brucegregory Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 I actually feel that this particular character can be much better modeled and animated in AM, than what might be in an alternative app, Blender. Splines are flexible by nature - polygons are not. This character even lends itself to the 2D genre and application. Maybe AM could be featured, in this case. I have some initial ideas for remodeling this character in AM - using a rig for some parts of the animation, and using a "NO-RIG" rig, at other times. Lots of ideas spinning around my head. Texturing, in this case, is not an issue. Toon shading in AM is definitely superior than anything I've found, elsewhere. Let's look into it. So, The Rat, as a test case, is an interesting one - one worthy of being pursued. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted October 11, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 11, 2011 using a "NO-RIG" rig This may be blasphemy (Robert, David, Mark... cover your ears) but I perceive this an important way forward in spline-based animation. The 'best rig' has yet to be invented. Raf Anzovin recently expressed a similar desire to animate without cumbersome rigs and I'm convinced if he returned to the A:M Community he'd be well on his way to doing that very thing. I also understand that the bills must be paid which will likely keep him away. The nature of the beast... So, The Rat, as a test case, is an interesting one - one worthy of being pursued. I think he'll be a perfect character. I assume that he switches back and forth from being a four legged to bipedal character as necessary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted October 11, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 11, 2011 You probably haven't seen this topic but it may be of interest to you. Ludo si investigates the bridging of the gap between 3D Coat and A:M: http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37421 I seem to recall a few other related discussion as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 No, strictly bipedal - anthropomorphic like the Coyote of Chuck Jones fame. He is based upon a poem written by a friend - (which, by the way, is the most outstanding storyline for a continuing cartoon "drama" I've ever seen). There is a story behind the rat. Let us say, for the time being, that he was a "trapped rat" destined to be eliminated - and, in an indiscreet moment of pity - his captor had mercy on him . . . and the rest is history. I can share the poem at a later date. It's a cartoon masterpiece. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Greg, thanks for clarifying your goals. I can't see any reason why you couldn't animate your rat in A:M with squash and stretch, similar to the Roadrunner cartoons. You might not be able to do it all with one rigged model though. Multiple versions of the model with rigging designed specifically for the demands of each shot is probably still the best solution. Also it would be better to model your characters in A:M rather than expecting to use any imported models in other formats. 3D Coat has sure matured since I last looked! Great tutorials, by the way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I love, love, love your rat! Would absolutely love to see him come alive in A:M. He is a perfect candidate. Please do it. Modeling him would be a snap. There are people here who can assist/guide you with a rigging approach to the unique requirements you have for moving him a la Coyote, if you need it. Given your experience, I suspect you could teach us a thing or 2, ...uh...that is...if we would listen. Could start with some of existing rigs: lite rig, 2008 come to mind. They are easily augmented/modifed, and easy to delete/by pass any limitations imposed. Most rigs were more designed for human/realistic range of motion, and have features for those who prefer to let a computer "animate" for them. Easy to disable/delete those suckers! The squetch rig might be all around more "accurate maintain volume" squishy-squashy friendly, but maybe not so easy to tailor to "break the rules" I would love to see a cartoony rig get fleshed out. Ok...I unsurprisingly have very selfish motives. Your rat (whose story has me curious) reminds me very slightly of this rat (one of my favorite characters done in A:M) created by David Horbach back in 2006ish. I can't remember David's screen name (to point to his threads). He had an original concept going with the interaction of these unlikely friends Snake & Rat (he gave them much better names). http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.php?pos=-1536 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 11, 2011 Author Share Posted October 11, 2011 Nancy: Yes, those are great characters - and, for 3D shading, that is excellent, as well. Love the lighting. Love the expressions. I must have missed this one, because it is right up my alley - and I would have remembered it. In the front of my mind, also, is a desire to meet the challenge of that darn frog from "One Froggy Evening" - where he can be so limp and dangly - and then stand up and sing and dance like a true Vaudevillian. It has become somewhat of an obsession. Tell me, truly - because I don't want to enter this challenge lightly - nor do I simply want to impress (though that would be welcome) - (and I'm stepping out on a limb here, again) - are new converts to AM still rollin' in and, more importantly, "buying in"? How many active community members still exist? This specific application of AM - and getting it right, will be a long haul - nothing like this in CG is ever facile. I want to finish it gleefully, once I start it. Can a body still make a buck? With AM, I mean? I am totally disinterested in the spline vs. poly argument, (for argument's sake) - but am very interested in using the best, lasting tool set for this particular challenge. AM has lasted longer than anything else like it. Does it have what it takes to last another 20 years, or so? (And I don't mean "will it continue to get more and more bells and whistles added, over time" - we've got plenty of those, already). And, I really do realize that it will be the content produced with the software that determines the final outcome of any 3D application. Whaddayasay? (I apologize for stringing this topic along for one more response - to those who think I should shut up and get to work). Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpleen Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 do what entertains you if you succeed then others will be entertained as well. Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted October 11, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 11, 2011 Greg, You are talking in circles again. At one moment all in it for the love of it (the appeal to Martin... the appeal to your youthful dreams and those you projected on your girls) then you are in it for the money, a completely different prospect that has little to do with 3D and everything to do with luck, timing and your business savvy. These aren't mutually exclusive but they've got you spinning in place. No one here is psychic (precog?). Well, maybe Nancy. Stare into your own crystal ball and see if money can be made. Statistic shows that most will fail at it. Defy those odds and you won't fail. My greatest concern right now is that when you fail to reach your goal (for any of the infinite number of reasons people fail to reach dreams) where will you cast the blame? The answer is as irrelevant as the question... if you don't fail. (I do not recommend failing) How much are you willing to invest in your own success? Will you still be alive in 20 years to use A:M? I'm in for the long haul but I'd like to know if I can count on you Greg. My faith is wavering here... In the front of my mind, also, is a desire to meet the challenge of that darn frog from "One Froggy Evening" - where he can be so limp and dangly - and then stand up and sing and dance like a true Vaudevillian. It has become somewhat of an obsession. Easily done in A:M in my estimation. (Although the frog might not do this on his own... you might have to animate him... or hire an animator to animate him... or get an actor to mocap him... or rotoscope the original... or have someone else rotoscope the original...) The story of 'One Froggy Evening'... man trying to get rich off of magic talking frog... is so appropriate for this discussion you've got good reason to associate yourself with it. are new converts to AM still rollin' in and, more importantly, "buying in"? I want to say 'Who cares?' but the answer is 'Yes'. Hire them when you become rich and famous, okay. They want to realize their dreams as well. How many active community members still exist? I assume this helps to answer your fears of A:M going away? Is this the number of animators you hope to hire to make your series? Review the pareto principle and then re-ask this question. By active I'll guess you mean 'active in the forum'. Let's say for the sake of argument 250 out of 500. 'Active' depends completely on your definition. If you mean to say 'creating stuff with A:M' I'd say just under 1000. More if active means clicking buttons in the interface. For about 45 or so of us that frequent the forum daily our task is to help others activate/reactivate. The answer is a moving target... someone will leave tomorrow... someone may return today. Here is a fun exercise. Start with the total registered number of users and apply the pareto principle to the numbers: We have 10,000+ registered members. 2,000 will likely visit the forum more than a few times. 400 will return regularly. 80 will frequent... frequently. 16 will be highly active. 2 will post every day (with occasional breaks/holidays). 1 is me. That's the projection (as dictated by Pareto) and I'd say that holds fairy accurate. But there is more to be said than just these numbers... therefore my request to have you refer to Pareto. The full 10,000 (give or take) are important to us whether they are active or not. But like it or not, they are representative. And, I really do realize that it will be the content produced with the software that determines the final outcome of any 3D application. This sentence makes no sense to me and I won't try to read too far into it. It isn't the software that makes the content. That's where you come in. Perhaps that is all you meant to say. Whaddayasay? That's a dangerous thing to ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Thanks, Rodney. Those are precisely the numbers I wanted to see. Not that I wanted to see THOSE particular numbers - but to see the ACTUAL numbers. Sure I'm talking in circles - been doing it a loooong time. But, that "80 frequenters" gets me. What I meant was: it is the content produced, (and the fluency of production), by artists, (especially famous ones), using any given software application, that tends to lead to the success or failure of any given software (3D CG software) product. This is precisely why AM is still drawing customers. Just look at the gallery. Just look at the proverbial Victor Navonne. Legends come to be via art that has been produced. I don't believe this rampant untruth that software has nothing to do with the art produced by means of it. Nonsense. All the elements of fine art are entwined with the means by which it is produced - Time, Medium, Time and Facility. Being driven by inspiration does not preclude being driven by (some) money, either. I need both. How about you? The last time I invested myself in CG art production or promotion, as a hobby, was about 1987. And I was very young and naive, back then. Fear not, Rodney. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Rodney Posted October 12, 2011 Admin Share Posted October 12, 2011 Greg, I think we are in agreement here. Our angles of approach are simply different. You are approaching from the negative attitude* This is something we control entirely. But, that "80 frequenters" gets me. Yeah, I'm pretty proud of them myself. What I meant was: it is the content produced, (and the fluency of production), by artists, (especially famous ones), using any given software application, that tends to lead to the success or failure of any given software (3D CG software) product. The rest of us are here to put a fly in that ointment but I hear you. We do what we can. I have a 'no one left behind' philosophy.... it's a terminal condition. This is precisely why AM is still drawing customers. Just look at the gallery. Just look at the proverbial Victor Navonne. Legends come to be via art that has been produced. Victor posted what... two or three animations to the email list and then got picked up by PIXAR? What Victor had was the right attitude. He has a successful approach to these things. His success... therefore... preordained. Disclaimer: He claims it would be tough to follow the path he took because the times... they are now very different. I don't believe this rampant untruth that software has nothing to do with the art produced by means of it. Nonsense. All the elements of fine art are entwined with the means by which it is produced - Time, Medium, Time and Facility. Wholeheartedly agree. If I thought the software didn't count I would have moved on years ago. The fact is A:M is a superior product. In current usage but also the philosophy behind it. But this isn't a case of one versus the other; we need good software and that software needs us. Not me. Not you. Every one of us. If I had a related slogan it would be; 'Software counts'. Being driven by inspiration does not preclude being driven by (some) money, either. I need both. How about you? The last time I invested myself in CG art production or promotion, as a hobby, was about 1987. And I was very young and naive, back then. I'm a special case so strictly speaking I don't count. I set out on my current trajectory 23 years ago to deal with the all pervasive and persistent need for money. But the need for money remains a reality. When all is said and done, death and taxes still remain. Fear not, Rodney. *Attitude=Angle of Approach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertexspline Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 This thread has had its up and downs for sure and not sure what direction it was going or coming from actually. It seems Greg , that you have something in your mind to do, a certain way , a certain style. It seems you want to make something big. Bigger than average AM person can do it seems. You seem concerned about the community (size,activeness, etc) and the software itself-- even its creator. But I still am not sure exactly what you are chasing. I do know you are very talented and knowledgeable ...and I do know there are like folks who are here daily. I am a fledgling eeking my way along here. Putting in all my free time with AM --trying to get better. I have been made to feel welcome here. Never once felt intimidated or talked down to . The folks here are awesome . Really. I think you know Animation Master has what you need to do this challenge. The community here is more than adept at findings ways around any technical issues if need be. The opinions here you have already seen ---strong and diverse but respectful. Everyone here ..Loves Animation ----Its the thread that binds us together. It's what keeps us pursuing this butterfly as it flutters in and out of our hands at times. But what a beautiful butterfly to chase. I hope you decide to stay here with Animation Master and share your passion and talents with us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeSlice Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Can a body still make a buck? With AM, I mean? That depends. If you want to produce photorealistic VFX, there are better tools out there. If you have a dream to work for a large production company who has its own proprietary 3D pipeline, and you have the talent and discipline to forge yourself into a virtuoso in your field of interest (lighting, modeling, animation etc), A:M is a good choice. If your intended clients are companies who want finished product (a fully rendered piece), A:M is a good choice. If your intended clients are small to medium sized production companies who need you to fit into their existing 3D pipeline (most of whom seem to use one of the two industry standards), you may want to consider investing yourself in one of the industry standards. As you know, the entertainment industry, including 3D CG, is highly competitive. Regardless of which software you use, you will need to become very very very good, and a little lucky, to succeed. Does it (A:M) have what it takes to last another 20 years, or so? The program and its underlying technology certainly has what it takes. Whether the company that currently sells it is still around is anyone's guess. SoftImage and Maya have been on shaky ground for years and they are still around. For example: In 1995 SGI bought Alias Research and Wavefront Technologies in a deal totaling approximately $500 million. In 2004 they sold Alias|Wavefront to a private equity investment firm for only $57 million (OUCH!) Just one year later, in 2005, the investment firm unloaded the company to Autodesk. One person who tracks such things told me Autodesk just took over Alias' $182 million debt, but I have been unable to verify that. This site: http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Autodesk_%2...ms_Holdings_Inc tells an interesting story. Even though the press releases at the time said Autodesk bought Alias for $182 million in cash, Autodesk's breakdown of what they were actually paying for hints that some creative accounting was being practiced to beef up the perceived value of the acquisition. ------------------------------------------------- Worth of Actual Assets Acquired: Developed Technologies: $34.8 million Customer Relationships: $29.8 million Trade Name: $8.1 million Net Tangible Assets $0.1 million ( one hundred thousand dollars). Total Actual Assets: $72.8 million -------------------------------------------------- So Autodesk paid substantially more than what Alias/Maya was actually worth, presumably just to sew up the 3D market. If Autodesk's goals had been different at the time, who knows what would have become of Maya? If I were you, I would not base my purchasing decision on which product will be around the longest. Unless you have some insider information, it is just impossible to tell. There are so many factors involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouseman Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 A:M has been used in production. It has been used as a springboard to get into the big leagues. The tool has more features than I will ever be able to use, and I'm rather happy with it. For me, the only limitation is me. If you have any reluctance, jump in and do some shorts. Spend the $79 and give it a try for a year. There is no guarantee that this is where you will decide to hang your hat in the end, but your time will not be wasted. Your character design looks like it would lend itself very well to modeling and animating in A:M. The startup time would not be too huge, especially if you already have experience in other programs. Dive in. Focus on the positive. There is no reason you can't go far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSpleen Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I use A:M exclusively , That said, This year I have won 2 awards. And I am one of the worst animators around. So yeah, A:M is competitive. I love it. Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Whether AM, in particular, stays in the marketplace is actually quite a big deal - seeing that it is the only spline based modeler and animation program in the marketplace - with no new contenders on the horizon. What I see is all polygons, everywhere I look - and the workflows match the polygons - dense. There are a few who are tinkering with voxels - not only for modeling, but also for texturing and animation - but, nothing is so downright efficient for cartoon animation as splines (vectors) are - with point animation and low density meshes being those features which should be shouted from the housetops. Also, it was Martin's initial construct that separates AM from other apps - it was made for the individual wanting to produce quality results quickly. For an individual animator, time and efficiency in every stage of production are nearly all that matters, unless you are another Methuselah. So, if I sound overly concerned and slightly paranoid about the continued presence of AM in the marketplace - its because there is nothing else like it, from an efficiency perspective. And, the skills needed to master AM are not readily transferrable to the polygon kingdom. It's a different currency. I guess one of the reasons you see such bands of loyalists - parading themselves around each and every 3D CG app is because of the tremendous investment in time required to master any one of them - and the prospect of another similar investment that might be required if their flagship went down. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeSlice Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 And, the skills needed to master AM are not readily transferrable to the polygon kingdom. It's a different currency. For me, that wasn't entirely true. It took me several years to learn animation in A:M (from knowing *nothing* about animation). Then one day I got a temporary gig animating in another package. I had a little over a month to learn the new program well enough to animate in it and I was able to take what I learned in A:M about timing, wind up, follow through etc. and also about when and where to use reusable actions and how to animate with a graph editor. I learned the new program in that time and completed the gig. ... of course the whole time I was thinking, this would have been so much quicker and easier in A:M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertexspline Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Greg, indeed to really really know an 3d application takes great effort and time invested for sure. The thing is we have no control over the life expectancy of any 3d application. There are many a decent 3d application in the graveyard -hehe I have owned a few myself so I understand your concerns. My take on that is no guarantees with anything. It is a little different with subscriptions that expire in a year but the buy in cost is low ---the time invested is high though . So you may have to wave your hands over your crystal ball and make a decision. I was in similar spot 45 days ago --right where you are and bought in. I have no regrets..none . ( and so happy with this decision - am getting my second comp ready for my second sub. ) You seem convinced of the product's superiority for your needs. To me that is what it is all about. I hope you make the right choice for yourself --- and all I can say is "come on in the waters great" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Forwood Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Scrat is sooo Chuck Jones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Scrat is sooo Chuck Jones! oh yeah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 They should have chucked (no pun intended) the whole "Ice Age" franchise in favor of a Scrat series. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucegregory Posted October 19, 2011 Author Share Posted October 19, 2011 Scrat is incapable of snark. Scrat does not talk. All of the Ice Age characters do both. Greg Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.