Moving on after A:M

#45

Ok, the sphere in the first image had holes at the poles. So what? Nobody would ever see them. If you want an example of how it can be done without holes then here’s one:

It comes out a little lumpy but only a little and I could probably work on it. I usually don’t come up against this problem because I am not really into balls. Maybe you have a fixation on them? Should I add some hairs on there for you or would this make them too imperfect?

Yes, I wouldn’t mind some more modelling tools or polygon support beyond props but they will do for now.

Ok, I am going to stop this now as I am getting bored and have other things to do.

One last thing though: SHOW US A GOD DAMN PICTURE! Just a sketch will do! Or perhaps you would like to render a perfect chrome ball on a perfect checker floor?!

#46

I really would like so see some wireframes from your sphere and also some closeups of the poles !? One thing every A:M user have to learn about his software “of choice” is that nothing is really perfect in A:M and i don’t think i’m telling you anything new here !

I’ll bite.

sphere.jpg845x839

Renders perfectly.
Want a closer view? It’s hole is smaller than a pore in a rubberball. In some ways it could be argued that its more perfect.

heh.

Zack

#47

Unfortunately this is a bit low quality (I didn’t feel like re opening photoshop… so I just used paint. lol)

sphere.gif845x839

But it renders perfectly, you get the point.

#48

Originally posted by Wegg
Polygon’s have their own can of worms in terms of subtle “glitches”.

None that make your work totally unusable !

Originally posted by Wegg
It wasn’t until the advent of Sub-D surfaces that polygons even came CLOSE to the surface quality of AM.[/B]

Yeah, why use the telephone when we have our pigeons :wink: !

Originally posted by Wegg
Just like AM’s models look funky and lumpy if you aren’t careful.[/B]

Lets face it, Hash can’t handle their own creation ! No appropriate modelling tools, uv mapping sucks, no working import & export and the rendering is awful ! And always the same lousy excuse : “Sorry but we have the superior technology so we cant give you the basic tools you know from other packages because we have no clue how to do it !” The uber hash patches will get us nowhere !

Originally posted by Wegg
Yada yadda yada.[/B]

Dinky winky doo !

Originally posted by Wegg
The crashing every 5 minutes ended YEARS ago.[/B]

Nope !

Originally posted by Wegg
EXACTLY! THATS THE WHOLE POINT! With A:M you get into a “zone.” All the tools are there in one elegant app. It may not be the absolute BEST tool for all environments but it is more than enough to let creative artists express themselves inexpensivly.[/B]

If you choose A:M you also choose against ALL other existing packages ! If it’s just a hobby and A:M would be more reliable then it would be fine, i agree.

Originally posted by Wegg
And with Hash’s new open community. . .[/B]

Dont be so sure about that ! (http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=129186)

I’m not saying that you should learn only one software. All major packages have Personal Learning Editions freely available. And
you can also get recognised as an artist by using “big packages”. BTW i’ve been to 2 Siggraph shows already :slight_smile: !

#49

And you asked for a closeup:

hole.gif845x839

Just to give you some reference for how small this is:

. It took me 30 seconds of scrolling out to be able to see the full sphere again

. I made a spline the same lenght as the diameter of that circle and asked it to measure it, something that is usually very exact. It just said 0 cm.

This is nothing. Which is great for you when you buy the package to render all your fun little spheres. A sphere can have as few as 8 patches. The gaming world would be radically changed if they used patches.

#50

Originally posted by John Keates
One last thing though: SHOW US A GOD DAMN PICTURE! Just a sketch will do! Or perhaps you would like to render a perfect chrome ball on a perfect checker floor?!

What could i accomplish by that ? Does anything i said would be diffent to you ? I hope not !

#51

None that make your work totally unusable !

There are none in A:M that I know of. And trust me, I’ve done a lot more than render spheres. See my fender thread.

uv mapping sucks

Latest version. It rocks. And besides, you’ve never used the program!

I don’t have time to answer all of these, I’ve got to catch a plane. But I’m sure someone will rebut everything you’ve said. I’ll try and see how many I can squeeze in.

Nope !

you’ve never used the program!

rendering is awful

Look at JoeW’s work. Not to be unhumble, but I think the rendering of my guitar ain’t awful either. The problem is the huge amount of bad artists using A:M, or at least newbies. There tend to be more of them using A:M. I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but I’m sure you’ve all seen something really awful made with A:M. It also doesn’t help that A:m shows work from 1996 in their gallery.

you can also get recognised as an artist by using “big packages”. BTW i’ve been to 2 Siggraph shows already !

Congratulations! I hear the requirements are really hard to get into that show! Umm… you… um… have to um… be human (?). I’m going this summer, too.

You get recognized for good work. Not for the fricken package you use. I’ve spoken to the head of HR at Sony Pictures Imageworks about this, personally. It’s all about the work on your reel (and the music! lol).

Should we compile a list of Pro’s who use A:M or got their start with A:M?

But the head moderator of these forums, lildragon (embarassed to say I forgot his name) is a good one to start on.
.Jeff Lew (goes without saying)
.Victor Navone (Pixar)
.Dan Shimmyo (MODELER Blue Sky)
.Raf Anzovin

#52

What could i accomplish by that ? Does anything i said would be diffent to you ? I hope not !

Yes it would, because you spew without knowing what you’re talking about, and we would have some newfound respect.

You’re digging yourself a deeper hole.

#53

A. There is nothing unusable about hash patch models. You can export them just fine. There are lots of exporters available. Most of the models you see in my demo reel were create in Animation Master.

http://www.eggington.net

B. I would love to see more solutions to integrate with other packages. But that does not make Animation Master invalid and certainly doesn’t warrent your ranting.

C. Show us your stuff.

#54

Originally posted by zero2zillion
It took me 30 seconds of scrolling out to be able to see the full sphere again

You are a slow scroller heh !? You cant make the holes to small or you get creasy surfaces and otherwise you will get artefacts from the hole (also from procedural materials,… ). Maybe it’s just a tiny problem but to me its just unprofessional.

Originally posted by zero2zillion
Look at JoeW’s work

Examine the close-ups of Hunters legs !

#55

Is that sketch one of yours, Violet?

here’s a couple of mine, since we’re sharing :slight_smile:

That last one is for a tutorial on A:Ms UV editor that I did…So I’m pretty sure that A:Ms tools are quite sufficient. (or am I just a hobbiest?)

#56

Violet:

“What could i accomplish by that ? Does anything i said would be diffent to you ? I hope not !”

That sentence was constructed with the same kind of feeling for perfection as the little doodle that you posted.

The point about asking you to show your work is that you keep going on about how you have this qualification or use that program and so far we have no reason to believe that you are anything more than a spotty little gimp who spends too much time gleaning factoids from the net.

There are allways faults in computer programs. There are faults in everything. The theory of Quantum Electro Dynamics is one of the sturdiest theorys in science but it doesn’t go the whole hog. There are even holes in mathematics.

We are not talking about making perfect re-creations of reality, we are talking about making pictures. Earlier you said that the aim was:

“not about individuality but productivity !”

And now you are saying that it is productive to worry about stuf that nobody will ever see! Well this is further proof that you have no experience in a production environment or indeed can produce anything of any more worth than your recently donated gift to art.

#57

John, you know that Quantum Electrodynamics is the old news. The new hotness is Quantum Chromodynamics :wink: (Okay, okay, so they each pertain to different forces but I think that someone also started to work on quatum chromoelectrodynamics even - either way, it’s all crazy).

Anyway, as great as the smell of burnt troll is, why don’t we just have Wegg offer to have some work posted or send our friend off to Poserland?

#58

Zandoria, i just visited your site - Hugh Hefner would love it :eek: !

John, here are some pictures, lets do your best :wink: !

I have enough for now. Must go, drink some booze and train my artistic skills with Magna Doodle :slight_smile: !

#59

Freedom of Speech ? I never offended anyone personally ! I only bash on Hash !

odinseye2k has now been successfully added to your ignore list. You will now be returned to where you were.

#60

Violet: " I only bash on Hash !"

Not strictly true, JoeW and Avalanche have come under your mighty hammer in times past. I’m sure they will get over it though.

Oh, by the way, that work you posted, what point are you trying to make with it?

“odinseye2k”
Quantum Chromodynamics sounds cool - I’m, off to read about it so I can further confirm my suspicion that the universe makes no sense at all.

… hang on… what was this thread supposed to be about again?

Oh, yeah, moving on after AM… One thing that I have been worried about when playing with PLE versions of software is that the watermark will sully any stuff that I use in a demo real - on the other hand It would show that I am learning by myself which I guess is of value.

Other than that, if you just want to learn software then there are plenty of ple editions out there. It is probably best to think about what part of the industry you want to go into. For instance, if you want to get into games then there is GMax and a version of softimage that comes with Half Life 2. For character animation software there is Maya PLE but you might want to consider the cheaper versions of softimage that are now available.

These are pretty confusing times though (but with the bonus that there are so many learning editions) and it can be hard to know where to turn. I am just sticking to learning modelling in wings for now as animation skills are pretty universal and so will carry across from AM. Rigging is the real bummer but I recon that pretty soon it will be as easy in other apps as it is in AM. If you want to be a TD then I guess that learning some scripting or programming is a good idea.

But AM still rocks for personal work and hey, maybe more studios might start picking it up.

Then again, what do I know? Just trying to get the thread back on track…

#61

Hi everybody !

I believe that it doesn’t matter which software you use. Violet, you may take this advise from a discreet employee :

You can read the whole thread here : http://support.discreet.com/webboard/wbpx.dll/~3dsmax/guests (“Wish List” -> “3DSMax is going to die?” ) Funny thread name, heh !

#62

Ah! I get it now. Violet obviously thinks Hash has a connection to the narcotic and these images are the visions of a particularly lucid trip. Possibly one that’s still in progress. Either that or you think you’re in the Teletubbies forum. That’s not to bash the budding artist inside you…God knows I wish it would take control…but this is a 3D forum.:thumbsup:

#63

Hmmm - the “Boobs Guy” - I like it :wink:

I can’t complain about the support I’ve gotten from Hash recently - I can’t imagine a better situation than when I was working with Bob Croucher on Dynamic Constraints - he was very helpful. What I was pseudo-commenting on is that you would never see that kind of support response out of Alias/Wavefront or Discrete…I was really surprised.

Nope - haven’t dumped AM no matter what Miss Pinhea… - er - Violet903 says - just another tool in the box next to AM, Messiah Studio, LW, C4D, Maya, and Electric Image Universe - all of which I legitimately own and use… unlike our resident troll…

Ya just use the one that works best for the job at hand…

God I love the ignore list…

JoeW

#64

I own a LEGAL version of C4D and XSI ! ( imagine that, Joe ! … and piracy is a serious crime… ). Wanna try the limbo thingy ? :rolleyes:

I also got a diploma in computer science and a well paid job (where i have to use XSI, Maya, LW & Max ) so dont think i’m the usual troll or a “cg groupy”. I pretty know what i’m talking about. The point i’m trying to make here is that Hash made a mistake a long time ago (prefered Patches over Polygons) and now suffers the consequences.It was a nice thing 15 years ago because there were no alternatives at this time. But they just can’t handle patches and the cap between them and the whole rest of the cg world will only get bigger. (And for those having even trouble installing simple addons for XSI : It’s the Frankenstein thingy :slight_smile: ! ). I’m not really blaming Hash for not being able to deliver the basic standard tools and quality because i know how difficult the patch theory is. But they should have accept the consequences and moved towards Polygons after the big Sub-D revolution :slight_smile: I know i will get the usual answers that this hash patches are soooo elegant to use and sooo much better than polygons but that’s simple not true. You have to see the whole picture, pros and contras !

And if all of you REALLY want me to leave… :frowning: