#Probs w/ PPC Versions
32 messages in this thread
Well said Doug! Thanks for your support
Steve, Hash Inc.
Steve,
I tried, in some of the other forums that Joe hangs out in, to try to help him
out. When I asked him if he had purchased the training tapes, he said no. When
I purchase A:M, I did get the tapes. For me, the tapes made a HUGE difference!!
Unless the animators in the tapes are getting royalties, would you consider
building the tapes with the product? Or maybe offer a huge discount for
purchasing the tapes at the same time? Just thinking of heading off other
potentially unhappy users.
Somewhere I read that whenever someone purchases a new piece of software, a
good rule of thumb is to invest %10 of the cost of the product in hours of
learning the product before making a decision of Yea or Nay. So, for A:M that
would be about 70 hours using it. Having the training tapes DEFINATELY gets a
new user over the learning curve!
Anyway, keep up the good work!!
Jim Jonah // How about a tape of Rod's head and one of the interaction of the
ball and block right before the other balls come down the slide. Both are
incredible pieces of animation, no matter what product they where done in.
Also, how about uploading a couple of seconds of each of these animations? I
would love to tell other CIS users to download those, I think they would help
get across the message of just how good A:M is!!//
Jim, Thanks for your support! Unfortunately "Ball and Blocks" And "Killer
Tools" belong to their respective owners and we couldn't convince them to let
us use the animations for mere than the demo tape… we are working on creating
some more training tapes though… possibly using some of their work…
Steve, Hash Inc.
Jim,
>>>Unless the animators in the tapes are getting royalties, would you consider
building the tapes with the product?
I think the animators _should_ get royalties for their work… And I beleive
one of the reason why there are so few A:M animations in public domain is that
there are a lot of people who use it for "real" projects — ones that get paid
for by the job market. I am sure you are aware of the kind of time requirements
necessary to do stuff in this program and would be very surprised if a lot of
people were simply giving their work away…
As for Joe's comments… I also felt like writing someting in defense of A:M,
but there was something in the tone of his note that made me think it would be
useless. I also doubt if he is logging into this forum anymore — just
another virtual drive by shooting…
Pawel
Agreed! Thanks for your input though Pawel…
Steve, Hash Inc.
Pawel,
>>>>>Unless the animators in the tapes are getting royalties, would you
consider building the tapes with the product?<<
>>I think the animators _should_ get royalties for their work… <<
Maybe I didn't state it correctly, BELIEVE ME, I always feel strongly about
everyone getting paid for their effort. I didn't know if Hash had a deal with
the people who presented on the training tapes that they would get a percentage
of the revenue from selling the tapes. If they did get a cut, then that would
stop the tapes from being given away. Maybe just getting the recognition from
doing the tape, plus a one-time fee, is how they got paid, or maybe they
believe in the product so strongly that they are just helping out.
The intent was that "Joe" didn't buy the tapes and quickly got frustrated. I
ran into him in the Multi-media forum and tried to help, but other users had
him talked into getting StrataStudioPro, which he did. I then explained to he
that I used SSP before I found out about A:M, and had problems doing what
clients wanted done. SSP just couldn't do it. By then he had given up!
So, possibly buy bundling some, or all, of the tapes, OR offering a cheaper
price when purchasing them at the same time as purchasing the program, new
users would get over the learning hump! <G>
Anyway, happy animating!!
Jim JOnah
Joe,
>>>So, possibly buy bundling some, or all, of the tapes, OR offering a cheaper
price when purchasing them at the same time as purchasing the program, new
users would get over the learning hump! <G>
When I upgraded from Playmation to Animation:Master there was a tape with the
program; some sample animations & images, plus tutorials (Yes, the tutorials
were for previous version of Playmation, but still helpful for someone just
starting). It still was more than what you get with Imagine or TrueSpace…
>>>I always feel strongly about everyone getting paid for their effort.
I suppose, I believe that for big efforts (or talents) people should get paid
*BIG* money. <G>
I don't know for sure, but it also seems to me that the market for A:M might be
too small for the kind of give aways (or discounts) you propose… Of course,
it never hurts to ask. <BG>
Pawel
Pawel,
>>I don't know for sure, but it also seems to me that the market for A:M might
be too small for the kind of give aways (or discounts) you propose…<<
Yes, you are right, Animation:Master's new demo tape does have a "quick"
how-to at the end of some great animation, maybe they could also put a quick
one minute description of each of the available training tapes right before the
"how-to".
Basically, I was just trying to think of ways to head off new users,
especially Mac, from getting caught up in the "it's not a Mac" interface blues,
and giving up too quickly on a great program!
Jim Jonah
Jim and Pawel, thanks for your support! It sure feels good to see and hear from
the large quantity of happy users we have!
Steve, Hash Inc.
No, actually i was out of town and unable to log on…
And if you mean from my "tone" that my belief about the importance of the UI is
cast in concrete (not AM's in particular) then you are correct..
All of you should note that i said "..it is unusable for me" and that "..if the
user".. i was talking about UI in general..
I will repeat:
AM is the most powerful modeling program i have used.
I found it's documentaion and interface a serious challenge and in the end
found I could create more/better things in infini-d and strata…this is true,
FOR ME. Others will have different opinions…
I also do not believe that it should require 5 video tapes to teach me how to
build simple things which work and look good…
If am works for you, then great! I DO NOT WARN OTHERS OFF OF IT!
I only regret that the company policy is to charge a restocking fee…so it
becomes an investment to just find out if it is usable…
I also said I will look at AM again next year, when the interface is
redone…but infin-d and strata are bcoming more like am (while it is moving in
their direction).
I believe that I have been misquoted here and perhaps y'all are protesting a
bit too much?
Joe 😉
Joe,
>>>I believe that I have been misquoted here and perhaps y'all are protesting a
bit too much?
Probably both are true. I am glad you are back to take the heat from people
like me who do use and like the program…
I hope you understand that AM was not specifically designed for the Mac… Hash
ported it _so the people with Macs_ can use it. It would be silly to develop a
different interface for each OS. As I've heard from one of the distributors a
year ago, (a gossip, I don't know if it still is true) Mac sales were only 10%
of those for Win platform, hardly an incentive for the developer (if it is
true).
In your original note you admitted how quickly the program loads. I for one,
appreciate this little fact very much in days of bloated code. If the price is
to have spartan modules, I don't mind it one bit. As a matter of fact I am
scared to death (I have a great investment of time and effort) that the next
version will become more like PhotoShop — 2 minutes to load and 5 minutes to
open a file… I would hate to lose the ASCI access to file formats for quick
editing , (So I don't have to lunch the whole thing to change simple image map
— a "standard" in other 3D programs). Finally, I would hate to have one single
10 meg file for each scene.
Let's face it — 3D is not for everybody. It is too complex. Most people have
enough problems with flat drawing. (I am not saying that about you. I have no
way of knowing).
Yes, I would like to see improvements in AM, it is not perfect. I would want it
to be more sensitive to the waste of time it creates because of not very well
thought out rutines.
Like Skin requirements — creating the whole actor in one piece, cutting it
apart and than putting it together again instead of simply creating a figure
and simply grupping points, adding pivots for individual segments. Like placing
decals with boxes instead of actual bitmaps that take forever to scale and
attach. Like having a "flaten" command for decaling, where spaces between
control are preserved (as close as possible) but an a 2D plane so the images
are attached without any distortion. (I know it is possible to do, I do it
manually all the time).
Those would be improvements I would love. Whether the program is well
appreciated by Mac police (or slaves) is of absolute no interest to me. <g>
Pawel
Pawel,
I am a PowerMac user and also LOVE the fact that A:M opens so fast. Yes it took
a little while to find the interface quirks that conflict with the Mac. Most
Mac programs do not depend upon the path to the file, they internally refer to
the "file number", thus allowing the user to move the file and rename the file
at will, A:M doesn't allow either. It also has a problem with file names that
have spaces in them, you just can't do it.
The skin thing is a little wierd, BUT it allows you to do it with objects that
were NOT created with the cross section tool, UNLIKE Strata and, from what
users have told me, 3DS. In strata, you can band an object ONLY if it was
created with the cross section tool, AND to bend it you have to first unskin
it. I much prefer A:Ms method!
And the ASCII file format is great, it will hopefully allow third parties to
add to it.:)
Gotta Go! Jim Jonah
Well, I guess that's the difference..you've been able to overcome the interface
and achieve productivity..I can see how y'all did it..i just wasn't willing to
spend the time..as I've said as i work w/ strat more I may come to appreciate
it more..and will probably investigate 3d, if you can give me good reasons to
investigate it.
Let me suggest a few serious interface violations:
1. No undo in several modules
2. No progress infdicator
3. No way to cancel an operation with command .
4. Cryptic labeling of buttons
5. Overreliance on ascii text files/ techie geek abilities
6. Having to repopen the SAME project for each tool (sheesh!)
7. No way to lock a button down to d o the same thing many times
8. Modes are not always indicated when you are in them
9. Messages are cryptic, blame the user, and offer no solution (my
favorite"can't Skin" – or whatever it says when you try to skin and it can't
match up…and NO way to indicate how to fix it..it's just hit and miss)
10. You have to build a model, chop it up and save it piece by piece…are you
joking?
I agree – w/ mac sales being 10 % there's no financial reason to build a decent
mac interface…since we know that the mac interface is a joke and adds no REAL
value anyway, right? – Just look at windoze! <g>
So Guys, How much EASIER and productive do you think you would be if the
interface was integrated?
and speed to load…2 minutes for photoshop? How fast is your HD and do you
have the most recent apple drivbers and how many plugis fdo you have? I have
almost 100 plugins and photoshop loads in about 30 seconds…strata in about
45…so big, WELL_INTEGRATED software doesn't scare me.
and maybe, just maybe, if they DID spend the time to meet Apple interface
requirements, maybe they could increase their market share…and reviwers in
the trade pub wouldn't rake AM over the coals…believe me I feel REALYT BAD
about not making it work…very intense stuff…
Oh well, and so it goes…I work for oracle and after seeing what results from
the "least common GUI" approach I have become a firm believer that each product
should make the best use of the underlying GUI…even tho you may charge more
for supporting the different platforms…
And so much for my religious prefs….
I now turn toward strat to try and build a replica of Michelangel's Pieta that
I saw on loan to the Nat'l Gallery in London this weekend…wish me luck..Any
ideas how to get the folds and veins in the skin to stand out?
BTW I'll check for your messages here, but prob won't continue on this
forum…
I hang in Graphics and Multimedia dev's world (and newton..where I dev
apps..and interface IS important!)
Joe 😉
Why don't you just start using POV RAY if you want a truely jerky interface?
Sanford
Joe,
You and I have already hashed <G> this one out, so I won't do it again, except
for number 10, cutting an object apart. Yes I did have to make one phone call
to find out why the skinning didn't work for me. The answer was simple. BUT at
least with A:M I can cut apart ANY object IF I choose to. In STRATA, unless it
changed with 1.5, the ONLY way to bend and twist an object over time is IF the
object is built with cross sections. IF it is, you can move the individual
cross sections one at a time ONLY when the object is not skinned. AS soon as
you unskin it, you lose you texture mapping (if I remember correctly).
So, while with A:M, you cut it up and put it back together once, with strata,
unskin and skin every time you make a change to the motion. Once sounds easier
to me.
Anyway, you like your Crafstman, I Makita. <G>
As far as the viens in you new model, I would try using bump maps before
trying to model every little indentation. Unless the camera is moving in for a
close up, no one will know.
Have FUN!!!!!
Jim Jonah
Jim,
>>>The skin thing is a little wierd
It seems we all agree on that… I suppose it is done that way because of the
way the programs were evolving in the past (skin being a later addition)… I
hope somebody will stop and rethink the method… I really think the best way
would be to create the whole figure as one and let the program build the
segment structures simply by selecting control points and giving them names…
This way you wouldn't have to go through all those wasteful rutines. To set the
inverse kinematics limits you would simply move the selected segments to the
maximum XYZ positions. The image mapping direction would follow that of the
pivot for each segment that would be automaticaly created at the center of the
first "entry" cross section.
Pawel
Gentlemen,
I begin to see a pattern of gripes emerging. I would like to say that
Animation Master is so much better than 1.48 plain vanilla Playmation, that it
seems like a different program ….except that tools we have all grown to need
and love are missing. I hate to see forums being mostly negative…Check out 3D
Studio when users found out they would not be getting a spline patch modeler.
Boy, have they been griping. Yet we do have one in A.M., and I think it is one
of the best in Any software package…I run Alias, Prisms, Strata, 3D Studio,
Electric Image, Form Z, Imagine, Lightwave, and POV RAY.
I have a pet peeve, which is lack of a decent selection tool set. It
kills me to have to use a one-time-only square box…but I have been told by
Hash that it would be too hard to change. So, what do I/We do about it.
..wait and keep griping…what else.
The new interface, the great pumpkin…as they say in Peanuts.
Sigh…is growing up North in Vancouver, WA.
This is still a great tool, too bad it still hard to use.
Sanford
PS. I am amused by Mac Snobs, and SGI snobs. Strata has many problems too.
Stanford,
>>>I run Alias, Prisms, Strata, 3D Studio, Electric Image, Form Z, Imagine,
Lightwave, and POV RAY.
That's quite a list, on 3 different platforms! How did you get your hands on
them all?
Does any of those have displacement mapping? (I understand it is similar to
bump mapping, except it actually moves the surface in 3d prior to rendering)…
I hope we will get it in AM in the future…
Pawel
Pavel,
Displacement mapping is available for everybody in Renderman, and most
of the CGI studios in Hollywood (where I get my hands on those platforms) use
it in one form or another. Prisms output to .RIB files for Renderman is popular
and will be seen on the new Hollywood version of GODZILLA. Time Cop, the Van
Dam movie was all Renderman images. I don't think A.M. will go this way because
.RIB files are a real pain….Animated displacement maps would be great,
though, on top of A.M. patch surfaces.
I'm a great fan of A.M. and want to see it grow.
Sanford
Pawel & sanford,
I have to add to sanford's reply: Even the humble Pixar Typestry (with the
RenderMan engine beneath the pretty /inter/face) allows you to perform real
displacements. You cannot create the materials in just Typestry (not in
versions prior 2.0 at least), but you will either have to buy the Looks or use
Glimpse to add displacement. It's quite amazing to see this low-end package (at
least when it comes to price) to perform this neat little trick.
Best regards,
Thomas Lindstrom – DiP – Sweden
The Digital ComPuter Magazine
Thomas,
I have an early copy of Typestry. I guess I'll get an upgrade and try
it out. I can't use the full Renderman product just to make animated
displacement maps..It is very cumbersome. Thanks for the tip.
Sanford
Sanford Kennedy Design. L.A.
>>>Animated displacement maps would be great, though, on top of A.M. patch
surfaces.
Is it something you think just "nice to have" or something very fundamental?
Pawel
Pavel,
If this were available in A.M., it would add a whole new dimentionality
to most animations. The default surfaces that are not reflective come out
looking like colored paper or chalky plastic. I long for a more responsive
Materials interface. The little chunks of wood thing" that we have to work with
is drab at best, and there is little or no way to see the results you are
getting. Where is the Lighted Ball that all other interfaces have? We need to
see the results of material settings with light and shadow, not just a
miniature flat postage stamp. This is 3D graphics, after all.
Essential…? Yes.
Displacement Maps, and a quick rendered LightingMaterial Ball.
I would like to animate more successfully in AM, but
I keep tripping on little "quirks."
Sanford
Pawel, Our Boolean will be 3D of course!
Steve,Hash Inc.
Pawel,
If I may add my 2 cents, I think that displacement mapping is essential. A
friend of mine has the Alias PowerAnimator system, which has displacement
mapping. This adds the needed realism that is missing in most PC animation
programs. It would make modeling some objects a breeze, a light bulbs screw
could just be a map, elephant skin would actually be indented when you fly in
close to it, veins under skin would actually pop up, etc.
I think A:M is a great program and this feature would help set it apart from
the rest! (steve…?)
Jim Jonah
Pawel,
Don't get me wrong, I am SO HAPPY to be able to do the things I can do with
A:M that I quickly got over any interface quirks!
Your suggestion of selecting and naming parts seems like a good solution. As I
said in another thread, it would be nice if some of the capabilities from one
module where brought over into the others, saving groups of points should be in
every module that allows you to select points, for example.
Given the choice between better interface, or more features, I'd take more
features anyday!!!
Jim Jonah
Jim,
>>>Your suggestion of selecting and naming parts seems like a good solution.
Steve is very quiet about this idea, though. Maybe they do like us work hard
after all ;=)
>>>it would be nice if some of the capabilities from one module where brought
over into the others, saving groups of points should be in every module that
allows you to select points, for example.
When everything is in one module they probably will…
Pawel
While we're on pet peeves, (we still are, aren't we?<G>) I would like to see a
material preview on both a flat and a curved surface. It would help
ever-so-much in figuring out what's going to happen when light hits it.
I am a relatively new user (since July) of A:M and I think its great. I have
impressed the h*ll out of my business partner with some simple fly-bys and 3D
renderings. I have found it a little lacking for pure geometrics, but I knew
it was better suited to amorphic shapes that move.
I wouldn't care if the interface wasn't integrated as long as I could call the
different modules from within the others — sorta like the "software suite"
concept that's soooooo hot right now.
I'm no crazy about the dongle, either, but then again, I'm not crazy about
going to the dentist. Both are necessary evils.
$ 0.02 from Charlie
Charlie,
>>>>I have found it a little lacking for pure geometrics, but I knew it was
better suited to amorphic shapes that move.
Part of it might be a question how you approach the modeling. In addition to
simply moving the control points, I've learned to use numerical input, grid and
pivot changes, scale and rotation tools with selective locks on X, Y or Z for
very exact geometrical operations… Things you can do with this stuff are very
precise, since you don't have to worry about flat edges and which faces will be
smoothed and which not… Because of those "bad habits", I really have hard
time with the polygon based 3D programs — they all seem to lack the
precision… <BG> My only problem with my "Scale and Rotation Modeling" is that
it doesn't let you use fractional numbers…
Steve was hinting about Boolean operations in A:M 3.0. (Similar to
Intersection, Difference and Weld in Corel 5.0)… I hope he means Boolean in
3D not just 2D like in TrueSpace 1.0… This should help us in any case.
Pawel
<<I hope he means Boolean in 3D not just 2D like in TrueSpace 1.0…>>
Pawel, what's your take on TrueSpace for "flying Logo" work. I mainly need io
include it in Director movies. While a lot of this stuff is still new to me,
I've been a professional artist for 15 years and a computer enthusiast (aka
"nerd") even longer. I am having a blast and making some money at it. <g>
I was thinking about dropping a few bills and picking up their "intro special"
for only $495.00. (smokin' Master Card!)
Charlie
Charles,
I agree with you on the curved surface preview, that would be great!
BUT I disagree with you on the dongle<G>. I think its great, it stops all of
the competitive free loaders at work who think they can do everything, yet buy
nothing, and think they are an expert at everything, without ever reading the
manuals!
The dongle, and network serialization, forces companies to be legal, I think
that is GREAT. I'm so sick of complaining that we need more copies of software
we use on a daily basis! I love it when a new version of software comes out
that has added network serialization when it wasn't there before.
Hash, Inc. has a great multiple copy pricing policy AND with one copy of the
software you can still render on multiple machines, NOT BAD! <G>
Anyway, I'm not jumping on you, just getting this pet peeve off of my
chest.<G>
Jim Jonah
<< BUT I disagree with you on the dongle<G>. I think its great, it stops all of
the competitive free loaders at work who think they can do everything, yet buy
nothing, and think they are an expert at everything, without ever reading the
manuals!>>
Well, there's no disagreement here. I personally make sure that I'm as legal
as possible (given some of the cryptic licensing agreements that even the
company's lawyers don't quite understand<g>).
I would sooner see some sort of software encryption or other means to prevent
piracy.
I understand the dongle, I just don't particularly like it. But then again, I
don't like going to the dentist either, but look what happens without that. <G>
Charlie (gumming his oatmeal)