AM Marketing?

[strato]

Does it exist? Why is AM increasingly unknown by the upcoming kids that should use it? Everybody knows Blender by now,

and of course its free, but for Character animation its still a big pain to learn. Looking at the Hash forum, it tops at 300 viewers.

AM community has reduced to a club of a few contributors, and I believe its a political issue. First, it is not opening itself to

new talent, it barely offered a trial version (way too late). It left all the public forums, or their moderators had a falling out.

It presents itself as a basic intro to character animation but misses to convey its sophistication. On the other hand it has

a slow render and it doesn't play well with others. It sure was great to be the ultimate underdog in 1995 when Maya and

Softimage fetched unheard of prices, but today I believe it should present itself as a hip alternative and try to offer better

integration of FBX,BVH and other animation files and ways to alter them. It needs to shed its Waldorf image and consdider the younger crowd which grows up on Minecraft, Blender, Apple and Python. Of course this is by no means a new lament and I am not sure who at the helm of AM actually cares, or if there actually is a helm, but if it keeps its monastic persuits there

will be no heirs to a fantastically clear software since soon nobody will ever heard of it. It lacks aspirational advertising more than

another render feature which is available for free somewhere else. If anything within the software it should strengthen its

allready strong animation features, maybe improve on the readability of the relationships and the hirarchies, maybe a few

modeling tools, but altogether its incredibly logic and a pleasure to use. But who knows that, every other software is thrown at

You for free where ever You go, but AM has become invisible. 3D Character Animation is one of the greatest achievements

of artistic expression in the last 20 Years and AM has all the tools for it since early on, why not bring it to the kids which grew up

on it.

[Rodney]

It is admirable that you have a desire for others to enjoy the great program you have access to Rolf.

Beyond having inspirational advertising though I'm not quite sure what you are proposing.

We could play the game of "If only A:M had it would be successful".

Everyone has a few of those and I see you have listed a few yourself.

 

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying 'future proofing' A:M would be aided by the following:

- FBX integration

- improved BVH support

- aspirational/Inspirational advertisement

- more kids, forum members, talent and contributors

- an outreach program

- faster rendering

- full integration with other software

- identity as a hip alternative to other software

- integration of other animation file formats and the ways and means to alter those

- heirs to the A:M legacy

- additional strengthening of (currently strong) animation features

- improved readability of relationships and their hierarchies

- a few more modeling tools

- more marketing

Those shouldn't be too hard to implement.

For what it's worth, I'm in full agreement with you.

[ludo_si]

I quite agree.

More openness to other software, faster rendering and can be more aggressive marketing would be good.

Already the new website is more pleasant.

AM is an example of ease of use to animate. We should hear about it. But I never see advertising about AM.

AM is really interesting to animate characters, it should be better known.

[fae_alba]

pricey propositions. Marketing alone can be a budget buster. While all that is possible, you would be kissing your $79 a year subscription rate goodbye. How much are you willing to pay for all of these goodies? There's a reason the other animation products cost so much in the beginning, because software development is expensive.

[zandoriastudios]

I think that the real survival and growth of this community is not in attracting new users to the software, or in trying to add more features. What will draw users (subscribers) is the need to learn the tools to be able to work with the software on a group project. I think that Martin saw the "dead end" that animation software was as a business--and the alternative model of creating and owning an intellectual property, of becoming a studio!

The TWO project was initiated to "shake-down" the software on an animated feature. It accomplished that, but also shook apart the community... Now that enough time has passed, I see that that shake up was inevitable, but also that it was necessary. The road-tested version of A:M must become the in-house software for a distributed animation studio(s). As new animators come onboard of projects, they will pick-up and learn the software. Their subscriptions will be paid for by those studios in a commercial project, or by the animators themselves in a group collaboration (where those artists share the copyright to the intellectual property that they create).

 

The old model was/is a dead end. Subscriptions will sustain a small stream of revenue, but dwindling population of users.... The studio model is the only future. Whether movies, animated series, or games--creating the intellectual property is where the money is. Martin saw that--at the same time he chafed under the feature requests of his studio users, saying that they treated programmers as garage mechanics--He saw that creating a studio (AM Films) was the way forward....

 

My question is this: What did we learn from that painful experience, that will help guide us forward? Because we MUST move forward.

[Rodney]

More openness to other software

 

I'd personally like to see other software more open to A:M

Hash Inc has been going it alone for most of it's 25 years because other software companies haven't been up to the challenge (i.e they invested deeply into different often incompatible approaches).

That is changing (usually in fits and starts) because technology stands still for no one.

As a case in point the FBX format...

 

FBX has only been a viable format (for what it is presumed folks would like to use it for now) since about 2006.

It started life as a motion capture format and after years of making the rounds to different owners was finally extended to its current usage.

Since then the format has continued to be refined to overcome encountered obstacles... but here then it meets with other incompatible formats.

And so the cycle of advancement in technology continues.

 

But all of this assumes a few things that aren't (from all perspectives) universally true or precisely definable.

For instance, being 'a hip alternative to other software that is fully compatible with that other software' is a pretty tall order.

How many new forum members do we need? What should we do with the ones that are 'less talented'?

Will an influx of highly motivated kids add significantly to the signal to noise ratio?

Will those that desire support their own stated goals.

 

History has proven that 99% of those who are passionately devoted to ideas are in love with those ideas *until* they become reality.

Often at that point they become discouraged because the intial implementation of that idea isn't 'fully formed'. Learning took place.

This is why most technicians don't require (or allow?) customers to view the whole process of a solution... because when the engine of their car is ripped out and scattered all over the garage... they will likely get discouraged... perhaps even fearful. In their shortsightedness they might even abandon the process that they claimed was so vital before.

 

But this is all a lot like making an animated movie; ideas are easy. Making that movie is hard.and at best very time consuming. It requires commitment.

At least it does if we ever want to see the final results.

 

 

Edit: Well said Will!

My question is this: What did we learn from that painful experience, that will help guide us forward? Because we MUST move forward.

 

I'd say exactly what you've done with your short film... stop making excuses and waiting for to appear fully formed.

Use the software as it is right now.

[pixelplucker]

For me I had used some big pricey software and had glimpses of Hash back in the mid 90's and always was curious and at the time I was weary because the price tag was so low. Typically I was used to paying more for a single plug in for either Max or EI that AM seemed chintzy.

 

Wasn't until I was over on the pc side fully and looking for alternatives to what I was using that i gave AM a try.

 

Hash should seriously look at Steam for distribution. Steams vast audience would explode this forum with new users. Hash may have to redo their copy protection as a new version for Steam only consumers since Steam has it's own and pretty effective protection.

[Rodney]

Hash should seriously look at Steam for distribution.

 

Do you know anyone that is currently distributing their product through steam?

 

 

Steams vast audience would explode this forum with new users.

 

 

Someone convince me this would be a good thing.

 

Hash may have to redo their copy protection as a new version for Steam only consumers since Steam has it's own and pretty effective protection.

 

 

Various copy protection schemes have been used before so others could be used also.

 

Hash should seriously look at Steam for distribution.

 

If it could be shown to be profitable I'm sure his could be accomplished but I expect the constraints in getting from here to there are considerable.

Start a topic devoted to Steam distribution of community products (your own or someone else's) and we can do the ground work to demonstrate its viability for A:M as well.

 

If we could define the following that would also be useful:

- vast audience (a rough estimate of the number members in that audiece would be a good starting point... factoring for activity in that audience also being important)

- pretty effective protection (not sure how to measure this and it's unlikely Valve publishes data publicly... also, more interest and access increases risk... it would be good to see what Valve claims concerning their security)

 

Since we are dreaming of the future, perhaps we could go all out and create a new A:M related product for Steam.

[pixelplucker]

3d Coat has started distributing on Steam along with many other programs besides just games, ie video editors, 3d paint programs, texture programs, game development packages, music editors etc.

 

They have 75 million users that see a start up page when starting the program that directs them to new, sale etc items.

 

Not sure on how the current copy protection will work with Steams or if it is adapable, something the programmers have to investigate. Steams works by allowing the user to launch apps through their program that talks back to the users account similar to MS Live.

 

Again it is something to investigate.

[fae_alba]

I think that the real survival and growth of this community is not in attracting new users to the software, or in trying to add more features. What will draw users (subscribers) is the need to learn the tools to be able to work with the software on a group project. I think that Martin saw the "dead end" that animation software was as a business--and the alternative model of creating and owning an intellectual property, of becoming a studio!

The TWO project was initiated to "shake-down" the software on an animated feature. It accomplished that, but also shook apart the community... Now that enough time has passed, I see that that shake up was inevitable, but also that it was necessary. The road-tested version of A:M must become the in-house software for a distributed animation studio(s). As new animators come onboard of projects, they will pick-up and learn the software. Their subscriptions will be paid for by those studios in a commercial project, or by the animators themselves in a group collaboration (where those artists share the copyright to the intellectual property that they create).

 

The old model was/is a dead end. Subscriptions will sustain a small stream of revenue, but dwindling population of users.... The studio model is the only future. Whether movies, animated series, or games--creating the intellectual property is where the money is. Martin saw that--at the same time he chafed under the feature requests of his studio users, saying that they treated programmers as garage mechanics--He saw that creating a studio (AM Films) was the way forward....

 

My question is this: What did we learn from that painful experience, that will help guide us forward? Because we MUST move forward.

 

Will,

 

This is something I've been trying to get going with Papa Bear for a while now. Rodney and I have had plenty of conversations on different approaches. I like the idea of a "virtual studio" that not only creates its own properties, but fosters the creation of properties of those artists associated with the studio. It's a concept that I hope to revisit after the holidays. I've begun work on the first title "Gone Fishin'" already, and have several other scripts that I have been mulling over for years now. It all boils down to time for me; I've been logging between 80 and 100 hours of work per week since August, so not much time for story telling.

 

At any rate what you describe is exactly what I've been trying to get off the ground for a while now.

[largento]

I, for one, don't know what Hash, Inc. does as far as marketing A:M.

 

My impression is that they are keeping A:M afloat so as not to leave any of us high and dry, but I don't think there's a scenario where they are trying to compete in the market space anymore.

 

Let's face it, creating your own 3D animated movie is a lot of work and more work than the majority of people would ever consider putting into it. I've been part of the community here for less than eight years and I've seen many enthusiastic users who start epic projects and despite progress along the way, simply disappear and are never heard from again.

 

Steve Jobs thought everyone would want Pixar's software when he bought them from George Lucas. He thought everyone with a home computer would want to create these 3D environments and characters and make their own animations. Turns out, it was just too difficult, so Pixar had to switch from being a software company to being a studio with its own software.

 

I didn't come to A:M until after the virtual studio idea was in its last stages. My assumption, is that for whatever reason, the decision was made to not pursue it any further. Not being part of that process, I haven't any guesses as to why.

 

Martin does say in his memoirs that if there was a company looking to absorb A:M into their studio, he'd discuss it ...as long as Hash received something substantial in the process. I don't think any of us are independently wealthy enough to swing that. :-)

 

If some big studio with the capital came along and bought A:M to use for their productions, I'd be the first to stand in line to get a job with them, but I think that's wishful thinking at this point.

 

I'm just thankful I can still use A:M. :-)

[Fuchur]

It is not totally mute... Jason is visiting trade shows quite often but yes, it is a low budget marketing that is done.

A:M never had a marketing compareable to the one from the larger players in the business... somewhere I read a comment from Martin, where he stated, that other companies bought their userbase with much money.

Hash never did that. The result is obvious but I still think it was the right way, since it is just the honest way.

 

There are other players on the market most people are not aware of like Strata3d, Shade3d and a few more.

Today A:M is mostly community driven. If people do great things, A:M is visible too. If not it is not. That is as simple as it gets.

[pixelplucker]

Not sure if AM really needs to compete on an open market platform since all the tools you need are pretty much in one package.

Compatibility becomes an issue when you need to keep up with the i/o of other formats and other programs to complete a job. AM's target audience is the single user who wants to create their own animations and renders.

 

Since there is the ability to bring AM content into various game engines is certainly attractive to some of the audience in the Steam marketplace. Many that use programs such as Blender get discouraged with it's convoluted bloated interface. If I had to use Blender for my work I would start a landscaping business...

 

Someone else had suggested Steam for distribution before me and after looking I totally agreed with them. Getting the name out there is tough, todays marketing isn't all about the product but rather data mining and In-Your-Face ads that annoy most potential customers. Buying magazine ads is useless since magazines are rare and a good portion of the audience don't even read so your limited to the Internet especially since this product is for the most part electronically distributed.

 

More users the more revenue AM has to expand and put in more features and those features will be more in tune with what the users will want.

[Astrin]

Guys,

 

I find these responses very interesting. For a long time I visited and hung around a user-site developed for Imagine, the 3D program started on the Amiga and ported to the PC. Don't remember Imagine? How about Silver, and then Turbo Silver, Imagine's predecessors. Too far back? Martin had something called Multiplane and Animation Stand (hard to remember exactly) back in those days. The point is Imagine is gone and so is that user site. Funny thing is, people on that site always talked about how much better "feature x" was in Imagine than in today's packages. Really? Seriously? For a program that hadn't been updated in Donkey's Years?

 

IMHO, Martin never let a Marketing Opportunty get in the way of annoying or alienating any and everyone. Now, Animation Master has soldiered on, but it still looks like it belongs on Windows XP at best, more like Windows 98. If Blender's UI is difficult and off-putting, AM has had a lot longer to build a coherent, approachable UI, but it still hasn't happened. AM is still hard to use and looks dated and sorry guys -- ugly.

 

So what a jerk I am for saying all these negative things. What are my great ideas, huh Big Mouth, how are you going to fix things?

 

Okay, so I worked on the beta test team for the last iterations of Shade 3D, a program that for most of my computing life I found ugly and difficult to use. Turns out it's actually a very nice program, once I got used to it. It became easier once I learned a few things about the UI, especially how I could use it more like modo, a program that is both complex and joyous to use, again IMHO. ZBrush was a very ugly program at its inception, but it became much slicker and gorgeous, but in the end it has become more complex than the Space Shuttle, which is why Dr. Petter and his wonderfully approachable Sculptris now reside at ZBrush the company. Strata3D, another old-timer that actually looks lovely on the mac and not-so on the PC, has a feature set that went beyond what I expected or thought existed. I could go on, and not just for 3D, but for 2D animation and paint, heck even for audio editing and music production.

 

So in the end, without a steady influx of users, including new users, software dies and so does the company that produces it. No new users, no growth, no incentive to improve the s/w and make it viable for the users. When I got laid off during the dot-com bust of 2000, Autodesk made ALL of its s/w available for free, for us, the newly displaced, which is something I still am grateful for. Autodesk was being gracious but smart -- the laid off would get new jobs, and why not get them to learn Autocad and 3D Max, etc. BUT, Autodesk doesn't make s/w for the jobless or for hobbyists and tinkerers (like me) -- and neither should Hash. Hence, the need for new users, people who are actually making money using AM, and not just old duffers who "remember when....."

 

Steam is a great idea, something Shade was looking into, but Shade has been sold and is in a bit of flux right now. Even Silo is now on Steam, but the last time Silo was updated was when I started shaving. I promise you, if AM shows up on Steam, most folks will complain at how difficult it is to use and how ugly it looks. Again, I'm sorry, because it is obvious to me that folks have really tried hard to improve and keep AM current, using what resources are available. But there aren't enough programmers and designers working on AM, and maybe, without new users and that added revenue, there never will be. But, in my humble opinion, and this will surely bring the wrath of God down on me, as long as Martin is involved, AM Marketing will be fruitless and pointless. Better the company be sold, the s/w rewritten from the ground up, and some fresh ideas injected.

 

I apologize if any of this is offensive and demeaning to anyone, especially for your efforts which I am grateful for. Little venting is all.

 

Ben

 

 

[Fuchur]

I just dont see it that way. A:M always has been very easy to use especially compared to blender. it is not looking as a new software does (GUI design is outdated) but the flow in the software is extremly well compared to everything else I have used out there. what most people do find to be difficult is that A:M has not 20 ways to do one task and does not do it boxmodelling wise. but that does not make it hard to use but ver simple to use IF you can think clean and fresh and you do not try to force the way you use other software on A:M. if you try that, A:M will not work well.

 

the biggest and best thing about A:M is the very well designed workflow ut provides. but it needes you to use the workflow...

 

as far as i know martin is no longer involved very much into marketing today which is why you have been able to write that post . in former days this one would have vanished after a few minutes .

 

the problem i see with the gui is an interesting one. many users i know put off the nice looking buttons and effects to increase performance or get more screenspace anyway... still i think it would be a good idea to update it... steffen thought about that already but it would be a mayor task because it would have to be written with a new gui framework like QT. i hope it will be done but I amnot sure this will happen soon because of the amount of work it would make...

[nemyax]

Even Silo is now on Steam, but the last time Silo was updated was when I started shaving.

 

Actually there was an update quite recently. I'd also thought Silo was dead.

 

A:M always has been very easy to use especially compared to blender.

 

As a Blender user, I disagree. I do not find A:M particularly easy to use.

 

The road-tested version of A:M must become the in-house software for a distributed animation studio(s). As new animators come onboard of projects, they will pick-up and learn the software. Their subscriptions will be paid for by those studios in a commercial project, or by the animators themselves in a group collaboration (where those artists share the copyright to the intellectual property that they create).

 

The old model was/is a dead end. Subscriptions will sustain a small stream of revenue, but dwindling population of users.... The studio model is the only future.

 

Seconded wholeheartedly. As a real-world example, Blender's development has been project-driven for a few years, and Blender has gone from the bizarre gimmick that was 2.3* to the powerhouse that it is now. But then, it has the unbounded energy of Ton Roosendaal behind it. It's unlikely Hash Inc. can pull off a similar trick.

[jakerupert]

Hi all,

 

This was my thought to help revive interest into AM:

Maybe i just posted it into the wrong TWO thread:

 

Hi Jason,

There was so many fantastic content created for this movie project.TWO

Maybe a comunity project could make sense to transfer these assets to gameready content?

For instance at the unitystore they sell quite a lot packages and sets for gamecreation.

That money could be used to finance and start a new collaborative animation project.

What do you think?

 

What do you guys think?

[Fuchur]

A:M always has been very easy to use especially compared to blender.

 

As a Blender user, I disagree. I do not find A:M particularly easy to use.

 

Of course you do . If you wrapped your head around the way Blender works, it is very likely to think in that way... it is as I say: People who started with one, have trouble adapting to the other. (one way or the other way round if the thinking behind the workflow is different)

 

I have used A:M, XSI and 3ds in production (realtime-3d projects, medical animation projects, technical visualisation projects) mainly and played with other software (Modo, Shade3d, C4d, Blender) and I still think A:M has the much easier and better workflow than any of the other software I used. It just is not that packed with in most cases unnecessary features which overcomplicate the interface and it is very intuitive especially if you are used to Adobe Illustrator and stuff like that. And due to the "work on one thing at a time" approach which some software had before (LW3d for instance) but did get rid of it, it is very easy to hold track of what you do. I am still not sure why many others have a one scene approach today,... in programming itis common sense to subdivide big tasks into small pieces, in 3d engines it still is common too, in most other production it is common sense to subdivide big tasks into small once... why put everything in one big fat interface with stuff I just do not need in my current workstate? Yes it has advantages when combining everything to the endproduct, but otherwise there is no real benefit to it... hiding does not do the same trick... position is offset with that and I still have to care too much about the rest in my scene... reusing and instanciating is harder and so on.

 

There is not one big thing I can put my finger on and say: "This is it what makes A:M cool!". It is a well balanced, well thought through and very continuious interface which makes it cool.

 

But this is just my opinion... people who started different may see it different. (I did not start with A:M... I started with a software called Monzoom3d (no longer under developement, powerless and horrible painful to use ) and used 3ds in my early years till I used A:M. I have used XSI and 3ds sometimes later on, but A:M just was better in terms of user interface and working behaviour. Most people who used A:M for more than a few days are more or less that opinion if you ask me... as Barry Zundel has stated (started way back with Maya and used most other software available): "In the ensuing years, I used A:M exclusively and came to understand what "usability" really is. It is still one of the best examples of a truly non-linear pipeline ever. Nothing that I have tried has ever come close.". I think he is absolutely right with that. It is exactly my experience.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Fuchur]

Hi all,

 

This was my thought to help revive interest into AM:

Maybe i just posted it into the wrong TWO thread:

 

Hi Jason,

There was so many fantastic content created for this movie project.TWO

Maybe a comunity project could make sense to transfer these assets to gameready content?

For instance at the unitystore they sell quite a lot packages and sets for gamecreation.

That money could be used to finance and start a new collaborative animation project.

What do you think?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Hi Jake,

 

sounds not bad to me... what do you have in mind there? Props and stuff like that or all the characters, etc. too?

I think interactive creation is a very nice field and Unity3d works quite well with A:M (or the other way round...).

 

Sounds promising to me especially with 3dCoat getting closer to A:M too, which could give us a great way to create cool textures for games etc. especially.

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[jakerupert]

I think what sells best are bundles and packs.

So for instance create a castle pack with the castle with all its props and a scenesetup

Or a village pack or landscape

And then do charapacks mybe animals, oz charas etc.

Maybe start with a small test project?

 

Fröhliche Weihnachten

 

Jost

[Vong]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Interesting to see that some of the ideas presented in this thread are similar to the ones us "old duffers" had back before the Great Exodus of 2005/2006.

 

I remember a time when A:M (and it's predecessors) were advertised. It wasn't advertised as much as the big boys, but it did happen. Mostly, A:M was marketed by word of mouth. I first heard about it from reading "The trueSpace Bible". As I recall it was in a side panel, that mentioned A:M's great character tools. That's what brought me to A:M.

 

Over the years, it was more the users that brought in the new blood than any real marketing. The work they were doing and showcasing in these forums, as well as other forums, was what brought in a lot of people. Users like Brian Prince, Joe Cosman, Victor Navone, Billy Eggington, Jeff Lew, Peter Lin, Armando Afre, Jim Talbot, Wesley Holder, and a crap load more that I'm forgetting. These artists were pushing the software to the extreme. It also helped that Hash was attending more trade shows and conventions back in the day, although now that I think about it, there were more trade shows and conventions to attend. Also, back then you didn't have a decent open source program to lure the masses that couldn't afford multi-thousand dollar programs. Thus A:M flourished. Today, I see some pretty awesome stuff, but the "Wow!" factor stuff doesn't seem to be as prevalent as it used to be.

 

The OP states that Hash seems to have left the public forums. Hash was never really involved all that much in the public forums. This forum here is where Hash did 95% of it's postings. The remaining 5% was split among the public forums, which were handled mostly by users. So saying they left, wouldn't be entirely accurate. They weren't really there. Even the IRC chat room #hash3d (which still exists), was abandoned in favor of the internal chat system in A:M.

 

Users have asked for a loooooong time for A:M to be more open to other software. Even LightWave has recently (since v10) seen that being part of a pipeline is better than not being in a pipeline at all. However, being open to other software is a 2 way road and something that Hash never seemed too interested in doing. Rodney made mention that he'd like to see other software being more open to A:M. That's not likely to happen, mostly because of A:M's spline technology. Even NURBS have been pushed aside in content creation, in favor of Sub-Division Surfaces and raw polygons. NURBS only truly exist still in CAD and Design packages now. I don't see any other programs implementing splines, but A:M could implement an SDS/poly workflow that might bring in some new blood.

 

FBX is a nice transport format, but it only understands SDS/polys. So going from A:M to another program works, but bringing it back into A:M could be troublesome. (Unless things have changed drastically!) And with Alembic becoming more popular....

 

Selling A:M on Steam might sound like a good idea, but I have doubts. Just because you could, doesn't mean you should. Licensing changes are one thing, but does Hash have the manpower/ability to support the program on 2 fronts? Better yet, do they have the will to want to support it on 2 fronts?

 

Pixelplucker pegged it. The target audience is a single user. And if we borrow from Hash.... That wants to create animated movies on their kitchen table! Pixelplucker goes on to say that Steam will be good for A:M and that more users equals more revenue, thus the ability to put more features into A:M. Guess what?!?! We were there!!! Asking for features to be implemented and in a timely fashion is partly what led to the Great Exodus of 2005/2006. Actual studios were using A:M in real production environments and were asking for features to be added. Martin got upset and noted that the software was never intended for studios, but for that single artist. Which then led to some things being said and some of the greats leaving. The only time after the Great Exodus and before all the programmers left, that I saw new features being added was in support of the films. Now times have changed and if there was the ability to hire more programmers and add new features, I say go for it.

 

A:M easy, Blender easy, it all depends on what YOU actually find easy. I know plenty of people that have had a hard time coming to grips with splines, while they can toss polys and SDS around like a pizza maker tossing a pie. But the same can be said in reverse. I've played around with quite a few programs and there is always that initial curve to get over. Blender has it and A:M has it. I didn't like Blender back in the 2.4x days, but it's easier now than it was. In fact I have come to count on it as one of my main players for getting client work done.

 

Faster rendering... Every package needs faster rendering. Until rendering speeds can catch up with the thought process of most humans, there will always be a need for faster rendering.

 

Will said that Martin created AM Films because he saw that it was the way forward. It was always the way forward. Martin started the software as a means to creating the films he wanted to make. Somewhere along the line he got caught up in the software and the films were relegated to the sidelines. A:M was a means to an end and it still is. I have great memories of using A:M and this community. I still check in from time to time, check out what's going on and sometimes say something. All software is a means to an end. It's not religion. All software dies eventually. You think that A:M is fading? Go hang out on the LightWave forums some time. LW has supposedly been dying since v6 was released and it's now at v12 (Better known as 2015). The good software, likes to linger on life support until it goes away naturally or the plug is pulled.

 

I haven't played around with A:M in a long time. I think A:M 2005 (whatever version that was) is the last version I have. The things I miss the most are A:M's kick ass animation tools and how easy texturing is. (At least that's how I remember it!) I think there could be a "new renaissance" with A:M if a poly/SDS modeling engine was added into it. I know it won't happen, but I can dream right? I've thought many times about buying a license again, but I haven't because A:M doesn't fit into my pipeline anymore. This could be the year that changes. I don't know. One thing I do know, is that I'm not ready to pull the plug on A:M yet. Sentimental? Maybe. But I have yet to find another community that equals what the A:M community was like all those years ago. Several come close, but they're not quite there.

 

So you want A:M to be marketed really well? Do some really kick ass art with it and start showing it around to forums other than this one here. Get your friends involved with A:M and have them start making kick ass art as well and showing it off.

 

The Power Is Yours!!!!!

 

[pixelplucker]

personally what has kept me with AM is the plain Jane interface. No abstract icons, consistent interface and workflow. The only other 3d package I used that I found as clean was EIAS and Amapi. To make a modern GUI might not be that tough but would it get more customers by looking like others out there?

 

For over a decade I over looked AM because of lack of product recognition in the mass market and it seems more of a trade secret.

 

I would think mass exposure would be first, glitz later.

[Roger]

Marketing on Steam could be a dual-edged proposition. There would be a massive influx of users, but if the support is not there they would drop out and spread negative word of mouth. I don't know exactly what the current state of Hash is but I gather it's essentially a skeleton crew at this point?

 

I do think the interface in AM is easier than most 3D apps, once you get used to it. I know that when I come back from a gap of working with it I pick things up fairly quickly.

 

The only real problem with AM as the "kitchen table animator" program is that no matter how good the software is, you're limited by the amount that one person can do. A feature film at Pixar quality would take a single person a lifetime or more.

 

The main stumbling blocks (as I see them) is even once you get a handle on modelling, there is a lot more that goes into a short film to get it made: rigging, lighting, texturing, actual animation. Each area is something that takes a significant time to master.

 

When I saw Mixamo I thought that was the answer to my prayers but it just will not work with AM. The only thing that is going to work there is slogging through the pain of rigging.

 

I just don't see a hybrid modeller with polygons being an option. I don't think it would be possible to integrate it with spline-based models. Import of static props is probably as good as it is going to get with respect to that.

 

I've seen so much change since I started mucking around with 3D software, I never thought you'd be able to walk around with the equivalent of a workstation in your pocket (although you can't really use a smartphone for doing 3D, in terms or raw horsepower it is equivalent to a mid to late 90s PC). I would very much like to see AM around for another 20-30 years, but

I'm not sure exactly what form that's going to be. While I don't think Martin would abandon it (and by extension, us) he may reach a point where he's interested in doing other things (which you could argue he's at now, with medical school and all).

I guess things can continue on as they are, but there will come a point in the future where that may not be the case, since nothing lasts forever.

 

And I'm not being critical here, I can definitely identify with getting a bit of wanderlust after doing one thing for a long time.

[jakerupert]

Martin has abandoned A:M a long time ago and left it to Jason and Steffen for maintainance, when he realized that he couldnt reach his goals with it. The TWO project was a kind of "all or nothing" thing. It proovedcertain abilities of the software, but on the other hand it also showed, that the content created was not marketable. So without any money everything fell apart. So as nice as the movies were, their effect were not a succses.

Thinking about the future, it would be interesting to know, what Jason and Steffen have planned.

Mabe they could shed some light?

One way would be to keep it as it is, keeping it going at its slow but steady pace.

I dont see the possibility of a real interchangeable pipeline with the polygoneworld as Martin always stated this was impossible or as costly as building a saturnrocket to reach the moon.

The oneway route from splnes to polygones stays intersting though.

I think a BPR renderer ,nearly realtime renderer with nextgen looks would be a great push forward for A:M

Dont know if this is realistic.

A connection to external renderers would be great anyway, as i think this is the biggest weakness of A:M right now.

 

A great year 2015 to all of you and may A:M always be with us!

 

Jake

[Rodney]

I want to cherry pick a few thoughts because they dovetail with the here and now of the forum (I can't accurately address the aspects of pining for the past or wishful thinking toward the future). I will say that the vast majority of folks that have had issues with A:M seldom actually use A:M... of course they would dearly love to use A:M... if specific features appeared fully formed (in the next release or I won't buy it)... if full compatibility is achieved with my primary software (immediately if not sooner)... if the stars align... etc.

 

he realized that he couldnt reach his goals with it.

 

We as a community (lead by Martin) achieved many if not all of the stated goals of TWO (we can itemize these if desired as that would be a great learning experience) but not all of his longer term aims for the community of A:M users have yet to be realized (it'll take time for those). For instance, a major trajectory post TWO was/is a 7 day production cycle for animated films.... that isn't 5 or 3 years folks... not even a year or 7 months... a *7 day production* cycle. The fascinating thing; it could have been.... and very nearly was realized but Martin's willpower alone wasn't sufficient to sustain that trajectory It'll take a thriving/active community to put that infrastructure into place. And frankly, we aren't quite up to that challenge yet. (slowly but surely we are getting there though and I'd say that a 7 day production cycle for a short ad/film is on the edge of being implementable right now)

 

Historically we as a community have relied a bit too heavily on a few very talented folks to carry us forward (often still do) but this can often be at the expense of the greater good of the community who are struggling to rise to that level of confidence, skill, experience, etc. often inside a vacuum (because after all... newbies should be seen and not heard). I recall once someone comparing me to the professional (money making) users of A:M saying that I wasn't a real user. However true that may be, this mentality is surely detrimental to us all. Stop pontificating and help me become a real user!

 

Aside: Did anyone notice that the second Oz movie was made with a fraction of the talent pool of the first film and yet is superior to TWO in many significant ways (or at least on par with it)?

This was the fulfillment of one of the goals set leading into TWO... to "Be able to do it again". Translation: Another accomplished goal as set forth from the very beginning. Interestingly, 'making money' wasn't a goal of TWO because Martin didn't see that as a realistic expectation. He said he'd give distribution a shot and he did exactly that. This showed a progression of folk that had never made a movie going into TWO that carried that experience forward to achieve completion of a second feature film. That is serious success in my book. If only the greater community appreciated those efforts to rise to the challenge of community filmaking more.

 

While on the subject of TWO...

 

I think what sells best are bundles and packs.
So for instance create a castle pack with the castle with all its props and a scenesetup
Or a village pack or landscape
And then do charapacks mybe animals, oz charas etc.
Maybe start with a small test project?

 

I'd like to think that models will sell but history hasn't borne that out.

The fact that the TWO models are already available for free likely wont help either.

Having said that I'd love to collaborate with someone interested in packaging up TWO assets for inclusion in the A:M Exchange forum or even to sell via the Hash store (if Hash Inc is game for that... that'd be quite a chore though). And while we are making plans, let's emphasize low cost... so we can all afford those resources.

If a higher price potential for the future is desired, perhaps we could price each bundle at $19.99 and periodically discount them 100%.

Seriously though... if anyone is interested... let's make a few bundles/packs.

These are great assets designed to be used in 3D animation. It'd be nice to see all the great A:M models in the community (not just TWO assets) get more screen time and distribution.

 

And a little far afield:

 

Rodney made mention that he'd like to see other software being more open to A:M. That's not likely to happen, mostly because of A:M's spline technology.

 

 

I occasionally use a few programs that if they were just free of the cursed triangles found in many 3D meshes could be beautifully compatible with A:M.

It's going to take years (and probably more than a few companies going out of business) before we see much improvement in this arena.

Why is this? Anticipated answer: Because few see sufficient profit in it.

They are already heavily invested in other approaches... why mess up a good thing.

[Roger]

I will freely admit that the few issues I have with AM are a result of not getting enough consistent practice in with it. I need to step up my game. I am in the difficult position of trying to "serve two masters", among other things.

 

I'm not sure I'm crazy about the idea of selling content packages, that sounds too much like Daz 3D but if the choice is that or AM going away completely, then I'd rather see it stick around.

 

I don't know that I could do a 7 day production cycle, but I do think any follow up film to my current film will progress much more quickly.

 

I guess we will need to see where things go.

[Rodney]

I don't know that I could do a 7 day production cycle, but I do think any follow up film to my current film will progress much more quickly.

 

In case I was a bit too cryptic with that description...

 

 

Creating a film (short or long) in seven days isn't going to be a one person journey.

The idea is to play to everyone's strengths in a community (and their current interests) and plus up the product as it passes through each gate.

Then as skills and interests improve or diverge the rising tide floats all boats to a sufficiently successful level to do it again and again (with people coming and going as they see fit).

This is not unlike what Jost was saying before with regard to creating packets/collections of models.

It's not essential that the product being produced is a film... the essential driver is the community the product is created in... and yes, also in the software used to create it.

This is where our community can play to A:M's strengths because not all software is created equal. Where it comes to it's unique splines and patches A:M is the only one even standing in the arena.

 

The seven day production cycle is certainly scaleable but it really does rely on collaboration.

We only have so many years of life... going it alone, how many feature films (or short films, or props and resources for your own personal production) can one reasonably expect to create in those years?

To get anything worthwhile accomplished I won't say that it takes an entire village, but it can help (and be a bit of fun) to enlist the aid of a few collaborators and friends.

[zandoriastudios]

I think 7 months might be more realistic (for a short)...I don't think you could write a (decent) story in 7 days!

[Rodney]

I don't think you could write a (decent) story in 7 days!

 

You may recall the 7 days begins *after* preproduction has ended as it only covers the period of production (a story-less project doesn't have anything identified that yet needs to be created).

Perhaps I can find the topic and point everyone to it but I believe it may have been in the private TWO thread.

In this way many productions would be in various states of preproduction with production only commencing upon a central project being green lit.

Think of it as a community that would take on different projects during the downtime between episodic production cycles for the various but never ending chapters of 'Tar of Zandoria'.

This prevents critical skills atrophying while waiting for the next script while granting some relief from continual work within the same project/genre.

While the swarm of production-hardened folk are devouring the primary production additional tasty treats are being cooked up for their consumption in the wings.

 

I'm enjoying this trip down memory lane but starting to remember why others where not in sync with Martin.

We couldn't possibly grasp the scope of his vision.

[jakerupert]

Hi Rodney,

 

I think we agree, that his vision was to become a filmproduction company, which ultimativlilly didnt work out for various reasons,one of which might have been his personality standing in his own way somehow. But the slashback was inevitable anyhow, after so many hard working collaborators realized during the project that the dream of "one man, one kitchentable, one movie" was still out of reach for the majority.

That was the risk of it, that the initiators maybe underestimated at startup.

If Walt Disney wouldnt have brought together Snowwhite in its final outstanding quality AND into the movietheaters, his company would have fallen apart also.

But these things of long past times almost 10 years by now, dont matter anymore.

They just teach us, that this path didnt work out for us and that we have to look for different ways.

And I think, since everything is a bit smaller scale these days, we have to adopt our plans to these circumstances and develop from there.

[pixelplucker]

Maybe something such as FBX I/O would be the key. If marketed on Steam, there is quite a large group of Indy developers for games and AM lends itself to that market pretty well.

 

There is a lot of competition but all those packages are in the $800+ mark.

[Rodney]

I think we agree, that his vision was to become a filmproduction company,

 

I don't know enough to say. I think Martin is deeper than that.

I appears to me that with TWO he was listening to his customers that wanted to create animated movies... so he said, "Let's do it. That's why I created A:M."

And here's the thing... we did!

 

this path didnt work out for us

 

The project was successful. As far as I know it wasn't commercially successful but many of those involved used TWO as a springboard to other success.

Participants gained experience, confidence and a lot of insight into how such projects get made.

In other words, exactly the opposite of 'this path didn't work for us'.

Just imagine if TWO had garnered the buy in from more of the many talented folks in the community, especially at those critical (and inevitable) stages where commitments fade.

I can only speak for myself and the primary reason I joined the effort was to learn how to make an animated movie.

While the jury is still out on how successful I was in actually learning how to make an animated movie some progress toward that goal (of learning the process through experience) was definitely made.

 

 

Maybe something such as FBX I/O would be the key.

 

Hey now, that's not marketing... that's development!

[Fuchur]

I think we can agree that some goals where matched, some where not for TWO... since there was no real "these are our goals!!"-list other than "lets make an animation movie" you could say it was successful but people had of course some things in mind that could not be matched. (tell me one project where this is different...)

 

For me this topic is already going into the too much talking about all stuff, but too less doing direction .

There is just not much use in saying why it did not work or if it worked... lets do what we thought about here...

 

Jake, what do you think would be a good package? TWO-content or something totally different?

 

I am just now playing a game called "Dead Island Epidemic" which seems to have been developed with unity... it is about zombies and some islands from the top down perspective with network/internet-multiplayer-content.

Quite fun for what it is...

http://store.steampowered.com/app/222900/

See you

*Fuchur*

[Rodney]

For me this topic is already going into the too much talking about all stuff, but too less doing direction .

 

Those that fail to plan, plan to fail etc.

 

The subject being 'marketing' it's interesting to note a few things one of the chiefest being that we don't adequately use the resources we already have available to us.

To chase after marketing is first to assume there is a market to pursue.

 

since there was no real "these are our goals!!"

 

but... but... when can we be rid of the misinformation that flows so freely through a forum that should know better.

There were very specific and itemized goals identified at the outset of TWO and they are just as applicable today as they were then.

...and scaleable.

 

But let's keep the focus on marketing.

There has always been a strange fascination within the A:M community for marketing of A:M. I'd tell you about of few of my own pet schemes but I'd surely bore you (the primary one was (initially) a printed magazine devoted to the interests of the A:M community. Ah, would that magazine not have been glorious! In a way we already had that magazine (in digital form)n the form of continuous updates of the A:M forum. It's just a bit less... graphic... than I originally imagined.

 

Martin had his finger on the pulse all along and knew content was key to the future (and that a solid franchise or two certainly wouldn't hurt). And with every A:M user having a myriad of projects they want to create going forward marketing becomes a natural by-product of the community. But much of this product is wasted because we havent quite figured out what to do with it.

 

It's been said multiple times in many different ways in this topic and elsewhere by many and varied people but to those that have a desire to market A:M to the masses I'd say the best advise that can be given is 'use A:M as it currently is to create your project'. Don't have a current project? Join with others who do. People will naturally want to know what you use to create your project and they in turn will spread the word.

 

In other marketing news: Has anyone else noticed we are getting spammed by emails every time a new update to A:M is released.

Congrats to whomever made that happen.

[NancyGormezano]

I think we can agree that some goals where matched, some where not for TWO... since there was no real "these are our goals!!"-list other than "lets make an animation movie" you could say it was successful but people had of course some things in mind that could not be matched. (tell me one project where this is different...)

 

There were goals from day 1 (which might have changed along the way)

 

But as they were last recorded, go see post #1 in Work Contract for TWO:

 

https://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=20519&p=163568

[Rodney]

Thanks Nancy!

[Vong]

I think 7 months might be more realistic (for a short)...I don't think you could write a (decent) story in 7 days!

If you have the right team, I think it could be done. South Park does what equates to a short in 6 days, with multiple "shorts" making up a season. If you can find it, check out the documentary "6 Days to Air : The Making of South Park". Very interesting stuff and some of their stories show you can write a decent (crass) story in a few days.

 

Of course, it's limited animation and nothing on par with Pixar, Disney or the other big boys, but it's still being done.

 

I think that you can still get away with doing a full feature on your own on your kitchen table if you're willing to make compromises. Look at M Dot Strange's stuff, he's one of a few folk that have shown it's doable. Mr. Sutton should know, he was on M Dot's podcast! And M Dot was doing a web series at one point too, which was only taking him roughly a week to do per episode. Read back through his blog, wealth of info there as well.

 

I've been working on stories that I'm at a point where I want to start producing them as animated movies or possibly a web series. So I've been looking at all the options. Maya and Max, are not going to cut it in the realm of low budget, shoestring, crank it out, 1-2 person animated shows. For something like what I have in mind, you focus more on story than you do on how well the animation looks. And yes, I am looking at A:M as a possible contender.

 

IMO, TWO and Scarecrow are successes, because they were finished. It's hard to finish something like that.

 

To bring this back to marketing, like I said before. With a package like A:M, the only real way to market it, is to show off what it can do and "Wow!" some people into checking it out.

[Fuchur]

Okay, there was one as I can see now.

My fault...

 

Then it is easier to say which where matched and which not.

I'll not comment on that simply for the reason that for those I think which were not fully matched, I would not have been able to do it better...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[*J*]

Just curious-- has anyone pondered the idea of what A:M would be under a GNU license like Blender?

Granted, with NO idea of that process (nor what Mr. Hash's current inclinations would be in response) let me appologize in advance if such a speculation toss reads about as tactfull as a bull in china shop.

 

JAKERUPERT: "Martin has abandoned A:M a long time ago and left it to Jason and Steffen for maintainance.."

 

I'm just thankfull that didn't include shuttering the whole shebang and these forums. I don't really have any free time for 3d so I've only been tinkering around with my older copy of A:M very sparsely this past year. Searching thru the forums has been an incredible resource and splines with their wysiwyg curves (rather than poly verts w/modifiers) feels closer to drawing than sculpting which appeals to me. More precise, less free form-- at least with my current procedures.

 

It just seems like a free license [ignoring the process of getting there & whatever can of worms freely modifable software would entale] would encourage throngs of curious programmers to build on an already cool platform. For people to take splines in new territories and the software in new directions/pipelines never thought before. If you're even a casual fan of patches and the software you don't want the possiblity of A:M growth slowing too much in fear of it dropping out completely. The ease that splines give modelers would bring in more people whose curiousity was sparked at such an alternative (w/ friendlier animation tools!) and open the A:M (seemingly) walled garden- and what could POSSIBLY go wrong, right?!

 

This sounded pretty reckless, so please let me clarify with the obvious: As long as the software runs on your system, it's the obligation of the user (not the tool maker) to make something special with it. I'm using an almost decade old version and it's still powerfull enough for me to learn so once I get up to that speed, v 18+ is gonna be a whole new world and I humbly thank the programmers (Yoda64, other members of the team) for pushing the progess along.

 

This is just typical "armchair quarterback" fool-speak so thanx in advance. I'm going back to my tinkering now (currently trying to find a way to "loop-cut" across patches less manually).

[Fuchur]

in general that is just not our decission since it has to do with money.

 

jason and some others need to be paid and the servers need to be maintained... with free open source software that is a real problem and of course it may result in copying of some features and implementations of A:M to other software which may result in less use of A:M. (this is harder than it sounds but it could be done)

 

other than that it may be an interesting approach but i do not know how to solve these problems...

 

see you

*fuchur*

[nemyax]

it may result in copying of some features and implementations of A:M to other software which may result in less use of A:M

If this thing really took off, there would also be the reverse process of A:M borrowing from other software (for example, the loop cut tool that *J* is trying to emulate). Which would result in more use of A:M.

[Fuchur]

i think the other way round could already be done depending on the open source licence of the other software or am i wrong. it never is easy since most of the algorithems are created for polys (and often generate high amounts of polys/patches and they need to fit in A:Ms way of implementations. simcloth was sometihing like that but it was quite much trouble to rewrite it for patches... the first try was to use it as it was which just did not fit that well. the second was to implement a lot of code differently till it worked better with Splines... i am not sure but there was this legend that A:M has a very unique programming style...

[nemyax]

I see what you mean. Booleans would be another example of a toolset that spline patches don't support very well.

 

i am not sure but there was this legend that A:M has a very unique programming style...

I suppose this can be confirmed or debunked by Steffen or ypoissant.

[Fuchur]

i think yves (ypoissant) said that but i am not sure...

 

see u

*fuchur*

[pixelplucker]

Open source? Open sourcing of a long standing product would be putting it out to pasture like a dying cow.

AM needs visibility not to be given away and have dozens of programmers and wanna b programmers tucking in bits of garbage code snippets and taunting it into Wings or Blender.

 

Lack of version to version compatibility and stability is what keeps me away from using any open source software in my day to day work flow.

[nemyax]

Open sourcing of a long standing product would be putting it out to pasture like a dying cow.

.NET and Unreal Engine 4 beg to disagree.

 

 

wanna b programmers tucking in bits of garbage code snippets

Don't accept garbage commits and don't give contributor rights to wannabes.

[pixelplucker]

Big problem with a program like AM going open source is you will lose the continuity it has, tools will become convoluted and version to version will have compatibility issues as well as the influx of programmers joining and leaving the project making spaghetti out of the code. I really don't believe that AM will lend itself to outside programmers without a major rewrite.

You need programmers that know the code and know it's workflow. You need programmers that actually use the product and not off the shelf script kiddies that slug out crap in Python.

[Rodney]

off the shelf script kiddies that slug out crap in Python

 

We could actually use of few more of those.

[nemyax]

You need programmers that know the code and know it's workflow.

True. And making the source available would make it easier, not harder, for these people to contribute. (I'm assuming you mean former Hash Inc. developers.) But only as long as they want to. If Yves has no intention of touching that code base any more, then you won't have him either way, source or no source. If there isn't sufficient interest among people like these, of course all you'll be left with is script kiddies. Ironically, at the moment A:M doesn't even have those, as Rodney points out.

[Rodney]

There are lots of 'features' (more than we could reasonably itemize) that could be created simply via the same means that many of the current plugins were made to work.

Howard Trickey's contribution is an excellent example; he leveraged his understanding of bezier curves to put together the first font wizard and then extended that further to include adobe illustrator (.ai) files via the AI wizard. Emilio Leroux leveraged his knowledge of spline bias, etc. to create the Sweeper, Set Bias, plugins, Libary Manager and more. Mike Flynn created a stand alone Terrain generator. Richard Swika created A:M Loft. Marcel Brickman... too many too list... Soulcage Dept shared their Matcap shaders, There is an embarrassment of riches here... Jenpy, Malo, Woebling, Aaver, Rasikrodri... and the list goes on and on... and we should properly highlight that list with the highly esteemed Steffen Gross who so thoroughly studied the SDK that he became the master of it.

 

And I apologize to all the folks whose ideas, inspirations and contributions I've missed... which includes those who actually hired folks to write programs/plugins (i.e. Anzovins) or worked with Hash Inc programmers to see their visions realized.

 

Side story about Steffen Gross's programming prowess: I once pondered the possibility of drawing splines/bezier curves in other applications (such as Illustrator) and then bringing them into A:M (via AI wiz or something similar) where A:M would then automatically stitch the splines together into a mesh. A month or so later Steffen announced the creation of his Connect plugin that does exactly that process. And he did it as an exercise in programming because he saw it as a challenge.

 

Yes, there is always a risk of watering down or weighting down A:M with too many plugins but I'd rather have those plugins (and be able to remove them) than to not have access to them at all.

But the bigger risk is of not taking advantage of the tools that are at our disposal right now. What is used... will get improved and enhanced... what doesn't will be mothballed, stagnate, wither away or be replaced.

If we, as a community, have failed in the development arena it's likely because we haven't been able to articulate what we need to each other and to share the information we already have with each other. There are a whole lot of features, programs and plugins that have faded away... not because no one cared... but because we, as a community didn't use/need them enough.

 

While I don't know what lies ahead for the future we are in a different arena than before. Hash Inc doesn't provide free programming.

That sounds like a big negative at a glance but it does free us up considerably to ponder new innovations that we as a community can get behind.

The one thing I would emphasize... to save folks a lot of time and heartache... is that the odds of getting rich from your great programming idea are tiny.

But if you really need the tool and have the talent, patience and fortitude to drive forward I'm confident it'll happen.

Some folks have pondered how impossible it would be to build A:M (or similar/compatible programs) from scratch for this or that platform and my answer to that would be that it isn't impossible, but it will take considerable time. How much time? As such a project would never truly end (unless the effort faltered/failed) I will suggest that such a thing would take 'one-step-at-a-time'.

 

We've strayed a bit from the topic but when considering any question what I always like to ask in response is, "What would success look like?"