the book socialism.
You claim to know so much but if you can't figure out Obama's a socialist then I don't know what to say.
-
False! Barack from the beginning have always says that he plan to withdraw responsibly. Must have him confuse with Kucinich or Ron Paul. I don't think you know your candidate.
That is why you should read 2 books pro and con of each candidate.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely not true. I remember it well. Because he opposed the war from the beginning, he's always stood for getting out right away. When the heaviest fighting in Iraq was going on and the leader of the Democratic party declared us the losers, Barrack was calling to pull the troops out.
Barrack was against the surge that finally gave us the victory we needed. I'll back up my statement with this article back in 2007 about Barracks irrisponsible pull out plan. Again, he was against the surge that has given us the success we are having. Had we followed Barrack's plan, Al Oaeda and Iran would be controlling Iraq right now. You can try to spin his foreign policy in his favor all you want. History proves otherwise.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1845084.htm
I didn't hear Barack gaffe on that and only offer a possible explanation. The media have a habit of inventing lies of him being a Muslim and associated with a terrorist group when he was 9 years old. How would I know that the media lie about his gaffe on the 50 states? find me that video or transcript and back it up, and I can check it out.
The votes are tally after a close election, usually the media will pre-empt the official and final count. It has happen before where the wrong candidate was announce the final winner.
Hmm... I posted the link with his exact words I thought. If you don't see this link then it was blocked.
LOL just listened to it again and he even refers to visting the United States. Too comical. I think a president should know how many states he's going to be making important decisions about. Don't you Vern?
In case it doesn't show up again.....www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58
what are the fact I distort? be specific! and back it up!
I have stated that .9% of campaign funding are from the public for both party system, just to let you know how much is from the corporate versus the people. The only fame that Barack can claim is that he is by farthest the most funded by the public than any other candidate.
Sorry you are right. I should have bolded the comment however I'd like you to back up your assertion about the low scores and "Maverick" statement.
McCain is much like Bush in a way that they both are malleable as far as being told what to do by the corporates.
You even hear of a guy named George Soros who's basically bought the Democratic party including Barrack Obama. He's a big leftwing progressive billionaire who through serragate organizations donates huge amounts of money to the Democratic party. Read up on him. He's a big CORPORATE guy. He funds moveon.org. I heard a report once that because Soros hate's Fox news, he gave orders to the Democratic party to not appear on Fox at one time. Only 2 Democrats disobeyed his order. Nancy Pelosi I believe was one and I can't remember the other.
All the major cable television media across the nation are own by 6 large conglomerate Republican owners, and all of the major cities newspaper.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1406
http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html
Not sure what you're trying to say with this info. I really don't care who own's the "major cable television media". I DO know that the main media sources are leftwing biased or leaning.
-
After only four days trying to get the set, the characters and the lights to live in the same chor... a lighting test:
(in cross eye Stereo)
Man! I love the crosseyed stereo!!!!
Looks excellent! Especially in 3D
-
OK just played around with this idea while at work with my v.14 A:M. The path idea worked pretty good. Mind you it's not anything like an atom but it shows how you can rotate and break away. I rotated the atom by setting the model bone rotation to euler. I also finally figured out how to do the crossed 3d thing too. I love this program hehe.
Here's a 3D mov
Here's the project
-
I assume the nucleus has only protons and neutrons? I would put all of the nuclear particles into one model and have each one assigned to separate bones. When you go to animate, you can rotate the root bone and all of the nucleus will rotate as one. As you break off particles, you can translate the separate particle bones (for that matter to can assign an entire alpha to just one child bone)
A crude demo
Sorry bad prj file use this one
Yep my thoughts exactly. I was thinking about another dimension that could be interesting. create separate paths for each particle and translate/orientate them to the root bone. Arrange the paths so the start of the path is on the bone position for each particle. constrain the particles to the corresponding path.
Now you can have the particles breakaway in an exacting path that you control with ease. I think it would work.
Bruce, the demo looks good.
I know this is the wrong place to ask this but....could I please get a copy of your OBAMA model? If you don't want to just tell me so I know you got the message.
Back face cull off in final rendering
in New Users
Posted
Hi guys,
OK, I have the potential to use A:M at work for some business projects. I've been given an assignment to animate a big assembly project we have going. If it turns out good, My company will let me animate more in the future. I'm currently using my V14 CD so I can do this during work and hopefully not interfere with my SO assignment while I'm home. Not to mention it's great to be able to use A:M for a work project instead of AutoCad and Inventor hehe.
OK I have to model a huge multimillion dollar assembly process and then create an animation of it in action. It's for our company's website to give a visual of what our product does. Again if they like it, I can get another yearly subscription for work. How cool would that be?
I'm trying to experiment with modeling ideas and I came up with a good one for making quick holes in solid patches. Here's my question:
Can you set A:M to render in final with back faces off? If you can it would be a huge time saver I think.
George