I have to admit that I am impressed by the animations I se that are made in Am, but I’d love to hear from some users as to what they think of it and how it compares to high end.
How does AM compare?
odinseye2k
#2
Well, for one, you’re talking about something written by a student of the great Ed Catmull, so that’s always a plus.
If you are asking this question, AM will have more than enough room for you to grow with a fairly intuitive way to do it.
My_Fault
#3
What are your goals? What do you want to do with the software? AM is great for hobbyists or people who are doing everything in just AM. If you are trying to incorporate other tools, polygonal objects, work with others who use different software, etc. it becomes a little less capable.
JHFong
#4
Polygonal objects can be imported into A:M as “props”. Texture maps are preserved, and they can be translated, rotated or scaled, and constrained to bones of A:M models. A:M procedural materials can be applied to the entire object. However, the poly mesh of props cannot be edited from within A:M, they cannot be rigged, their skeletons cannot be animated, and morph targets are not accessible. The advantage is, if you’re more comfortable creating mechanical or architectural models in a poly application, you can do that and import the props into A:M to use as backgrounds, sets, or vehicles with no moving parts. In fact, you can have moving parts too – you just have to break the parts into separate models and constrain them back together again.
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.