What makes Animation: Master so much better than every one else ?

[urgaffel]

Nothing?

[ZeroNeuro]

First I gotta say this can of worms has been opened before and it was messier than Pandora's box... Or maybe the Ark of the Covenant...

First off... I would like to say that I have nothing against Hash. Secondly, I would like to say that Hash is useless in a production pipeline. Therefore, this makes Hash only feasible for low budget applications and the hobbyist.

WIth that said, I leave you to ponder this question on your own.

Cheers

[Gwot]

From what the folks at Hash have led me to believe, A:M is superior to all other 3d programs due to the fact that it does not model with polygons.

Wow that's some ugly and untrue marketing. Guess you can't use it for games either since it "doesn't do polygons" (a huge market for 3d software btw).

[manfriday]

well that is not true either.
Tak and the power of JuJu was done with Animation Master was'nt it?

[WoolyLoach]

As to using it for games..

..there is a commercial .X exporter plugin for A:M, but since I haven't decided to (re)purchase A:M I can't try it.. and some of the postings I've seen on other boards from people that have tried to export from A:M into a poly-based format seem to indicate that small modelling errors that don't necessarily show up on renders will cause problems when exported.

Even if you do something like export and do minimal decomposition (say, one quad or two tris per patch), A:M doesn't really have the toolset to *assist* you in low-poly modelling (anyone seen a plugin to help with patch-count-reduction, or a nice 'split patch' feature?). There's no question you can do it by hand.. but that's the tradeoff.. time vs. money. Which do you have more of? You can always grab the SDK and write an exporter.. again.. if you have the time/expertise or the $$$ to spend, but given the cost of developing a custom plugin, most would rather get something that can export what they need (or that has exporters written for it already) "out of the box".

I'm not dissing A:M here.. it has a lot of good features, and when I used it I enjoyed it.. but for RT3D work it's just not as capable as other (admittedly more expensive) packages.

I'd dearly love to be proven wrong, but I think even Hash themselves have stated that providing export functionality isn't on their list of things to do.

[XYZRGB]

Sorry folks. I didn't mean to vent.
I had just seen the speed modelling threads as well as the Zsphere examples posted on the Zbrush website.
With A:M, I find that to get detail on a model, I have to do a lot of breaking,stitching,twisting and turning. ( SLLLLOOOOOWWWWW )

Is my technique just wrong ?

As the saying goes "Talent comes from the artist not the tool."
But you must admit ... some tools produce better results than others.

:wavey:

[JTalbotski]

If , as you said in your initial post, you don't feel comfortable using A:M, don't. Not every program is best for all people. I doubt your mind will be changed by someone telling you something contrary to what you are experiencing.

Time for another program.


I, on the other hand, love A:M's modeling abilities and can't stand polygons in all there assorted flavors.

Use what you like!

Jim

[hoochoochoochoo]

Originally posted by WoolyLoach
As to using it for games..

Even if you do something like export and do minimal decomposition (say, one quad or two tris per patch), A:M doesn't really have the toolset to *assist* you in low-poly modelling (anyone seen a plugin to help with patch-count-reduction, or a nice 'split patch' feature?). There's no question you can do it by hand.. but that's the tradeoff.. time vs. money. Which do you have more of? You can always grab the SDK and write an exporter.. again.. if you have the time/expertise or the $$$ to spend, but given the cost of developing a custom plugin, most would rather get something that can export what they need (or that has exporters written for it already) "out of the box".



Avalanche use it and I believe Mike Hovland of Medway Games is still an AM user.

Admittedly, Maya and 3D StudioMax put out dedicated games modelling software versions but I'd say most artists have different toolsets and use their tools in different ways. In London I remember Cinema 4D was about the biggest app for Advertising stills & Multimedia footage etc but that may have been for the speed and power of its phenomenal renderer.
AM is not aimed at the games market but it can be used to produce some pretty low patch models. If you look at it that way, you can then export some pretty low polygon models that you'd then use in a Poly app. I'm a fan of Subdiv modelling but often find myself modelling in AM to export low-poly meshes to XSI.

I'd add to Jim "use what you like" - HOW you like! :thumbsup:

[Bugle]

Can't really blame them for writing positivie stuff about the app in their own marketing materials, can you?

"Animation master! The third.. no wait, maybe fourth best 3D app in the market"

... just doesn't have the same pull, you know?? :)

[WoolyLoach]

Originally posted by hoochoochoochoo
Avalanche use it and I believe Mike Hovland of Medway Games is still an AM user.

Admittedly, Maya and 3D StudioMax put out dedicated games modelling software versions but I'd say most artists have different toolsets and use their tools in different ways. In London I remember Cinema 4D was about the biggest app for Advertising stills & Multimedia footage etc but that may have been for the speed and power of its phenomenal renderer.
AM is not aimed at the games market but it can be used to produce some pretty low patch models. If you look at it that way, you can then export some pretty low polygon models that you'd then use in a Poly app. I'm a fan of Subdiv modelling but often find myself modelling in AM to export low-poly meshes to XSI.

I'd add to Jim "use what you like" - HOW you like! :thumbsup:

I guess my problem is that I was brought up doing low-poly stuff back in the day with 3DSR4 (lol anyone here remember back that far?) and I approach the app differently in the "gamedev" mindset than if I were doing, for instance, a cut-scene. Back when I owned 8.5, I'd find myself wanting to select a couple of patches and merge 'em.. ugh.. nope, by hand! I have no idea if the latest version has any kind of assistance along those lines.. guess I'll find out in March (when I buy A:M 2004, right now I have to get 4x160GB HDs and a 3GHz CPU+mobo, there's my non-beer money for the next month). If worse comes to worse, I can always grab the SDK and try to WRITE some stuff to do what I need! Thankfully it's not like I'm on a deadline or anything (whew), I have about 2-3 years before they ship my day job overseas (oy). I liked modelling things in A:M as it was easy to get nicely curved shapes.. and since the game I'm working on involves fish models, I'd sure as heck rather do the work with splines!

I know it CAN be done, it's just a case of time for me since I'm One Guy With A Pile Of Computers and not a Big Animation Studio With Lots Of Employees (lol). If I can get something out of A:M that I can suck into Wings or convert into a Wings-editable form via Milkshape, I can be happy.. there's no such thing as a one-tool pipeline I guess (heh heh ugh).

[Kricket]

Originally posted by Vegan
From what the folks at Hash have led me to believe, A:M is superior to all other 3d programs due to the fact that it does not model with polygons.They used to have a good point with that argument about 5 years ago, it was far easier to make organic creatures with AM than with polygons. But now with faster computers and Sub-D, it just aint true.

Personally, what I think make AM stand out above the rest-

1) Ease of use.
2) Great animation tools
3) Smartksin!
4) Low Price
5) Killer Toon Shader

But I try to spend more time animating than modeling. If it were vice-versa, I'd go with something like XSI. Its modeler kicks butt.

[XYZRGB]

Jim, i have seen your work, and must say that i envy your ability to create fantastic stuff in A:M. How long have you worked with A:M ?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JTalbotski
[B]If , as you said in your initial post, you don't feel comfortable using A:M, don't. Not every program is best for all people. I doubt your mind will be changed by someone telling you something contrary to what you are experiencing. <<

Jim, what i am really trying to do is get a non biased opinion about other software from a source other than the Hash group. :wavey:

>>"I, on the other hand, love A:M's modeling abilities and can't stand polygons in all there assorted flavors."<<

You are so good at what you do with A:M. :bowdown:
What other programs have you worked with ?
What made you choose A:M over the others ( and my original question : what makes A:M so much better than the rest :hmm:?

You seem defensive. I am not talking bad about A:M at all. Maybe I should have added one of those smiley faces to the topic.
If you recall, I am just frustrated at own lack of talent - not at the program.

I have invested sooo much time into A:M. I am just trying to find out if it is worth it to learn a new program. I'm really looking for excuses to stay with A:M, but feel like a clutz using it.

Tell me good stuff about about the program .... but also the bad stuff as well.
If I just wanted to hear all the good stuff, I'd call Hash.
:)

[Kricket]

Originally posted by Vegan
I have invested sooo much time into A:M. I am just trying to find out if it is worth it to learn a new program. I'm really looking for excuses to stay with A:M, but feel like a clutz using it.Vegan, what are you having trouble with in AM? Maybe we could help out?

What is your goal for 3D? Do you plan to 'go pro'? Or do you just plan to make your own short films? What interests you most? Modeling, Texturing, Animation, Lighting or Directing?

It all depends on what you want to do on wether or not you should stick with AM. If you plan to go pro as a modeler, then switch. Now. If animator, then stick with AM til you know the In's & Outs of animating.

If you just want be your own director and make short films, then AM all the way.

If you just dont know.. then hang with AM for a bit, keep playing. Maybe download trial versions of other software if you're curious.

[Zack]

Personally, when I look at those speed modeling threads I see things made in the more expensive apps in 3 hours that would take 30 mins in A:M. I don't think it's a speed thing. If it is as you say frustration at your own lack of skills (I know this feeling very well my self) then all I can say is the software does not make the artist. Why spend 1000's more? If it is as you say the complexity as you say, then maybe you should look a bit at the other programs out there to see how much more complex they can be. In 6 months with the software I have learned so much (mainly about modelling so far).

Good luck in whatever app you end up with.

Zack T.

[JTalbotski]

Vegan,

Forgive me for sounding defensive, but there have been other posts similar to yours that have been nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at starting a flame war. I'm not saying that was your intent, but I was hoping to limit the amount of "this sucks, that sucks".

I've used A:M since v5, so around 6 years. I have tried a few other 3D apps, some freeware , some demos and some limited output kinds. I have been spoiled by the simplicity of A:M's interface. Too many of the other apps have countless buttons and pulldowns, that require many steps to get something simple done. (Plus I'm not a youngster, so maybe I'm not up to learning a new program as quickly as others.)

I guess I would suggest you do the same as me, get all the freeware, demo and limited output programs you can find and try them out. You can get lots of people's opinions, but none of them may match your own experience.

So my original comment still stands, use what you like.

Jim

Originally posted by Vegan
Jim, i have seen your work, and must say that i envy your ability to create fantastic stuff in A:M. How long have you worked with A:M ?

snip

Jim, what i am really trying to do is get a non biased opinion about other software from a source other than the Hash group. :wavey:

snip

You are so good at what you do with A:M. :bowdown:
What other programs have you worked with ?
What made you choose A:M over the others ( and my original question : what makes A:M so much better than the rest :hmm:?

You seem defensive. I am not talking bad about A:M at all. Maybe I should have added one of those smiley faces to the topic.
If you recall, I am just frustrated at own lack of talent - not at the program.

I have invested sooo much time into A:M. I am just trying to find out if it is worth it to learn a new program. I'm really looking for excuses to stay with A:M, but feel like a clutz using it.

Tell me good stuff about about the program .... but also the bad stuff as well.
If I just wanted to hear all the good stuff, I'd call Hash.
:)

[John Keates]

Originally posted by Kricket
If you plan to go pro as a modeler, then switch. Now.

I understand what you mean by this. AM is quite unique in the way that it works, but I actually think that there are a lot of similarities. I leaned modelling in AM and got resonably good. I can make my brain do the spline thing. I may want to go pro so I thought that I had better learn wings. For a long time I was thinking that my brain wasn't going to hack it and that I would never get there. But I kept on at it and last week I made the first head that I am happy with and it is all in quads!

The moral of the story is that Hash patches are different in some ways but most of the skills (particularly visualisation skills) are the same. Also, in AM you have to learn discipline. You have to think about edge loops and efficiency. You can't get away with N-gons and such iether. You can use 5p and 3p patches but I have found that they have their equivelents in quads and so they transfer well (with a bit of head pain). When I look at the things that some of the people who learned on wings are doing, I see n-gons everyware. Ok, they arn't the end of the world but they can cause problems.

So I would say that it is ok to learn modelling in AM, just expect some work transfering skills to subs or whatever else. In fact, I would say that if you are going to learn both wings (or whatever) and AM, then learn AM first!

This said, some of the times that people are coming up with on those speed modelling threads are pretty damn impressive.

[John Keates]

Hey guys, I thought that I would take a plunge and do the speed modelling contest thing. I think I did pretty OK. I made the head and neck of a dinosuar in less than two hours including texturing and things. Take a look here:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1106421#post1106421

So Hash patches can be pretty fast. I am not sure how I would do with a full figure though.

[John Keates]

Oh, I thought I would start a new thread for comments to stop things from getting muddled. Go here:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118584

[XYZRGB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Keates
[B]Hey guys, I thought that I would take a plunge and do the speed modelling contest thing. I think I did pretty OK.

Hello John. Thanks for entering the speed contest. I wish I could see more A:M stuff there. You did very well.

Please help the clueless here : How does a speed contest work ?
I mean, .... how do these guys know if you already had a dino. model half finished when you enter the contest ?

To me it seems a much better idea to tell everyone that you will have a speed modelling thread going the next day, tell them the topic, allow them time to find textures, and then give everyone a picture to model from at the same time.

To me, this seems more like a 'real world' challenge, since your boss will frequently give you sketch of something and expect you to build it.

( Or has this been the way it has been done ?? )

[hoochoochoochoo]

Originally posted by Vegan
I mean, .... how do these guys know if you already had a dino. model half finished when you enter the contest ?

they don't usually know - speed contests are usually about building your skills up and very few I've come across actually have prizes.

No point cheating if there's no fan-fare and prize... and if they're regular, no-body remembers who won for the next time there's a contest.

[John Keates]

Yes, sorry, I should have said session rather than contest. I guess that some people may cheat to make themselves look good but it doesn't really matter.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.