XSI vs. A:M

#6

I donā€™t think Hash will lose too much sleep over it :slight_smile:

Martin isnā€™t too fussed with ā€˜making AM an animation pluginā€™ for other apps. There still appears to be a reasonable number of poly animators using AM for their own private projects.

Cheers

#7

xsi is the better option as A:m is just to closed, more a true hobbist tool, a capable one for animations but more a closed box in the age of communication.

#8

nvm, thatā€™s true and untrue.

Itā€™s true it isnā€™t compatible with others and doesnā€™t fit well in a pipeline, but untrue here:
ā€œā€¦a capable one for animations but more a closed box in the age of communication.ā€

Iā€™m working on a project that has approx. 10 people working on it and A:M has been a dream.

Itā€™s in some ways very suited for the age of communication, assuming your project is with people using A:M only for animation.

*Filesizes are small (itā€™s easy to share models, scenes, lights, materials, theyā€™re all small text files, which also means theyā€™re easy to tweak and program with)

*Thereā€™s a built in chat tool. On the project Iā€™m on we use IRC, a private forum, and FTP, but A:M does have a built in community window that allows for communication.

*Files can be kept seperate (aka Models, actions, lights, scenes).

Iā€™d say that A:M is perfect for the ā€œage of communication.ā€ But yes it is limited in itā€™s ability to play well with others.

Zack

#9

Amen :thumbsup:

#10

all of you said = closed box

This is simply working in the box and as I said capable but closed.

#11

You make it sound like the average project has people working on all different software at once. Animating a shot in Max, then doing some tweaks in Maya, sending it to someone whoā€™s using XSIā€¦ Usually a pipeline for a project is more limited than that. If it isnā€™t, then thereā€™s a software R&D department to work out the kinks. Feature films are being made using one piece of off the shelf software (Delgo comes to mind, although Iā€™m sure thereā€™re others out there). Are the people working on that project hobbyists? Or are they pros because their software of choice is Maya, despite not taking advantage of the one feature that you seem to consider makes A:M not pro.

I always play devils advocate. Ask anyone whoā€™s on the Hash Forums. Iā€™m no zealot, but I do not like the assumption that A:M is a true ā€œhobbyist packageā€ for these reasons (and as I said I play devils advocate, I was arguing pretty much the other side a few days ago).

Edit: btw, Iā€™m assuming you realize that itā€™s fairly inflammatory to come into a A:M users forum, and say:

xsi is the better option

OK, yes, it was on topicā€¦ but stillā€¦ :wink:

#12

A:M is indeed a closed system. This is due to the way the patches are handeled at animation time. They are animated as patches, which is where all the power of A:M comes from in the animation sense of things. The Patch mesh is only converted to Polygons at the render stage. which is pretty much too late for any movement into any other pipeline (I have a sneaking suspicion that the v12 SDK will open some doors here, but that is speculation on my part.)

So the one aspect of A:M that everyone absolutely loves is also the aspect that closes the box, tapes it shut and mails it to a small cabin in montana.

-David

#13

:thumbsup: I simply say hobbist in more of a general more wide spread use, sure they will be dedicated people in any app that takes it places others wonā€™t. Take Jeff lew for instance for me he put Animation Master on the map. But I later found out that itā€™s pretty hard to get content into/out of a:m an hash prefers it that way. For some who prefer not to limit their tools this isnā€™t good, and no matter how good a:m is I canā€™t imagine given up my current tools to build up support and fill in holes around a:m. I canā€™t imagine a studio doing it either, but I can easily see a group of a:m users forming a studio doing this and it would really be beneficial. Itā€™s never my intent to offend people for that Iā€™m sorry, I simply call it like I see it. I obviously have hope that someday the nature of a:m will change it would be great to use it as a character animator plugin to other apps or vice versa. Just think about some of the bigger ā€œhighendā€ apps that suck natively at character rigging & animation, I honestly think if hash wasnā€™t so closed minded about a:m everyone would be using it.

#14

I havenā€™t tried it yet but as another option to what Wegg and others have been tryingā€¦you could try using bvh for importing and exporting animation data. Everything has to match up with scale, part naming conventions and frame rates, but you could probably do it. Copy and rebuild your polygon program characters as spline models in A:M (or make them originally in A:M and export as an obj). Then you do your animating, export the bvh file and as long as everything matches up, it should work. You could probably also import bvh files from elsewhere and tweak those. Iā€™m planning on trying that in the next couple weeks between doing taxes and everything else. I have an old Mega MoCap CD from Credo around here someplace. Will has a tutorial here http://www.zandoria.com/motioncapture.htm that shows how to import and use bvh files. I think thereā€™s an old rig, too, somewhere.

Kevin

#15

Why not to use other apps like modeling tools (for architecture,ā€¦), importing meshes as props, rather than want to use AM like a plugin? Think about that.

#16

Believe it or not , the AM renderer is not the perfect tool for all jobs.
Plus you dontā€™ have the best control over props once they are imported.

As for bvh export.

Initial tests were promising but when I actually tried to use it the export broke down and didnā€™t give a good representation of the motion.

#17

Did you open the bvh file and see if it was corrupted or how the data was wrong? You can open them in a text editor. It seems different programs are finicky about how they deal with itā€¦scaling and axis especially. Some are more forgiving on naming conventions. Just curious so I donā€™t waste a ton of time hitting a brick wall.

Kevin

#18

Itā€™s something in AM.
Perhaps to due with the bake function.
I did s simple motion with a ball. It had 1 bone in it. Most of the time I was animating the model bone. When exported to bvh I brought it into both c4d and Motionbuilder.
for the first part of the animation it seemed to go well, until I hit a part where there is a hold for about 3 seconds. In the bvh the bone drifts towards the next key in a linear fashion. I looked at it in AM and noticed that that is the way the action was made when I baked the Chor to action.

I sent a report in, and it was ā€˜acknowlegedā€™ and has been for about a week or so.

#19

Well, this is not an often tread area, yet. But it doesnā€™t sound like anything unfixable. At some point someone might write their own bvh converter, who knows.

#20

Thought about it, what you have said makes absolutely NO sense. I donā€™t think you understand my post, itā€™s all about harnessing the power of A:m and not losing the flexibility and benefits of my other tools. Bringing stuff into A:M atm does just that.

#21

If you want to use static immobile objects in AM, you can bring them in as Props. That works very well. I think thatā€™s what the other post meant.

#22

Hmā€¦ I think you missunderstood hash hereā€¦

Martin said something like this in a recent thread:
The problem with export and import models etc. is the following:
A:M uses a other technology and even if we liked to, it would be very hard if not impossible to really make a good import/export-pipeline for A:Mā€¦

I think they thought about it and just thought, that it wouldnt be worth the priceā€¦

There is a possiblity to export (better this way) or import low-res-models and with bvh-files you are able to export animations to other softwaresystemsā€¦
But as he said: A:M works in a whole other way, what makes it so easy but what although limits the compatibillityā€¦

You should read some of martinā€™s or yves posts in the last 4 weeks. They really told the users something thereā€¦ I have never seen another company which talked like that with itā€™s users about there product than hash did and it was a really nice feeling to be taken full and to be in the boat.

Fuchur

PS: I dont know, but I did a few test and had not problems to import low-res-modelsā€¦
In many polygone-programs, when you use polygones as modellingtool, you just stop when you would smooth them and export the file as obj.
Make a new model and use the obj-importer in the modelling windowā€¦ It is not perfect, but the best way to get more or less good models in A:Mā€¦ you will have to tween some things soā€¦

#23

This to me is beating a dead horse but, at the hope of clarity Iā€™m going to be very frank; a:m by far isnā€™t superior in all aspects of 3d modeling and animation. So the idea of using other apps to feed it content to texture, animate render and vfx etc, is a poor one. For me a:m would only have one use and that would be to animate, rig and animate at that point Iā€™ be looking to get that content out of a:m into another app for vfx, particles, cloth/hair and etc. It would be counter producive for me to use A:m as you and others have eluded to.

#24

Well to be just as frank no-one is suggesting that you give up your tools to use A:M! Hell it would be just as counter productive for me to do anything in Maya and try to import it into A:M. Just because one way works best for you doesnā€™t mean that it must be that way for everyone. I prefer to use A:M because its cheap and itā€™s the only application I know how to do anything in - and yes - Iā€™m a Hobbiest. :slight_smile:

Cheers

#25

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.