Getting started...

[Mitovo]

So, I'm determined to model a character in A:M. I went on Google and found a character reference that has simple, sharp enough lines for me to follow, and decided to just do it. It has front, side and back views, so I have that covered.

I've seen a few different tutorials now, and it seems each one has its own style/approach, and so there's not "one right way". So, I'm picking up things from each that I like and make sense to me. For example, using a sphere as an eyeball proxy to model around, from t he Bill Young face modeling CD.

Not very far in at all, yet, and I'm expecting to have lots of mistakes along the way, but I'm saving a lot, so I should be okay. Just going to keep doing this kind of stuff until it becomes familiar. I'm not expecting it to be "perfect", or even "great", when it's done. I just want to actually get in and start doing it, learning as I go.

Here it is so far! Looking at it, I realized I have to shift the rotoscope, and the eye/skin over a bit to the left. It's not quite on center.

Question... is there a way to set rendering level on individual objects? Like, if I want a reference object (like the eyeball sphere) to remain as wireframe, even when I have the active model shaded/wireframe.. is there a way to do that? I've looked around, but can't find anything for that.

Thanks!

[Rodney]

Question... is there a way to set rendering level on individual objects? Like, if I want a reference object (like the eyeball sphere) to remain as wireframe, even when I have the active model shaded/wireframe.. is there a way to do that? I've looked around, but can't find anything for that.

 

 

As with most things this gets a 'Yes, but" answer from me.

 

Generally I don't recommend it but there are many cases where a modeler may want to model in a Choreography window rather than a Modeling window.

Most often this is because a model has become too complicated to model in Modeling window or the Model has many repeating elements.

Those can benefit a lot from Chor modeling.

 

In the case of a biped model the concept is to build one half of the model and then 'flip' a copy in the opposite direction (-100%).

Then as you build one side of the model the other side automagically appears.

In a Model window the same basic process is accomplished through Copy/Flip/Attach methodology.

 

 

A added benefit to Chor Modeling is that each instance of a model brought into the Chor can be viewed in a different manner (wireframe, shaded and shaded with wireframe).

 

 

 

[Mitovo]

Ah that's interesting. Hmm.. Well, I don't know if I'll get to a point where that's a "thing" just yet. But, good to know it's at least an option if/when I do.

Thanks!

[robcat2075]

 

Question... is there a way to set rendering level on individual objects? Like, if I want a reference object (like the eyeball sphere) to remain as wireframe, even when I have the active model shaded/wireframe.. is there a way to do that? I've looked around, but can't find anything for that.

 

 

 

Everything in a model window has the same render mode. You can Hide unwanted portions to reduce clutter. You can also Lock portions which makes them grayer and unselectable so they are easier to distinguish from what ever portion you are working on.

[Mitovo]

Hiya, Robcat,

Yeah, I've been using the "Lock" function for now. I was just thinking that, as things get more complex, and more splines are involved, it might be easier to have certain parts solid/shaded, and others as wireframe, etc. I'm sure I'll get used to it either way though.

Thanks!

 

Question... is there a way to set rendering level on individual objects? Like, if I want a reference object (like the eyeball sphere) to remain as wireframe, even when I have the active model shaded/wireframe.. is there a way to do that? I've looked around, but can't find anything for that.

 

 

Everything in a model window has the same render mode. You can Hide unwanted portions to reduce clutter. You can also Lock portions which makes them grayer and unselectable so they are easier to distinguish from what ever portion you are working on.

 

[robcat2075]

Now that I think about it... you could select a portion of a model to create a Group, then set the transparency of that Group to 100% in its Surface properties.

 

[Rodney]

Now that I think about it... you could select a portion of a model to create a Group, then set the transparency of that Group to 100% in its Surface properties.

 

Yes, there are ways we can simulate the various views in the Modeling window at the same time but I discounted those because those views won't persist as we add more splines and CPs.

Of course they will persist if we keep updating our groups to include the new additions... so that could become part of the workflow.

 

A similar way to simulate would be that of adding an image to a group.

That allows us to capture the flow of patches (though the use of an arrow image) or adapt our mesh to some other use through other imagery.

An example of that might be a dot, cirlce or rectangle in the middle of our image that lets us precisely know the center of our patches for positioning of other meshes.

That'd be the equivalent of a rotoscope that conforms itself to the shape or our mesh but again the group would need to be updated in order to include any newly splined meshes.

[Mitovo]

Welp, some more work tonight... Nose!

I decided to focus on getting the nose created, and then when I'm happy with it, I can either work down into the mouth... or work on the cheeks. Not sure what way I want to go, yet.

Rather like the way the nose is coming out though. I almost restarted it a couple times, but thought "No, just keep tweaking 'til it looks right". It lines up pretty nicely with the side and front views, at least as far as I can tell from the rotoscope image; it's not as clear as I'd like it.

So far so good, I think!

[robcat2075]

Looks like a nostril!

If you show wireframes you may get suggestions on efficient splining.

[Mitovo]

Well, I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Seems I have to do the whole nose phase over again, because the files I'd saved with all that work are corrupted, and A:M won't open them. It crashes when I try. 2 files.. both corrupted. Were working fine right up 'til my last save. Now they're corrupted.

Lovely.

I hope this isn't going to be a thing I'm going to have to worry about going forward.

[Rodney]

the files I'd saved with all that work are corrupted

 

It's rare that files get corrupted on saving so that is something well worth looking into... and doubly so if you are experiencing crashes.

[robcat2075]

Send me the corrupted file in a PM, I'll look at it.

I recommend never merely saving over files. Save to new filenames each time you save.

[Mitovo]

Send me the corrupted file in a PM, I'll look at it.

 

I recommend never merely saving over files. Save to new filenames each time you save.

Here's the latest file. The other corrupted one was far enough back that I might as well start over if I have to revert to that.

 

Also, I do save them as a progression of file names, and further, I'm separating them by what part I'm working on. So, this one is "Start02-Nose", the first set is "Start01-Eye" (and then Start-02-Eye), for when I was specifically working on the eye, etc. Kind of a weird naming convention, but it's just what I ended up typing, so I went with it.

 

When I try to open the file, I get an "Unhandled Exception" error. Not sure what that means, but, well.. it certainly means I can't work on it lol.

Character_Start02-Nose.zip

[robcat2075]

That file says you're using v11.

[robcat2075]

I did succeed in opening it in v18 after some text editor surgery.

 

 

A file I save from v18 won't open in your v11, however.

 

 

 

If you have a text editor try this...

 

create a new empty model and save it to a .mdl file (not a .prj)

 

open that in a text editor and you will see tags that say

 

[MESH]

[ENDMESH]

 

Open your corrupted file in a text editor and copy everything between the [MESH]...[ENDMESH] tags into the same tags in the blank model file and then resave that with a new name and try opening that in A:M.

 

If that opens, do a CTRL-A to copy the whole mesh and then paste that into a new blank model window.

 

If that much works come back and I'll tell you more.

 

 

 

 

[Mitovo]

That file says you're using v11.

Really? That's odd. The installation says it's Version 12. Hmmm...

 

I'm working off my old/original version for now. Wanna give myself a chance to get used to things and make sure it's something I'm enjoying and doing enough to warrant the $79 sub.

 

Anyway, let me try the text surgery thing and get back to you.

[Mitovo]

Okay! That worked. Got the model into a new model file in A:M.

That's a handy trick. Hopefully I won't have to use it again

[Fuchur]

I think with v13 there was a new file system introduced... v13 till today is no real problem to share model-data, etc. but before that can be tricky...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[Rodney]

I had my suspicions... (I also figure folks tire of me saying... don't let $79 separate you from happiness)

 

At least we know how the corruption came about.

[robcat2075]

 

That file says you're using v11.

Really? That's odd. The installation says it's Version 12. Hmmm...

 

 

They may have forgotten to update that marker when they went to v12.

[Mitovo]

I had my suspicions... (I also figure folks tire of me saying... don't let $79 separate you from happiness)

 

At least we know how the corruption came about.

The $79 itself isn't separating me. The bills that $79 has to pay for this pay cycle is

 

 

I had my suspicions... (I also figure folks tire of me saying... don't let $79 separate you from happiness)

 

At least we know how the corruption came about.

Do we? I don't know what caused it. I just know how to fix it lol. I mean, obviously it was something going bad elsewhere in the file, since the model itself is okay. Still not sure why the original got messed up.

 

Ah well..

[Rodney]

Do we? I don't know what caused it.

 

It's the difference between file formats.

The v11 (or v12) file format can translate forward fairly well but not in the reverse because those earlier releases have no way to know the format was changed.

This is why editing the text file appears to restore the data... because the editing of the text has translated the data back into its earlier formatting.

Specifically changing the container code from [tag] to going forward and (in your case) to [tag].

 

A lot can be accomplished in the process of examining and editing a text file.

But I don't think the term 'corrupted' quite applies in this case.

I'd say the newer format moving backward into earlier releases than v13 (as Fuchur describes) is 'incompatible.

 

Of course, to a user on the outside it basically produces the same result... a file that can't be readily accessed.

 

To recap what Fuchur said, files prior to v13 are saved in a different format.

So when you try to open a v18 file (presumably started in the current v18 trial) you are trying to open a file in v12 that is incompatible.

When that incompatibility is resolved (via text editing) the file can be accessed.

 

As an aside: moving files forward often works but can also result in incompatibilities because features that have been updated will often process data differently. So the more complex the project/file the more likely that the data won't behaving the same across versions. This is why productions often lock down on specific releases until the end of production with the exception of accessing features that are required but not available in the sanctioned release. A feature that changes mid production can produce vastly different results and lead to serious problems.

 

The $79 itself isn't separating me. The bills that $79 has to pay for this pay cycle is

 

I hear you. I live in that cyclical realm myself.

And of course A:M doesn't represent the entire cost in question. We have to include the cost of (procuring and maintaining) the computer and operating system as well.

[robcat2075]

I think, for this project, Mitovo was working entirely in v12 so i suspect the file corruption problem was one of those blips that occasionally happened in v12 and not because of moving between versions.

 

This sort of thing is much rarer today. Another reason to upgrade.

 

However, it is concerning that v19 crashed when reading the file. It should have some graceful error message ending when a file is unintelligible, so i sent it to AMReports as a bug.

[Mitovo]

I think, for this project, Mitovo was working entirely in v12 so i suspect the file corruption problem was one of those blips that occasionally happened in v12 and not because of moving between versions.

 

This sort of thing is much rarer today. Another reason to upgrade.

 

However, it is concerning that v19 crashed when reading the file. It should have some graceful error message ending when a file is unintelligible, so i sent it to AMReports as a bug.

Ah okay, that's what I thought lol. I was about to say to Rodney, "so you're telling me Hash shipped a version of A:M that saves in an incompatible format?" lol. That would have been more than a little concerning.

 

That makes me wonder, though. If the file version is 11, but it's version 12... which upgraded version would I grab? I know in the Support FTP area, there's older versions, and that I could update my current one to the latest-and-greatest build. I was perusing those folders, and was a bit confused, as the 2006 folder also had a v12 subfolder. Does that mean I could download the version in that folder, and it would work with my registration key?

 

 

 

 

 

[Mitovo]

Okay, so I had it working... And now that file got corrupted, and I don't have the other file to restore from.

So, I'm back to creating the nose from scratch again anyway.

I honestly am at a loss here. I want to stick with A:M, and probably get the new version when I can, but is this instability going to be an on-going thing I'm going to have to deal with in the meantime? If so, I'd rather just leave it alone and get 18 when I can.

[robcat2075]

Generally a CD covered the final release of one version number and then the testing stage releases of the next.

 

What picture is on your CD?

[robcat2075]

Okay, so I had it working... And now that file got corrupted, and I don't have the other file to restore from.

 

So, I'm back to creating the nose from scratch again anyway.

 

I honestly am at a loss here.

 

You put a copy of it on the forum. How can it be gone?

 

Do not keep resaving over old file names.

[Rodney]

As both v11 and v12 are over 10 years old we can expect some instability but... I've seen very little in the realm of what you are experiencing so don't have much to relate to in that area.

If you are using both the trial for v18 and some earlier version I would definitely stop doing that. Pick one or the other and stick with that.

[Mitovo]

Generally a CD covered the final release of one version number and then the testing stage releases of the next.

 

What picture is on your CD?

It's the witch and the cat.

As both v11 and v12 are over 10 years old we can expect some instability but... I've seen very little in the realm of what you are experiencing so don't have much to relate to in that area.

If you are using both the trial for v18 and some earlier version I would definitely stop doing that. Pick one or the other and stick with that.

Nope, only have 12 on my system.

[Mitovo]

 

Okay, so I had it working... And now that file got corrupted, and I don't have the other file to restore from.

 

So, I'm back to creating the nose from scratch again anyway.

 

I honestly am at a loss here.

 

You put a copy of it on the forum. How can it be gone?

 

Do not keep resaving over old file names.

 

I mean that working on it and saving it, as a different file, it became corrupted again. I know I can download the file I uploaded earlier, but if my install is prone to corrupting files, then it kinda becomes a moot point.

 

Also, I'm not saving over old files.

 

Not sure why, but you've made a few assumptions about what I'm doing, then commenting as though it's fact. It comes across like you think I'm an idiot or something, and it's a bit irritating. If saving over the same file is a concern, then *ask* me if that's what I'm doing. Don't just assume I am. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

[robcat2075]

I'm baffled about how the files could be going so bad so fast. Something is absolutely, unimaginably wrong and if I don't explicitly suggest definite things I wont' know you're not doing them.

 

Are you using the version that was installed from the CD?

[Mitovo]

I'm baffled about how the files could be going so bad so fast. Something is absolutely, unimaginably wrong and if I don't explicitly suggest definite things I wont' know you're not doing them.

 

 

Are you using the version that was installed from the CD?

Yep. It's the version installed off the disc. It was fine through several tutorials from Ao:AM, and was fine through a few other doodles I did. It was also fine through the entire eyeball/eyelid and up to the nose.. Then it happened. So, it's not something that's happening constantly. It really just started with that one save file.

 

Is it possible for a rotoscope image to cause an issue?

[robcat2075]

Get the last v12 update off the server that will run with your CD. I think it will be in the AM2006 folder. I recall the version on the CD is whatever state it was in when the CD was made but updates were issued after that.

Let's see if that fixes the reliability.

 

 

Is it possible for a rotoscope image to cause an issue?

 

 

They shouldn't be but anything is possible if it's a bug.

[Mitovo]

Get the last v12 update off the server that will run with your CD. I think it will be in the AM2006 folder. I recall the version on the CD is whatever state it was in when the CD was made but updates were issued after that.

 

Let's see if that fixes the reliability.

 

I'd tried downloading a couple of those, and every time it asks me to put the correct disc in the drive, though it's already in there. I'm not sure which one I should be downloading, and the FTP folder structure is a bit confusing, what with all the different files in there.

 

The last one I tried was here

ftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/updates/windows/Am2006/v12/

 

And I believe I tried the one from here as well:

ftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/updates/windows/Am2005/

which didn't work, either.

 

I downloaded the am2006.exe and am2005.exe respectively.

 

My current installed version, from disc, is 12d, if that's any help.

[robcat2075]

I have the disk before the Sorceror disk and the disk after but I don't have the Sorceror disk itself so i don't have a way to immediately test them.

 

The last one I tried was here
ftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/updates/windows/Am2006/v12/

 

 

To try: Go up a level. There's an AM2006.EXE in the AM2006 directory. That should be the final release. The v12 folder holds previous releases.

[Rodney]

According to my sources the last v12 release was v12.0v+ so v12d is very early in the release cycle.

I *think* during that era there was also a 'stuff' file that contained important drivers, so if that exists you'll want to install that as well.

 

Edit:

I see a v12 stuff file in the 2005 directory so... operating on the assumption that you might have the v11.5 cd you might start with the last 2005 release... to include installing the v12 stuff file in that directory... then work your way up to the next release.... installing in a different directory so that you still have access your last 'confirmed-to-be-working' release.

 

xftp://ftp.hash.com/pub/updates/windows/Am2005/

 

I note that you've said you've done this (installed from the AM2005 directory) so... that'd mean moving forward (as I see Robert has suggested).

*IF* you installed from the 2005 folder but did not install the stuff file I would start again with 2005 and close that loop first.

[Mitovo]

Okay, grabbed the one out of the 2005 folder. That's the only one that seems to want to work, and it's 12w, so definitely well further into the development cycle. Here's hope whatever that problem was doesn't happen again!

[robcat2075]

Hooray!

Come back if you have questions!

[Mitovo]

lol welp... While I was home for lunch, I'd downloaded the 12w version of A:M. Installed it, ran it, and it worked fine.

I downloaded the file I uploaded here, repaired it via the steps Robcat stated earlier in the thread, and it was fine. I loaded in the rotoscopes, saved the project, and everything was fine.

Closed the program and re-opened it to make sure the file would load okay, and it did.

Then I went back to work to finish up the day.

Just tried to load it up again to work on it more, and now I get that the .mdl (which was working fine at lunch) can not be opened.

So you know what? I think I'm done banging my head against the wall with this. For whatever reason, this software can't seem to not break its own files, after working fine.

Maybe I'll wait 'til I can get the latest sub version and give that a go for a year. Though, I should just request a trial and make sure it works correctly before I drop $80 on it.

Edit: I just went ahead and put in a request for a trial of the current version. I really want to work with this software, and will figure out a way if it kills me! Okay.. maybe not that extreme.. but you get the idea.

[robcat2075]

What happened between saving it and being able to reload it fine and later not being able to reload it?

 

 

I don't know. I'm absolutely, totally, completely, 100% baffled that such a problem should be recurring.

 

I'm baffled because i didn't have that problem happen when I was using the software 10 years ago and I don't have it happening today. I never had v12 myself but I had v11 and v13 and they worked great for me, just like v18 is working great for me today.

 

There is no explanation for what you are describing. Something, somewhere has to have changed or something is happening differently.

 

The only remaining thing that comes to mind is that, based on your description, this happens after you add rotoscopes. It's possible that one of the rotoscopes is not truly in the format the the image reader is expecting. I always use targas and only use targas. They are the most reliable image format.

v12 IS ten year-old software that was not written for the OS you are running today and won't run at all without that hack to the OS mentioned previously. That's possibly a big deal, but i have no way to investigate that. I have software older than that. Some runs on my computer today, some doesn't no matter what accommodations I try to make for it.

Again, I'm baffled. I don't know how to solve a problem that i can't see happen.

 

I'm disappointed you are disappointed but the whole thing is a mystery.

[Mitovo]

Yeah, I have no idea lol. That it is 10 years old probably speaks a lot to it. I don't know what's going on, either. The file worked fine one time, then won't work the next time, with no clue of what's going on. I mean, this last time it wasn't crashing the program. It would still load the project, it just refused to load that model.

I'll try the TGA suggestion and convert the rotoscope images to that format.

Also, I've been granted the 18 trial, so I can give that a good go for the next couple weeks, and by then I think I should be able to purchase the $80 sub, assuming all goes to plan anyway lol.

The trial installed, detected the license file and starts up without issue, so that's a promising start.

I have a three day weekend, so I intend to really dig in and get some stuff done with it. Maybe even finish more of that character head! I think I'm just going to start over with that, though, and forget about the old file.

Anyway, thanks for all the advice and help with v12. It is 10 years old, and 6 versions behind, including what is, apparently a lot of major changes to the file format, and t he program's functionality. So it's probably a blessing in disguise, in the long run. Even if I got v12 to behave, could you imagine if I'd put 10s of hours into something, just to have the files corrupt or otherwise not open like that? I'd die.

I'll go ahead and post a new pic or two when I have stuff going again. For now I'll go ahead and convert those images to TGA.

[Mitovo]

Okay! Got things set up to start anew! Front, Side and Back rotoscopes are in place.

It's probably that I'm using the 64-bit version of the software, but it "feels" much smoother, even just rotating the view around, etc.

Anyways... tomorrow I'll dive back in.

[Rodney]

There are a ton of new bells and whistles that have been added since v12 and you are correct in your estimate that the 64bit version is helping things run smoothly. The 32bit version maxes out on memory quickly whereas the 64bit won't.

There is only one thing I can think of that would have me using the 32bit version (and I suppose there might be a few others too that I've forgotten... such as the odd third party plugin, etc.). Rendering out to .MOV (Quicktime) format requires the 32bit release because Apple doesn't support Quicktime for 64bit on the PC.

 

Keep on keeping on!

Looking forward to seeing your progress on your character.

[Mitovo]

Ahh, that's not that big of a deal, though. I always render to MP4 (when it's an option). Otherwise, I can use something else. I always use Handbrake (amazing free program) to compress the files, and that exports to a lot of different formats as well. I have 8 gigs of RAM, and I'd like to use it . Need to upgrade to 16 at some point.

[Mitovo]

Okay! So, I'm pretty much caught up to where I was before everything went awry with v12. I also think I've done a better job on the nose this time, and with fewer splines, which makes it immensely easier to work with. I tried to line up the splines on the upper part of the nose with the nodes around the eye, so they should attach easily. I'm having to do some guessing work to make up for missing lines/details in the reference pic, but otherwise, everything seems to be matching up nicely, in both front and side views.

Gotta say, might sound like an odd way to describe it, but working with splines just feels so "comfortable". Never quite get that feeling working with polys. Also, working with v18 feels immensely better than working with v12 (even besides the issues I was having).

So, anyway, here's a shot of "Character Model 2.0" so in shaded/wireframe mode. Not much to look at, yet, but any thoughts, advice, etc. is appreciated!

Thanks!

[robcat2075]

The advantage of A:M splines is that you are always manipulating points that are the actual surface of your model rather than on a cage that influences the surface.

 

The ideal is to only have splines where the contour needs them to be shaped.

In my Al Capone thread there are several wireframe views that show possibilities for splining the nose.

[Mitovo]

That's a very helpful thread! Also interesting to see how you construct your models. It looks like you kinda work your way around, spline-by-spline? At least partially? Some nice visual references there at any rate.

So, here's what I have so far. I'm hitting a point where I wonder if I might want to set this aside for now, and work on some simpler stuff, and come back to it later when I have more experience with working with splines themselves. The reason is, some of the stuff I'm doing is resulting in odd spline flow, and I know how to fix it, but I feel like I'm spending a lot of time working around and fixing flow-related issues, and less working on the model itself. I'd really rather not have something like this be my "practice" for the basics. I'd rather work through simpler, less complex objects, or even characters to get that stuff down.

But! I'm not discouraged. Though I'm sure there's lots I could be doing better, I'm happy with where I am in such relatively little time. It's coming out better than I'd have thought it would before starting on it.

There's other projects I'd like to work on as well, where I can work on the splinemanship, plus work in stuff like texturing, animation, etc.

Anyway! Here's the latest result... I set it up in 3 windows, so y'all can see how everything sits.

[robcat2075]

That's a very helpful thread! Also interesting to see how you construct your models. It looks like you kinda work your way around, spline-by-spline? At least partially?

 

 

My strategy has been to build the fiddly parts, like nose and mouth and eyes so they have the splines they need and then figure out the best way to connect them together.

 

So, here's what I have so far. I'm hitting a point where I wonder if I might want to set this aside for now, and work on some simpler stuff, and come back to it later when I have more experience with working with splines themselves. The reason is, some of the stuff I'm doing is resulting in odd spline flow, and I know how to fix it, but I feel like I'm spending a lot of time working around and fixing flow-related issues, and less working on the model itself. I'd really rather not have something like this be my "practice" for the basics. I'd rather work through simpler, less complex objects, or even characters to get that stuff down.

 

But! I'm not discouraged. Though I'm sure there's lots I could be doing better, I'm happy with where I am in such relatively little time. It's coming out better than I'd have thought it would before starting on it.

 

 

I think it's important to enjoy this stuff. If something has become a frustration, put it aside and come back to it.

 

 

 

[robcat2075]

when you come back to that face you'll probably see splines you could delete or end in hooks sooner. Some of that isn't obvious until have more of the face built.

 

 

One thing I'd do differently on that face is that i'd have patches follow the eyebrow line rather than crossing them at an angle.

 

On my Al Capone head I made it so the eyebrows are sitting squarely in some patches.

 

Eye brow movement is a big deal in facial expression and it will be easy to move the CPs that bound those patches as a unit. It's harder to move them without distorting them when they are splayed across patches that don't follow their shape.


The eyebrow line is also just an important shape contour that divides the forehead from the eyesockets.

[Mitovo]

when you come back to that face you'll probably see splines you could delete or end in hooks sooner. Some of that isn't obvious until have more of the face built.

 

 

One thing I'd do differently on that face is that i'd have patches follow the eyebrow line rather than crossing them at an angle.

 

On my Al Capone head I made it so the eyebrows are sitting squarely in some patches.

 

Eye brow movement is a big deal in facial expression and it will be easy to move the CPs that bound those patches as a unit. It's harder to move them without distorting them when they are splayed across patches that don't follow their shape.

 

 

The eyebrow line is also just an important shape contour that divides the forehead from the eyesockets.

Indeed. Looking at your Capone model, I noticed how clean and organized and deliberate it all looks. The same goes for other samples I've seen by others here. Looking at that, then looking at my project, I was able to say "Yeah, mine isn't nearly that clean looking", and I noticed shapes and such that you achieve with only a few splines, where I seem to have several more. So, I know I have a ways to go, yet.

 

Compounded with still grasping how to work with splines to keep continuity good, I came to the conclusion I did - to work on easier stuff and get the whole splinemanship thing down, and *then* come back to something more complicated, like that character, when I feel more comfortable with it.

 

I'm actually considering doing something super simple, like just practicing animation and such with a simple ball, and some props. This way I can practice animation with the ball, practice modeling/splinemanship with the other objects, etc.

 

There's tons I want to do, including several stories, of varying style and length. They range from simple 30 second bits, up to something that could probably be an episodic series, based on the story and characters from a game design I've been putting together for a while now.

 

So, no shortage of goals, that's for sure. But, as Ellie's dad tells her in 'Contact', "Small moves".