Fuchur Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 People buying your software, and then being told "now go spend more money on some videos that teach you the ins-and-outs of patches, splines and CPs and how to plan and work with them properly" seems more than a little unreasonable to me. I would fully, and reasonably, expect to be provided that information with the price of the software itself, especially if such info is as critical to proper modeling technique as it clearly is in this case. In the end you are not forced to buy those tutorials... I never ever read many tutorials of A:M or splines and I never even complete the TAO itself. I just found out by trial and error, because this is the way I can learn best. Barrys tutorials are great, but you dont need them to learn patches. Even if you have run into trouble, it is very unlikely that you run into that very often and the good thing about this learning-method is: You really learn... you are not just a repeater, but a understanding person... Barry is not employed at hash, nor is he connected to Hash in any form other than that he has been using A:M for years. His tutorials are out of questions very good. They are all worth $5 (some of them are even cheaper). I'll see if I will do a tutorial on basic splining... but I am not sure when I will complete them. Anybody know where the "Basic Splinemanship"-tutorials are found at today? See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NancyGormezano Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 In the end you are not forced to buy those tutorials... I never ever read many tutorials of A:M or splines and I never even complete the TAO itself. I just found out by trial and error, because this is the way I can learn best. Barrys tutorials are great, but you dont need them to learn patches. Even if you have run into trouble, it is very unlikely that you run into that very often and the good thing about this learning-method is: You really learn... you are not just a repeater, but a understanding person... Ditto. I haven't done the TAOAM, nor seen Zundel's tuts. I personally prefer Malo's way of thinking, modeling and he did an excellent character modeling tut, that is more intermediate to advanced. (won't point you to it now) Mikes questions are basic. I also notice that in different tutorials, discussions and such, it seems to make all the difference in how you create a new spline, how you connect a new spline, how you continue an existing spline, how you add a new CP to an existing spline, do you press Shift when connecting or not, how you delete or detach a new spline, what direction is the spline going in, how is it flowing through the CPs, when to use peaked, when to use curved, when to set CPs to peaked before adjusting their curves with the handles, when to use the CP handles, when not to use CP handles, when is something mandatory, when is it optional... etc. etc. All these "little things" that seem to have potentially big impacts on the resulting models. Those questions can be addressed simply. I do not have time now, as I am going out, but others can address them. Part of the problem I believe, is typical when switching programs, having to unlearn the other programs conventions, habits. A:M modeling tools are not that complicated. You pretty much asked all the questions. The methods to achieve the same results, are such that one does NOT need to follow only one formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsjustme Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Anybody know where the "Basic Splinemanship"-tutorials are found at today? Jeff Cantin's website is here, he also has a video in A:MFilms here. Mark Largent's tutorials are here. Hope that helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Barry Zundel's tutorial series. You can buy them one at a time, for like five bucks. here's the link I haven't seen them, but many people here seem to feel these are quite good. Nan, at the very least you should try the three on modeling. I *thought* I was pretty good at modeling, but I learned so much from these I felt like a beginner again, but in a good way. They made me feel smarter. And he's talking about AM specifically, not animation or storytelling theory, which certainly both have their place. Only in the rigging section does it get a bit troublesome, since a lot of what he's doing depends on whether the constraints offset button is on or off by default, an interface change that we all struggle with a little bit. and even at that, there's still a lot to be learned by watching, if not actually rigging along with him. The modeling stuff is pure gold though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted August 1, 2012 Hash Fellow Share Posted August 1, 2012 I hope you won't go away mad! We're all trying to help. I bring up the face rigging because I'm looking "big picture" I presume you're not only wanting to make signs, I presume you really want to make characters. If mechanical modeling is the main goal then A:M is not your best choice, if only because it does take more time to do some of the things mechanical models typically do. But i think you're not just here for mechanical models, so I point out that A:M will be the better choice for a lot of things that go into character animation. I also notice that in different tutorials, discussions and such, it seems to make all the difference in how you create a new spline, how you connect a new spline, how you continue an existing spline, how you add a new CP to an existing spline, do you press Shift when connecting or not, how you delete or detach a new spline, what direction is the spline going in, how is it flowing through the CPs, when to use peaked, when to use curved, when to set CPs to peaked before adjusting their curves with the handles, when to use the CP handles, when not to use CP handles, when is something mandatory, when is it optional... etc. etc. All these "little things" that seem to have potentially big impacts on the resulting models. Making thin mesh models out of splines DOES require a bit more understanding of how it all is attached together. It is not as simple as straight lines connecting simple points, unfortunately. The upside of that is... it's not straight lines connecting simple points , you get a lot of shape out of a little bit of data. Have you watched my NewTAoA:M "Lesson 1"? It's free! One of my goals there is to introduce the very new user to "the spline". Future lessons will expand on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertexspline Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Robert---"Your NEW TAoA:M Lesson 1 " is exactly the kind of learning tutorial that I think is very needed to help beginners to get the process of splinemanship. Free or otherwise. It's awesome. I think its focused on the beginner in mind in a video format that makes learning so much easier. You really teach well. Unfortunately --- no one cannot expect you to be providing additional tutorials ---its not your job. I suppose you want to have fun using AM not teaching it. smiles. MikeV ---I hope you give a look to some of the free tutorial stuff mentioned here and give it a little more time and practice. . understand that the experienced folks here have been at this a while. They have more than likely gone through periods of similar unpleasantries when they started. AM modeling is as you have discovered a little tricky for some things but actually you may find for somethings you may actually like it over poly's. and I think as you can see --folks are eager to help you ---they cannot help with your frustrations but they surely will chime in with helpful suggestions and hints and observations if you ask as you have. The experienced folks here --really are the backbone of AM right now. They really do care to help folks out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeV Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 I appreciate all the feedback, everyone. And I'm glad y'all haven't just written me off as a "whiner" lol. I *would* like to learn and become proficient at A:M @ everyone: What put me off is purely the idea that I've been moving along under the assumption that I've been learning and building a solid foundation of what I'm doing. I felt I had a good, working understanding of how splines work and of how patches work. That project with the beam, which was really part of a bigger project (an entire "market stand"), was intended as both a project and a sort of application of what I've learned. Something that I would want to do for my own use, rather than something I'm instructed to do from a book or a video. The realization I've come to with all the "aftermath" of that is that I really feel I haven't really learned a thing beyond the absolute basic of basics. Or at least that I haven't learned a thing correctly. It's a very discouraging realization to have after feeling like I'd been moving along and being overall happy with my progress. So, the enthusiasm has been sucked right out of me. Now all I can think is, "if I proceed from this point, how much farther will I get this time before I find out that I've been doing everything wrong again, and feel I've wasted even more time spinning my wheels?" @robcat: I get what you're saying about A:M not being ideal for mechanical modeling, but it also confuses me that you say that. Because when I look through the gallery, I see stuff like these: http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=30 http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=37 http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=48 http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...um=2&pos=92 http://www.hash.com/stills/displayimage.ph...&fullsize=1 ... and many more you've no doubt seen many times... ... I get the impression that A:M is perfectly well suited for mechanical modeling. I mean, those models look damn good to my eyes. Is it optimal for flat, mechanical objects? Probably not, in much the same way that polygon modeling isn't optimal for obtaining smooth curved surfaces. To me, Hash Patches and Polygons seem to be kinda balanced at opposite ends of the see-saw, so to speak. The strengths of each balancing out its weaknesses compared to the other. I do intend to create characters and the like. But I also intend to create set-pieces and backdrops and things that are going to be more straight and hard-edged in nature. If you would say definitively that A:M is not the program for me if I intend to create such objects, then maybe my best choice would be to move on and return to a polygon-based approach. Though I suspect you wouldn't be quite prepared to make that suggestion. I could be wrong though. I'm not "going away mad". I'm just rather bummed and deflated for right now. I'll probably pick it back up at some point. Maybe not "right now", but I'll be sticking around. Appreciate the "talk" folks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted August 2, 2012 Hash Fellow Share Posted August 2, 2012 You're right, A:M is great for mechanical models too. I wouldn't model with anything else. But if you were ONLY making mechanical models then your life might go faster with an app that can, for example, automatically bevel an edge. You can make great bevels in A:M but it's not as easy as a with a strong polygon modeler. For me, it's not a deal killer, I prefer A:M when I consider all the things that are easier. The realization I've come to with all the "aftermath" of that is that I really feel I haven't really learned a thing beyond the absolute basic of basics. I think you were really close with what you had, there were just a couple bumps to diagnose. After you have made some more models you will start to see the bumps before you hit them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeV Posted August 2, 2012 Author Share Posted August 2, 2012 You're right, A:M is great for mechanical models too. I wouldn't model with anything else. But if you were ONLY making mechanical models then your life might go faster with an app that can, for example, automatically bevel an edge. You can make great bevels in A:M but it's not as easy as a with a strong polygon modeler. For me, it's not a deal killer, I prefer A:M when I consider all the things that are easier. The realization I've come to with all the "aftermath" of that is that I really feel I haven't really learned a thing beyond the absolute basic of basics. I think you were really close with what you had, there were just a couple bumps to diagnose. After you have made some more models you will start to see the bumps before you hit them. Ah, I getcha now. Yeah I can agree on that point. I definitely don't fall into that category of only wanting to do mechanical. Mechanical objects will be very necessary in my projects, though. Incidentally, I just got done watching both of your introductory vids you linked earlier in the thread. Very good! I was already a fan of your method of explaining and illustrating things based on your other videos.. so I wasn't expecting to *not* like them. They were a great introduction, though. I take it nothing more ever came of those? Regarding the information you cover with the magnitude and such of using the bias handles, those things I had a pretty good grasp on. I work with Corel Draw every day at my job (I work in the art dept. of a company that produces patches, labels, pins, shirts and so forth...), and am often tracing over images and having to match curves and such, so the concept of curves and handles and CPs is pretty "solid" with me. What's tripping me up is more the A:M-specific pit-falls and things that can happen to break the continuity of a spline, or change its direction, or cause ghostly rogue CP's to linger around behind legitimate ones :-p. Basically the things that have been tripping me up in this thread with that particular project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted August 3, 2012 Hash Fellow Share Posted August 3, 2012 Incidentally, I just got done watching both of your introductory vids you linked earlier in the thread. Very good! I was already a fan of your method of explaining and illustrating things based on your other videos.. so I wasn't expecting to *not* like them. They were a great introduction, though. I take it nothing more ever came of those? I will make more. Just today I was sketching out a planned sequence of lessons. But thinking it through and doing all the footage to explain it in the best way possible is a challenging task. What's tripping me up is more the A:M-specific pit-falls and things that can happen to break the continuity of a spline, or change its direction, or cause ghostly rogue CP's to linger around behind legitimate ones :-p. Basically the things that have been tripping me up in this thread with that particular project. The orphan CP I'd have to spend time trying to recreate. It's a rarity. If it happens more, eventually you'll connect it with something you have done, and tell us what it was. Trial>error>learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted August 3, 2012 Hash Fellow Share Posted August 3, 2012 in case you haven't seen it already... a video about the ever important concept of Spline Continuity http://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=365435 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.