tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post2345866771047721367..comments2009-09-24T18:22:15.476-07:00mdauznoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-45102248830370596092009-09-24T18:22:15.476-07:002009-09-24T18:22:15.476-07:00thanks for replying, appreciate it, keep the great posts coming!dwinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15976703792463672102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-66169625828317675612009-09-23T00:45:38.662-07:002009-09-23T00:45:38.662-07:00Thank you very much .. <br /><br />In this pendulum exercise, watching frame by frame really helps to see the transfer of force, <br /><br />and i will definitely not make anything more complicate using formulas , <br /><br />Its really great belief , thanks again... <br />:)<br />MaheshCloudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09783495856967953738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-82284399589486877892009-09-22T14:55:50.231-07:002009-09-22T14:55:50.231-07:00Hi Mahesh,<br /><br />A major rule of animation is “do not get stuck in real life formulas”! You are creating the exaggeration of life (and mechanics), not the mathematical replication. Yes, in physics “impulse = force * time” but if you try to determine the precise mathematical transfer of energy into movement in your character’s coordinates you are wasting your time! Sure, you could show a ball falling at 9.8 m/s and have its position mathematically accurate in the software, but the animation would not look as good as if you exaggerated the fall and bounces. Even realistic animation is exaggerated, it is just harder to see. <br /><br />Instead working too hard with the formulas to make things look real, try finding/creating reference of what you are trying to do and learn from it. This is a good example of the pendulum exercise that should answer your questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0zeD6OwMmg&amp;NR=1<br /><br /><br />-Animation Mentor StaffAnimation Mentor Staffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03154370105238423576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-40093352510040289532009-09-22T14:55:15.712-07:002009-09-22T14:55:15.712-07:00Hello Cez,<br /><br />FK is the easiest and most visually intuitive, especially if you are just learning the concepts, but IK does pose an extra (possibly unnecessary) challenge. With FK you need not worry about going “off model” of the pendulum, you just rotate the arm and it remains the same length. In IK, you have to make sure the lengths of the arms connecting the bell and the base remain constant as the bell swings as well as tracking the arcs of the bell.<br /><br />-Animation Mentor StaffAnimation Mentor Staffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03154370105238423576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-34995180302500843952009-09-22T14:54:31.436-07:002009-09-22T14:54:31.436-07:00Hi Dane, <br /><br />Transitioning to proprietary is usually simple and have a lot of internal support to walk you through the (usually optional) proprietary tools. Almost all 3d animation software use the same basic tools: translate, rotate, scale, set/move keys, adjust splines/inbetweens, etc. If you have a solid understanding of using these tools then you can animate in almost any software. The proprietary software just adds extra tools that make animation easier and quicker. These may include GUI pickers, Key Pose/Splining editors, constraint creation, arc trackers, lip sync tools, etc. Most studios will provide training classes in their more complex proprietary tools when you begin, with much more in-depth classes for those transitioning from 2D. But really, as long as you understand the basics of 3d animation software, you shouldn’t have much trouble transitioning! <br /><br />- Animation Mentor StaffAnimation Mentor Staffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03154370105238423576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-45346581619675929422009-09-18T07:38:16.186-07:002009-09-18T07:38:16.186-07:00Hi i&#39;m Mahesh ,<br /><br />Hey that&#39;s great example ,<br /> still i&#39;m little confused , <br /><br />for successive breaking of joints <br /> if impulse in root is getting transferred , <br /> impulse = f(large)*t<br /><br />what if f is occurring in periodic manner , like f1 is getting transferred in chain, but after f1 , f2 is occurring at root and same f3....<br /><br />how it will affect if its like <br />1. f1&lt; f2 &lt; f3...<br />2. f1 &gt; f2 &gt;f3..<br />and <br />3.if f1,f2,f3....fi<br /><br />are random ,<br />will it matter ? <br /><br />if someone wants to help , please guide me ..<br />thanks ...:)<br /><br />MaheshCloudhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09783495856967953738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-23189142362313896442009-09-18T00:12:23.042-07:002009-09-18T00:12:23.042-07:00Hi, I want to try that exercise, just one technical question. Should I use IK(spline?) or FK for it?<br /><br />cheers<br /><br />Cezcezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05778686660628588449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-568416200996850535.post-90215120718212788482009-09-17T11:59:17.189-07:002009-09-17T11:59:17.189-07:00Hey Shawn, amazing site, love reading all these tips, really inspiring and encouraging.<br /><br />i wasn&#39;t sure where to e-mail, so i hope you read this comment.<br /><br />I don&#39;t know whether ILM do, but:<br /><br />&quot;At studios where you are using propietary software, like Marionette at Pixar, how did you find the transition from software you used?&quot;<br /><br />thanks<br /><br />danedwinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15976703792463672102noreply@blogger.com