Type- Where is it? (Font Wizard)

[Simon Edmondson]

I know there is a text/type tool in AM but, could someone kindly point me to it ?

 

Also,

In the past when I installed AM the help file was installed too. It seems to do so on PC's but hasn't on the Mac. Could somebody tell me howto do it so I can stop asking simplistic questions ?

Thank You

regards

Simon

 

OSX 10.68 V15J

[robcat2075]

inthe model window>plugins>wizard>Fontwizard is the path I thing.

 

ON the help... I'm not sure if it worked the same on macs. On pc there was a .CHM file that A:M reads.

 

The TechRef is the source of what was in the CHM file

 

get a PDF here...

 

ftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/docs/

 

 

you will also see a masterchm.zip file there. Try unzipping that to your AM directory.

[Rodney]

Could somebody tell me howto do it so I can stop asking simplistic questions ?

 

We like it when you ask simplistic questions. It's the tough ones we have to study for!

The more questions asked the better says I.

 

A Mac user will be along any moment to tell you the scoop on the help file but I recall that there had to be a different approach to the help file on the Mac.

 

You do have the PDF copies of The Art of Animation:Master and The Technical Reference right?

The Tech Ref is a different version of the Help file.

[markw]

...A Mac user will be along any moment to tell you the scoop on the help file but I recall that there had to be a different approach to the help file on the Mac...

That might be me...

There are no built in Help files for us Mac people like there is in Windows We just have to look in the TechRef PDF.

But the good news is that v17 now comes with A:M Answers built in Its early days yet for it but who knows, eventually we may not need the TechRef at all.

[Simon Edmondson]

That might be me...

There are no built in Help files for us Mac people like there is in Windows We just have to look in the TechRef PDF.

But the good news is that v17 now comes with A:M Answers built in Its early days yet for it but who knows, eventually we may not need the TechRef at all.

 

Mark

 

Thank you for that.

I have a printed copy ( two ) of the tech ref book but I do find it a bit awkward to use. Hence the questions.

This is not a gripe as such ( hope not anyway ) but, one of the things I do find a bit frustrating with AM is the lack of a full and detailed manual. I understand the fiscal restraints that cause that but it can be a limitation to progress.

 

Off to read the tech ref...

simon

[Rodney]

I have a printed copy ( two ) of the tech ref book but I do find it a bit awkward to use. Hence the questions.

 

I'm curious about what you find awkward with regard to the Tech Ref.

Rather than take this thread further off topic can you start another topic to describe what you find awkward about the Tech Ref's usage?

 

Thanks!

[Simon Edmondson]

I have a printed copy ( two ) of the tech ref book but I do find it a bit awkward to use. Hence the questions.

 

I'm curious about what you find awkward with regard to the Tech Ref.

Rather than take this thread further off topic can you start another topic to describe what you find awkward about the Tech Ref's usage?

 

Thanks!

 

 

Rodney

Its mainly a lack of knowledge on my part. If you are trying to find out how to do something, you need to know how to ask the question in the first place, ( catch 22 I suppose ? ). Any software has its own way of doing things and uses its own terms for the things it does.

 

For example, before I started with AM I used Max, its way of working was completely different, not just in the modelling process ( splines versus poly's ) but the animating, staging and materials process too. Its a long time since I used it ( R2 ) but as I recall, it has different names for the same processes and methods that AM uses. When I was using PC's I found the help option useful and would like to use it on the Mac.

 

I'll try using the ref over the next few days with the next phase of the project then, when I can be more specific, I'll let you know?

regards

simon

[NancyGormezano]

I can be more specific with my gripes about the tech ref. Even knowing the terms, it's very difficult to find the information.

 

Number 1 complaint is that there is no discernible organization of categories. Seems like a random brain dump obtained when some sadistic alien abducted and tortured an alcohol infused programmer.

 

The printed copy is especially difficult to use, as one can't do a search. The pdf at least comes up with search results. But still difficult to wade thru the results. And for a new user, they don't know what to search for.

 

The table of contents, and actual contents is just one big laundry list, with no apparent chapters, sub chapters. Worst Table of Contents, organization EVER.

 

The index is alphabetical, but is most often wrong. That is, the page reference is usually wrong.

 

Once you find the section (I usually scan, flip thru book, until I find something that might resemble what I'm looking for), there is minimal information as to how one would use the feature. For a new user, I would imagine it to be confusing, frustrating. Even for an old user, I wonder, why? why? why? would the organization for this valuable information be like this?

 

EG: p 49 is talking about Model properties, then p. 50 launches into ANIME EYEBROWS??? huh?, then attaching Control points, then importing/exporting Models, then the duplicator Wizard? Wha????

 

The contents for some subjects are spread out all over the place. Can find it in multiple places, sometimes saying the same thing, sometimes additional new info.

 

Horrible horrible organization. But good good information once you can find it.

 

You asked.

[Rodney]

Well, I asked Simon but your thoughts are just as valid.

 

They would be even more valid in a topic of their own.

If we are going to be organized we might as well start here first, so that people can more easily find the information they are looking for.

[Darkwing]

Has anyone ever thought of just reorganizing it? Also it looks like it's 4 years old, so it's definitely gonna be missing some features anyways

[Rodney]

Has anyone ever thought of just reorganizing it? Also it looks like it's 4 years old, so it's definitely gonna be missing some features anyways

 

Yes. And yes it is.

[robcat2075]

Has anyone ever thought of just reorganizing it? Also it looks like it's 4 years old, so it's definitely gonna be missing some features anyways

 

It's like putting a bell on the cat. Everyone thinks it's a good idea but... who will do it?

[Rodney]

It's like putting a bell on the cat. Everyone thinks it's a good idea but... who will do it?

 

I think we can find people to do it with little problem.

Getting people to pay for a manual is a problem of a different color.

 

I would like to propose a $100 Ultimate A:M Manual.

 

Who is ready to plunk down their money?

 

I would also like to propose a $1000 manual for people really serious about getting everything into one concise manual.

(subsequent updates to be available at a substantial discount)

 

Who is ready to plunk down their money for that?

 

Barring all of that, who is ready to plunk down $10 for a new manual (in advance)?

 

Come on people. We don't need a kickstarter for this.

Cut out that middle man! Hire some A:M Pros to create you a manual.

[Simon Edmondson]

I can be more specific with my gripes about the tech ref. Even knowing the terms, it's very difficult to find the information.

 

...

 

 

I think Nancy put it very clearly,

unlike the book itself.

Simon

[robcat2075]

Is there a good example of a complete tech ref that we might model a revised A:M tech ref on?

 

I think what people really want is more context and examples for each feature. That would be a very huge endeavor.

[Simon Edmondson]

It's like putting a bell on the cat. Everyone thinks it's a good idea but... who will do it?

 

I think we can find people to do it with little problem.

Getting people to pay for a manual is a problem of a different color.

 

 

 

I think I am about to regret opening my big mouth but, I may be prepared to do it for free. It will obviously take some time but we ( collectively ) would need to agree a structure for the content?

 

As to costs of the book, would it need to cost more than the current tech ref book? It could be done as a PDF that came with the program and sold separately for those ( like me ) who prefer to read off the page rather than the screen.

In the words of the old Smiths song,

"Big Mouth Strikes Again..."

simon

[Darkwing]

You beat me to it, I was gonna offer the same! Maybe a joint effort? Would definitely take time, but I think it could actually be a bit of fun!

[Darkwing]

And Robert, here;s Maya's. I haven't explored it too much, but it does appear to be quite...thorough

 

http://download.autodesk.com/us/maya/2011help/index.html

[Simon Edmondson]

You beat me to it, I was gonna offer the same! Maybe a joint effort? Would definitely take time, but I think it could actually be a bit of fun!

 

I'd be happy to co operate. Its a little daunting as a prospect but could allow me to learn a lot.

simon

[robcat2075]

Simon, are you on V17?

 

the current move is to put all the techref available interactively. You on a parameter and the text from the tech ref will come up. I think future efforts should go into making that interactive resource contain better information.

 

 

And Robert, here;s Maya's. I haven't explored it too much, but it does appear to be quite...thorough

 

http://download.autodesk.com/us/maya/2011help/index.html

 

The Maya Help appears voluminous to me, but after observing numerous Maya users at 11 sec Club I don't think it is a complete solution either.

 

 

Consider this quick random check...

 

I look up "Save As"

 

the Maya Help takes me to:

 

You will paint a dinosaur model we prepared for this lesson.

 

Do the steps outlined in Preparing for the lessons...

 

huh? buried in the text is a use of something similar to "Save As" but not an explanation.

 

 

But Maya's Help is not a bad one, but who would write all the extra explanatory information? Who actually knows enough about A:M to do that correctly and and can write well enough that no one will complain in the future that the techref is inadequate?

[Darkwing]

I think for that what would have to be done is a couple things. Asking those who know about those features to explain them, second, scour the forum for material relating to it and draw from that and third, use the current tech ref as much as possible. I think the goals here are more to reorganize and add the newer stuff, than to re-write the entire book from scratch.

[Simon Edmondson]

I think for that what would have to be done is a couple things. Asking those who know about those features to explain them, second, scour the forum for material relating to it and draw from that and third, use the current tech ref as much as possible. I think the goals here are more to reorganize and add the newer stuff, than to re-write the entire book from scratch.

 

Robert

I'm still on V15j but 17 is not too far away.

 

I'm not in a position to comment on the technical info contained in the ref because I don't have the knowledge to verify it. At risk of sounding immodest ( something I try to avoid ), I may be able to help on designing a structure for it, as I used to specialise in curriculum design at my last job, designing the first modular Art and Design course in the country at National Diploma level. I would be happy to try it if needed.?

simon

[robcat2075]

I'm not in a position to comment on the technical info contained in the ref because I don't have the knowledge to verify it. At risk of sounding immodest ( something I try to avoid ), I may be able to help on designing a structure for it, as I used to specialise in curriculum design at my last job, designing the first modular Art and Design course in the country at National Diploma level. I would be happy to try it if needed.?

 

I agree it is needed. Whatever is done needs to work as much as possible with the new online help implemented in v17. I think that is the future rather than a book, although if it were possible to compile that into a coherent book as an option that would be useful too.

[Simon Edmondson]

I agree it is needed. Whatever is done needs to work as much as possible with the new online help implemented in v17. I think that is the future rather than a book, although if it were possible to compile that into a coherent book as an option that would be useful too.

 

I'm not a programmer by even the strongest stretch of imagination but, does the V17 help act as guide to an established reference system or is it a stand alone product ?

 

By which I mean, is it context relevant, you hold the pointer there and it tells you what that does because the help and info is built into the system at that point in the program.

Or

Does the position of the pointer determine which part of the help file is referenced in a completely separate section.

 

If its separate might that make the task of co ordinating it easier.

If its inbuilt that would make extracting it a lot tougher and more time consuming.?

regards

The mouth like a gold fish

[NancyGormezano]

V17:

the current move is to put all the techref available interactively. You on a parameter and the text from the tech ref will come up. I think future efforts should go into making that interactive resource contain better information.

 

This is a fabulous new feature, and I have used it already and have picked up new info. Excellent! I definitely feel that this would be the way to go. It also helps in that each version (from here on) could be kept current if features change from one version to next (yes, requires someone to document/change document new/changed feature, in each release)

 

The task remaining with the ver 17 interactive techref, so far is that the info is incomplete, and it's not clear how to contribute, or to hyperlink to additional info, tuts that probably exist already (in some online doc, forum discussion?). Info in current techref, if available, could be copy/pasted? perhaps?

 

If any standalone document is to be created fresh: It should be a QUICKSTART manual with the Basic concepts of A:M. And like any good quick start, it explains the user interface first thing, then perhaps launches into an overview/quick easy of the steps for creating that first Project. Identify the Inputs (external assets), the Processes (modeling, texturing, rigging, animating, lighting, special effects) and the Outputs (rendering). BASIC stuff only, with perhaps links to more detail. Perhaps also introduce A:M unique spline concepts as well.

 

Assume people just want to know about how to use A:M only. They do not want it to be mixed (at this new user point) with the subjective, art stuff, that pertains to every software package: eg., What makes good animation, good characters, good texturing, good lighting, good story, etc,

 

The Maya Outline table of contents is an example of subjects, not necessarily the endall outline. And I agree when I go to investigate their topics, I am not that impressed with the content. Documentation, writing User Manuals is an art.

[Rodney]

I'm smiling a lot as I read this topic because I was here back in 2003 wanting the exact same things.

I wanted this stuff so much that I got angry.

 

Why wasn't more information available?

Why wasn't there a better manual?

Why wasn't anybody listening to me?

Didn't I just pay for this software?

Didn't I deserve a new manual?

 

Shortly thereafter I got an email response to one of my posts from Martin Hash himself. (I swear...my heart departed clean out o' my chest)

Here was the grand pooba himself going to ban me to oblivion forever and then...only then... utterly crush my head.

 

Instead Martin just thanked me for my help with new users and asked if I would be interested in moderating a new users forum focused on their manual, "The Art of Animation:Master"... which he referred to as 'ToaA:M' and to which he confidently claimed was 'The Way of A:M').

 

It wasn't until people started asking their questions in that new forum that I realized I had never actually read through any of Hash Inc's manuals.

[robcat2075]

Waiting for someone to step up and put the bell on it...

 

[itsjustme]

So, the Wiki won't work (it appears to be offline at the moment)? I think that fully utilizing the A:M Wiki would satisfy everyone...searchable, easily maintained, etc. If you couple that with video tutorials in A:M Films and the information in this forum, I don't see how any gap couldn't be filled. Just my 2 cents.

[robcat2075]

So, the Wiki won't work (it appears to be offline at the moment)? I think that fully utilizing the A:M Wiki would satisfy everyone...searchable, easily maintained, etc. If you couple that with video tutorials in A:M Films and the information in this forum, I don't see how any gap couldn't be filled. Just my 2 cents.

 

The new AMA feature has the ability to link to the web also so there' no reason the wiki (where is it?) coulnd't be a part of that.

 

However AFAIK, one problem with AMA is that it only works on actual property parameters, other interface elements like buttons are not in its scope..

[itsjustme]

So, the Wiki won't work (it appears to be offline at the moment)? I think that fully utilizing the A:M Wiki would satisfy everyone...searchable, easily maintained, etc. If you couple that with video tutorials in A:M Films and the information in this forum, I don't see how any gap couldn't be filled. Just my 2 cents.

 

The new AMA feature has the ability to link to the web also so there' no reason the wiki (where is it?) coulnd't be a part of that.

 

However AFAIK, one problem with AMA is that it only works on actual property parameters, other interface elements like buttons are not in its scope..

 

The Community tab can open the Wiki as far as I know (when it's online)...I don't think it has to be tied to a button other than that.

[robcat2075]

What I'm saying is... you can't on a button to find out about it like you can for a property. You'd have to go hunt for it and get the name exactly right.

 

Not that we haven't expected users to be able to do that in the past, but it's something AMA doesn't extend to yet.

[Rodney]

A:M: Answers is a great example of using information that is there already waiting to be read.

It is interesting to note that the majority of what we see in A:M Answers properties has been there since circa v9 to v11.

It is also no coincidence that it is almost exactly same information found in the Tech Ref. (to understand why read on)

 

Jason Hampton has even more lofty ideas for A:M Answers, but since he's not been here championing A:M Answers regularly we've lost his vision.

The genius of Steffen, adding to Jason's initial idea was to access A:M internal information; information that has always been there.

But where did that information come from? It certainly didn't write itself. The Hash Inc programmers wrote in the properties as they put together the properties themselves so they themselves could better locate and remember them.

 

But that accounts for the properties themselves. It doesn't account for all the properties variables and the mixing of different properties together. In order to document them, the programmers would have to test out all of those out.

 

In a similar vein we could ask ourselves how someone like David Rogers could write a whole book on A:M and so meticulously document its features.

Answer: He went through and pushed every button and tested every option to see what that feature/property did. He then added it to the documentation he had collected and moved on to the next feature. He collected every tip he could find and smashed together thousands of emails sent via the Animaster mailing list. No doubt he then shared his draft book with a bunch of A:M Users who set about validating his documentation and where highly appreciative of having access to his compilation. They should be they gained a great deal of expertise in the making of it.

 

This is how we would have approach a comprehensive manual... click on every button and test out every option... and that'll take time. We've got it pretty easy comparatively though because we've already got a lot written up on all the major features already.

[Darkwing]

o.O This topic exploded in the few hours I was at work! Lots of reading to do!!

[Rodney]

o.O This topic exploded in the few hours I was at work! Lots of reading to do!!

 

To anyone who hasn't been through a few of these it probably looks pretty crazy.

But bottom line, it's a topic of great interest to everyone.

I do keep thinking... hoping... that during one of these iterations we'll see it solved.

 

I wish it was as easy as belling a cat because we'd have already solved it.

 

There is one sure way to optimize documentation.

Record and share everything. Or, alternatively, allow someone to spy on you and record everything you do.

That's what Google does. (Well, minus some of the sharing part)

 

Easy peasy nice and cheesy.

Cats and mice all working together.

Aha! Problem solved.

[itsjustme]

To anyone who hasn't been through a few of these it probably looks pretty crazy.

But bottom line, it's a topic of great interest to everyone.

I do keep thinking... hoping... that during one of these iterations we'll see it solved.

 

I wish it was as easy as belling a cat because we'd have already solved it.

 

There is one sure way to optimize documentation.

Record and share everything. Or, alternatively, allow someone to spy on you and record everything you do.

That's what Google does. (Well, minus some of the sharing part)

 

Easy peasy nice and cheesy.

Cats and mice all working together.

Aha! Problem solved.

 

I will repeat:

 

So, the Wiki won't work (it appears to be offline at the moment)? I think that fully utilizing the A:M Wiki would satisfy everyone...searchable, easily maintained, etc. If you couple that with video tutorials in A:M Films and the information in this forum, I don't see how any gap couldn't be filled. Just my 2 cents.

 

And that's the last time I will hammer this, since it doesn't appear to have any traction. I just think that a printed manual has nothing on a well maintained Wiki...which is an easy way to keep things current, searchable, easily maintained and free. Okay, now that's four cents...done.

[Darkwing]

Well, as has been mentioned more or less above, the information is essentially there. So in my opinion, with that in mind, one doesn't necessarily have to be a technical genius to put something like a reference manual together. What they would have to be good at/willing to do...is scour EVERYTHING! Compile everything from the old techref, AMA, Wiki, The Forum and make it concise and easily navigable. I agree, this shouldn't really be so much about the "art" but the technology. In fact TAoAM is in theory about the well, art of animation master. On that note, I kinda always saw TAoAM as the Quick Start Guide that I think Nancy mentioned. Probably, in an ideal world, there would be two editions of the tech ref. One is comprehensive and mind bogglingly long. The other is a quick and dirty jump start on interface, basic modelling, rigging, action and chor tools. Similar to TAoAM but lacking the art element and just focusing on the toolset more or less.

 

Someone also mentioned about people not necessarily knowing what exactly to call something, making searching difficult. I know first hand (as I'm sure we all do) that this can be hard. How many times have you seen something done once, but try and search the forum for it and you can have a doozy of a time locating it. One would hope that with a more logical organizational approach to the ref itself, that one wouldn't need to fully know the correct terminology of something. But if you knew it was related to say materials, then you start by looking at the materials section (which would house naturally all things materials). None of this jumping around stuff that the current ref seems to be plagued by.

 

I think Robert was the one who brought up the interactivity. We have these various pieces of information resources at our disposal (AMA, TAoAM etc) so what we need is some way to fully unify all of them. Each one obviously has their pros and cons, but finding some way of kinda integrating them all together in some fashion could potentially be beneficial. I like the idea of something interactive that can also be easily converted to a book. I know it would be helpful to have what would essentially be a "dictionary of Animation Master" sitting next to my computer. And come to think of it, what I do have is Rogers' book and TAoAM. As great as both of those are, there's still a lot lacking from them.

 

As for the wiki, yeah, I dunno what's up with that. The wiki is probably the best interactive method I can think of right now too, but on that note, I think it would be a good idea to be able relatively quickly and easily, compile it all into book format too. It could just be a victim of all that server stuff Jason was doing there a while back.

[Rodney]

I will repeat:

 

QUOTE(itsjustme @ Sep 13 2012, 05:02 PM)

So, the Wiki won't work (it appears to be offline at the moment)? I think that fully utilizing the A:M Wiki would satisfy everyone...searchable, easily maintained, etc. If you couple that with video tutorials in A:M Films and the information in this forum, I don't see how any gap couldn't be filled. Just my 2 cents.

 

And that's the last time I will hammer this, since it doesn't appear to have any traction. I just think that a printed manual has nothing on a well maintained Wiki...which is an easy way to keep things current, searchable, easily maintained and free. Okay, now that's four cents...done.

 

David,

I wrote up a lengthy response that focused on wikis but decided it was too self-defeating to post. I want wikis to work so why (short of reality) should I speak against them?

I wanted the TWO wiki to be a lot more than it turned out to be too. (I should have begged for support from the forum and perhaps it would be)

Historically, at least three A:M wikis were launched and heading in the right direction when the primary supporter of the wiki backed away... and eventually left completely. Eh?

 

I want to support the wiki and the best way I know to do that is to keep the forum organized so that information here can eventually be transferred to the wiki.

 

The barrier that I see to most of these repeating problems is primarily one of access... the rest is maintenance (never a fun thing to deal with).

One or two people, as wonderful as they may be, will always form a bottleneck in an otherwise open system if they are the sole gatekeepers.

As long as access is limited, so will be the resulting documentation.

So we get high hopes.... dashed... and the cycle repeats itself again.

 

This has been a problem with the wikis

This is a problem with A:M Films

This will be a problem with A:M Answers

This is NOT a problem with the A:M Forum. Wha? Why is that?

I submit to you that it is because there are, to the greatest extent possible, no gatekeepers and Hash Inc picks up the tab for all fees.

 

Hmm...

 

That is why I place the majority of (but certainly not all of) my effort here in the forum.

 

Did I mention I also really want an A:M wiki?

In case I didn't, for the record: I'd really love to work with someone on creating the ultimate wiki. But I don't think the best approach is to type in thousands of wiki entries manually. No, there are better ways.

 

Chris,

I haven't forgotten your post! I'll try to turn to it shortly.

 

Aside: Is this what we call the 'Brainstorming' stage?