Ball Project - Alternating stripes?

[Mitovo]

Hello! Two questions in a single hour! Crazy!

Anyway, I'm trying to create a beach ball sort of coloring pattern, and am running into a problem.

I've tried selecting alternating columns, using the patch select tool, and by selecting CPs, but when I assign a color, it's affecting the entire ball.

 

So, I tried applying the color to just one group, and then adding more patches to that group, and I can't seem to make that happen, either. When I select a patch on the next column, it does a kind of "select everything in between original group and new selection", kinda like shift-selecting an entire line or paragraph of text in a word document. Does the same thing if I try to Ctrl-Select.

I then tried to set the entire ball to one color, then go back and use "Remove from Group" on the stripes I don't want in that color , and that seems to be affecting patches I'm not selecting as well.

I don't see any option to select patches and then "add them to group".

So, I'm kinda at a loss here, but I'm sure there's a way to do it.

Here's a pic where I have at least one column colored, so you can see the way I'm looking to color it. I'd like it to have alternating blue and orange stripes.

Thanks!

 

[nemyax]

This topic might have the answers: https://www.hash.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=47612

[Mitovo]

Hmm.. yeah they are effectively discussing the same challenge, just with a different application.

I considered that as an option (using multiple groups so none of the selections are adjacent), but that seemed extremely and needlessly tedious and I was sure there would have to be a more straight-forward approach. I figured, surely wanting to use alternating colors of some sort has been a common enough requirement that some way of doing so was implemented, or otherwise discovered. I guess not! lol

Thanks for the link!

[robcat2075]

You will need alternating groups. A Group is really a selection of splines and CPs rather than a selection of patches so you will need to have an unselected spline between the selected ones.

 

 

Alternatively, you can make a stripe pattern like that with materials and then it can be completely independent of the mesh.

[robcat2075]

Another solution is to lathe the ball with twice as many Lathe cross sections.

 

Tools>Options>Modeling has that parameter.

 

 

[Mitovo]

Welp, had other stuff sidetracking me, but have put together the model elements I intend to use for this project...

Pretty much a basic cast of characters

Figured out the ball thing. Then decided to challenge myself with creating a rounded cube (which worked!), and a boring backdrop/floor.

Now to work out what sorta animation I want.


By the way, is it ideal to set up animatics in A:M? I think that's the right term... where you take storyboards and can set up them sequentially to tweak timing of scenes, etc?

[robcat2075]

I believe it is possible to animate the ON/OFF status of rotoscopes in the camera; storyboard drawings could be displayed that way.

 

Also... If they were in a numbered image sequence, they could be imported that way and the "frame" parameter animated to advance them when needed.

[fae_alba]

By the way, is it ideal to set up animatics in A:M? I think that's the right term... where you take storyboards and can set up them sequentially to tweak timing of scenes, etc?

 

Animatics is an animated storyboard, used to get basic timing down. My personal opinion is that while it can be done in A:M, I wouldn't. My main reason is that you would most likely wind up with one chor for the entire animation, and that gets tougher to manage than necessary. Ideally, your script is broken up into scenes, then the storyboard further breaks down the scenes into the camera movements/framing, then the animatic is simply the storyboard put together in a movie with a simple soundtrack. In A:M, each scene, camera cut is animated in a separate chor.

 

I use celtx for my script writing, story boarding, and animatics. I do use A:M to help with the storyboards, using proxies, simply because I can't draw worth a tinkers damn!

[Mitovo]

 

By the way, is it ideal to set up animatics in A:M? I think that's the right term... where you take storyboards and can set up them sequentially to tweak timing of scenes, etc?

 

Animatics is an animated storyboard, used to get basic timing down. My personal opinion is that while it can be done in A:M, I wouldn't. My main reason is that you would most likely wind up with one chor for the entire animation, and that gets tougher to manage than necessary. Ideally, your script is broken up into scenes, then the storyboard further breaks down the scenes into the camera movements/framing, then the animatic is simply the storyboard put together in a movie with a simple soundtrack. In A:M, each scene, camera cut is animated in a separate chor.

 

I use celtx for my script writing, story boarding, and animatics. I do use A:M to help with the storyboards, using proxies, simply because I can't draw worth a tinkers damn!

 

I see! Thank you for all that info! I'm not quite to where I think I'd need an animatic, yet, but I feel like it's something that will be beneficial. Though I do find your mention of using proxies to set up storyboards in A:M intriguing.

 

So, do you set up the proxies as they'd be in a given shot, and then do still renders as each storyboard "frame"? That might not be a bad way to go about it for me, as I'm not the biggest fan of my own hand-drawing, either. Plus, my hand tends to get tired if I write or draw for very long.

[Mitovo]

I believe it is possible to animate the ON/OFF status of rotoscopes in the camera; storyboard drawings could be displayed that way.

 

Also... If they were in a numbered image sequence, they could be imported that way and the "frame" parameter animated to advance them when needed.

Hmm.. that's something to possibly experiment with. Not quite sure I follow, but that's because I haven't really dug into A:Ms animation beyond the basic tutorials yet.

[fae_alba]

I see! Thank you for all that info! I'm not quite to where I think I'd need an animatic, yet, but I feel like it's something that will be beneficial. Though I do find your mention of using proxies to set up storyboards in A:M intriguing.

So, do you set up the proxies as they'd be in a given shot, and then do still renders as each storyboard "frame"? That might not be a bad way to go about it for me, as I'm not the biggest fan of my own hand-drawing, either. Plus, my hand tends to get tired if I write or draw for very long.

 

 

 

I will confess that using A:M and proxies for creating storyboards is not mine. The proxies I'm using for Papa Bear were created by Mark Largent , and what was his idea to use A:M, I'm just carrying on his fine tradition. But, yes, each scene/camera cut is set up in a chor and then a single frame is rendered off. And before you think, "gee that sounds like a lot of work", consider that if you are diligent in saving each individual chor, named for the scene, when you decide that something needs to be altered (you most certainly will) then it is a simple job to open that chor up, make the adjustment, and rerender.

[Mitovo]

 

I see! Thank you for all that info! I'm not quite to where I think I'd need an animatic, yet, but I feel like it's something that will be beneficial. Though I do find your mention of using proxies to set up storyboards in A:M intriguing.

So, do you set up the proxies as they'd be in a given shot, and then do still renders as each storyboard "frame"? That might not be a bad way to go about it for me, as I'm not the biggest fan of my own hand-drawing, either. Plus, my hand tends to get tired if I write or draw for very long.

 

 

 

I will confess that using A:M and proxies for creating storyboards is not mine. The proxies I'm using for Papa Bear were created by Mark Largent , and what was his idea to use A:M, I'm just carrying on his fine tradition. But, yes, each scene/camera cut is set up in a chor and then a single frame is rendered off. And before you think, "gee that sounds like a lot of work", consider that if you are diligent in saving each individual chor, named for the scene, when you decide that something needs to be altered (you most certainly will) then it is a simple job to open that chor up, make the adjustment, and rerender.

 

It sounds like less work than drawing everything over and over, that's for sure .

 

I'll have to look into that. I want to do a couple smaller tutorials on using actions/chors before I dive into my own project, just to get a feel for how the workflow is. But once I get to my own project(s), I may well give that approach a try. The one Robcat suggested sounds interesting, too. Will probably be a process of just seeing which "feels" better for me; kinda like figuring out which approach to use for head/character modeling.

[Mitovo]

Well, I've gotten a smooth rolling animation created for the ball. Just working out how to get it moving along a path correctly in a Choreography. Can't find any tutorials on that, and can't seem to figure it out on my own. I could have sworn I saw a tutorial for that somewhere.

[robcat2075]

I believe the "Take a Walk " tutorial shows how to put an object on an action.

[Mitovo]

See, I knew it was in the book!

I even looked at that bit, but somehow missed the page about putting it on a path. Go figure lol.

Okay thank you for confirming that. I thought I was going crazy.

[Mitovo]

So, I've managed to get the ball rolling along the path. A problem I'm running into is I can't figure out how to get the ball to move along the path faster.

For example, I want a ball to roll along a path, reaching the end of it in 10 seconds, and rolling, say 10 times, at 1 second per turn. I have the settings so it'll complete the 10 rotations, 1 second each.

However, it's not moving along the path fast enough to reach the end before it completes the 10 rotations. So, it gets halfway through the path, and then just stops and slides along the path without rotating. It would basically require me to double the length of the clip for it to complete the full distance, and I'm sure there has to be a way to fix it.

How do you make it move along the path more quickly?

[robcat2075]

I recall the path constraint has an "ease" property that you can keyframe to put the object at any point of the path at any time.

 

In my tuts look for "ease" which is discussed in regards to Actions

[Mitovo]

Hmm.. that didn't seem to help. It speeds up the speed of the spin, but not the speed of the ball along the path.

I rendered out a vid to maybe better explain what I mean. Currently, it takes 12 seconds for the ball to get to the end of the path (the video ends exactly when it hits the end of the path).

I'd like to alter it so it gets to the end in half the time, so the video is only 6 seconds long (or, really, whatever duration I'd like it to be).

Also, why is the bone attached to the ball occasionally flipped around 180 degrees when I open the project? I save it with the bone rotated appropriately (so the ball is rotating the right way). I'll save it with the bone oriented correctly. The next time I open it, the bone is flipped around the wrong way, and I have to fix it again. It's happened a few times now, and it's a bit annoying. Not sure why A:M keeps changing things that I'm not messing with.

Here's the vid...

ballroll.avi

[robcat2075]

Ease...

 

I keep saying "ease path" but I mean to say "ease parameter"

 

clip4035EaseParameter.mov

[Mitovo]

Ahhh... So it's a different setting that's adjusted.

Okeedoke.

I still need to figure out why the bone for the ball is being rotated 180 degrees in between sessions when I'm not touching it. I set up the bone in Model>Bones mode, and that's it. I'm not touching it after that. But it keeps reorienting itself.

Annd... hold the phone. A:M has just randomly screwed something else up.

I just tested out what you show on the vid... Blue bar, etc. Now the ball isn't even staying on the path. It's following the curve of the path, but swerving off of it to either side, like a drunk driver.

Seriously, I have no words at this point. It's as though the software is going out of its way to convince me not to buy a full license, and it's quickly starting to win.

[robcat2075]

I'd have to see you do it to get a sense of what's wrong.

 

If you want to post the PRJ, I could try to look at it.

[Rodney]

Seriously, I have no words at this point. It's as though the software is going out of its way to convince me not to buy a full license, and it's quickly starting to win.

 

 

I rarely have that problem (lack of words)

 

It's hard to accept this and even harder to hear it said when we are experiencing problems but... more than 90% of the time it's the user, not the software.

That's just the way it is. We are, more often than not, the source of our own problems.

 

Having said that... quite often the software can help guide the user to a solution they would otherwise not see.

But computers only do what we tell them to do. Some of that is coded in software while some of it is the user not understanding how to use that software.

 

In the case of the mysteriously moving object, the movement is very likely directed by something you have set.

With regard to the rotating sphere.... is it rotating in the model (less likely) or an Action or Choreography (more likely)?

If in the Model window... does the model have any poses set up?

 

Models can't change on their own as the data is static so if something is changing then we can look to a pose (relationship) or action.

There are two types of Action, standalone and choreography.

If in an Action or Chor then you've very likely but unintentionally animated the object.

So we'd need to crack open the timeline and look at that aspect.

As Robert suggests, seeing the project file would tell the tale.

 

In the latter case of the ball straying off the path my first guess would be that you've placed your bone correctly from the front view but if looking from the side might not be placed at 0 on the Z axis.

If not this then it could very well be a constraint that isn't set up correctly (this is actually more likely but it's easy to check for bone placement first) To know more about this we'd need to know more about how you set your object to follow the path.

 

We have to guess what you are doing because we don't know.

One of the best ways to resolve a problem is to record a video of the issue and share that.(such as Robert is doing that demonstrates how he sets up a project).

There are many video capture software but currently (on the free side) I'm recommending Open Broadcast Software (LINK). Get the Studio version not the classic. On the paid side it's really hard to beat Camtasia (LINK).

The video approach works best because it captures exact steps used in a process.

This can not only resolve a problem but lead to suggestions that improve workflow and better usage of the software.

 

The next best approach to solving a problem is to share an example of the problem in a project.

This can either be the actual project itself or another setup specifically to demonstrate the problem.

The latter is usually best in cases where, for one reason or another, the user can't share parts of the project.

For instance, when they are working with someone else's files and don't have permission to share the files.

The downside of sharing files is that care must be given to share all of the pertinent files.

Since A:M doesn't automatically save files into a Project these can inadvertently be left out.

Software can't always anticipate/guess what we want.

 

These two methods (video capture and sharing of (embedded) project files is also the ideal way to submit bug reports for those rarer instances when the problem isn't on the part of the user but fully in the realm of the software.

 

A:M has just randomly screwed something else up.

 

One of the reasons I rarely have frustrating problems with A:M (or any other software) is that my first thought is to never blame the software.

Once I've ruled out user error (my own or someone elses) then I can better see the shortfalls of the software.

And in most cases there is a reasonable workaround.

[Mitovo]

 

 

 

It's hard to accept this and even harder to hear it said when we are experiencing problems but... more than 90% of the time it's the user, not the software.

That's just the way it is. We are, more often than not, the source of our own problems.

 

One of the reasons I rarely have frustrating problems with A:M (or any other software) is that my first thought is to never blame the software.

 

Here we go again. Some things never change.

 

Let's take a trip back in time.

 

Back several years ago, when I was originally using v12, I got the same exact sort of response when I reported issues. It was the same apologist "it's not the software, it's you", type of nonsense. Every time.

 

In every case, it was either *not* my fault, but in fact (reluctantly) *confirmed* to be an issue on the software side, or it was some quirk or "gotcha" with the software that wasn't explained at all. Still, in every case, the immediate response to those issues was effectively "it's not the software, it's you". In the cases where it was acknowledged to be something on software side, it was *still* spun to somehow be something *I* did wrong. As one example, when the copy and paste mirrored function didn't work correctly on the "Take A Walk" tutorial, due to a faulty rig (as would *finally* be admitted), the immediate response was "you shouldn't be doing it that way. You should be doing the whole thing manually". Basically, it was my fault for following the steps in AoAM, not the software's for having a faulty rig.

 

I finally got fed up with the apologist nonsense, and walked away.

 

Fast forward several years and A:M versions.

 

I decide to check in on A:M again, and learned that it had, apparently, greatly improved in my time away. I learned that version 18 was far more stable and improved over older versions, with many, many bugs squashed (I found the mere acknowledgement of bugs existing in A:M to be a positive sign). Encouraged, I decided to give it another go. I always liked the concept behind A:M, but had issues working with it. I came back with a fresh perspective and an open mind.

 

I was further encouraged, amused, and - I won't lie - pretty vindicated, when it was *finally* admitted during last Saturday's hang-out that yes, earlier versions of A:M - particularly v12 - in fact had a lot of issues. I was told of how a number of users requested that focus be put on fixing the many bugs, instead of adding new features. I thought "Wow, that's a huge improvement over last time. They finally accept that A:M - like any software - is imperfect and will have bugs".

 

Well, I was only partially right. Turns out, you'll eventually acknowledge issues in A:M, but only in the past-tense. Because, here we are with version 18, and it seems the default, knee-jerk response to reports of issues cropping up is still effectively, "it's not the software, it's you".

 

So much for being encouraged.

 

Rodney...

 

Did you see the video I uploaded? Notice how everything looks fine? The ball follows the path, nice and smoothly? Believe it or not, I did that, on my own, by following the instructions in AoAM (once Robcat confirmed where they were). The ball is rolling fine. It's facing the right direction. It's staying on the path. No quirks. No bugs. No problems.

 

Clearly, I'm not an idiot, and am capable of following instructions.

 

So, in the future, please knock it off with the passive-aggressive remarks like those quoted above. Okay?

 

When I say the bone is changing its orientation on its own, without me touching it, I mean exactly that. When I say I set up the bone in model > bone mode, and then left it alone after that, I mean exactly that. I set it up, and then left it alone. I'm not lying to you. I'm not hallucinating. Everything was fine up to and including my rendering the video out to better illustrate the question I was asking (about how to move the ball along the path faster).

 

The bone changed - on its own - *after* that.

 

The path-following problem didn't occur 'til *after* I followed Robcat's video on changing the ease parameter, and replicated what he did there. After that, the ball was swerving off the path like a drunken driver. I didn't change anything else. I didn't touch anything else. Not the action. Not the ball. Not the bone.

 

Still, instead of simply asking me direct questions, or simply saying "can you upload the prj file so we can look at it?", you type up this long lecture, condescendingly over-explaining things to me, like I'm a child, or some kind of idiot. I will not be spoken to like that. If you can't address me respectfully, like one reasonable adult speaking to another, then this discussion is over.

 

You refused to accept that there were problems with v12 way back then, only to later admit that yes, actually there were a number of them. Yet here you are, right back in that same mindset with v18.

 

Seriously, this apologist mentality of "it's not the software, it's you", really needs to die already. It's not helpful, nor warranted.

 

And with that, I'm done.

[robcat2075]

I'll still look at your project if you want. It's probably some small thing.

[Rodney]

I'm sorry I've offended.

Certainly not my intention.

[Fuchur]

Pleae keep in mind, that people here are trying to help, not trying to offend you. I know this is not very common anymore on the internet, but this community is really all about being helpful and I consider that as one of the highest goods available here. No matter what background you have (may it be a master in computer technologies or may it be that you never ever had a computer before), we will try to help you.

We do not know each other personally (at least most of use do not), can't know about the skills (especially of newer forum members) and like that most here tend to assume nothing to be given when they give advise. That is not meant to say "you are stupid" or "you just can't follow instructions".

 

You would be very astonished on how many problems really are just there because one little thing got lost while reading or was received in a different way than it was intended by the author, especially because people all over the planet are using this forum. (I am from Germany for instance, but even if someone is from Seattle and the other is from Dallas this will very likely happen sooner or later...)

 

The only way for us to help is doing a remote diagnosis and since we can not have a look at your screen (if we are not using teamviewer or something like that which I for instance did before if all other things didn't want to work...), we have to ask about stuff, that may sound unbelievable easy and of cause you very likely got that right, but we want to be sure, just in case that this little detail may have caused all that trouble... otherwise we can't help, all the people are frustrated sooner or later and all because that small little detail made everything go rotten.

 

Hope you can see where I am going with that. Long story short:
People here are very friendly and you can assume, that nobody here is offending you in any way by intention.

If it still happens, do not take it personally... it wasn't meant like that VERY very likely...

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[fae_alba]

I know working with A:M can be frustrating, trust me. But to echo both Rodney and Gerald, everyone here is here to help others, and to get help themselves. Otherwise, why be out here at all? Now, I'm a software engineer by trade and training, been on everyside of the fence from design to code, to QA to helpdesk. And I'm here to tell you, if you see behaviour that others don't when doing the same tasks (constraining a model to a path), then any help desk professional is going to first suspect the user. It's a fact of life. The purpose of the questions being asked is to dig into the issue you are experiencing in order to eliminate possibilities, that's how it gets done. If at the end of the Q&A session all of the potential user generated issues are eliminated, then we can look to the software for the problem.

 

You have had some of the best individuals on this forum offering to take time to look at your project and find, and most likely fix, the issue for you. Take Them Up On Their Offer!!!!