Jump to content

SFBurning

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFBurning

  1. Props to you Nick for being a champion of taking complaints gracefully-- but I don't think the problem most people are seeing here has much to do with the product (which is, by all accounts, dope as shit) so much as it has to do with what people will use if for. It's more of a "with great power comes great responsibility" thing-- and you've just given a hell of a lot of people some pretty great power. Speaking only for myself here, I don't think the concern is even about your actual customers so much as it is with the small-gig BitTorrent crowd. It's safe to assume that anyone ready to drop $200 on a plugin has their head squarely in the game and is ready to commit to exploring the technology you've provided thoroughly and using it responsibly. There are plenty out there, however, who are going to steal your plugin and use its magic powers to make complicated-looking but ultimately unrefined animations for small/local clients. That's what I'm more afraid of. You're in a really, really cool position of running an astoundingly good and deservedly popular C4D training site. A lot of people who want to get into using these tools come to your site for guidance, and between you, Monkey, and Chris-- well shit, they've got some pretty good teachers. That rad little site of yours also makes you a tastemaker for young motion designers, and I feel like that comes with a lot of responsibility. Your lightkits, I think, were a fantastic resource for everyone who needed a quick solution to the much-maligned lighting process. They got the job done of giving people a simple, intuitive, and fast interface that brought down a lot of the walls between the experience of using the software and the experience of trying to get the scene lit the way you want. If you weren't on the first ship to preset island they still gave you control over bloody everything. Transform, with its keyframeless design, seems to lend itself more to the "hit play and see what happens" approach. But searching in the goody bag for something neat is different than going into the workshop and building it yourself exactly as you see it in your head...and I'm afraid that that might be more the approach that Transform is naturally geared towards. I think transform is a really awesome idea and from what I've seen, it can be used for some really cool results. But those results will be of decreasing value to clients who will likely begin to notice the trend that's developing -- the same way that any cool software trick can make a neat-but-easy technique seem overdone (Big red buttons in banner ads and shape tweens in flash animations, anyone?). One of the cool things about your work, generally, is that you endorse the "okay, now roll your own" approach to doing things. To your credit as an educator, I think that's rad. The goal of a teacher should be to encourage the student's growth, even if that might come at the expense of his or her immediate results. In the long run, learning will propel you to greater heights than taking shortcuts. For that reason, I feel as though the business end of selling cool plugins is at odds with the GSG brand's tutorial side. Transform might be very attractive to your less-experienced customer base, but that may be because of its gleam and appearance as an "easy button" for things above their skill level with the normal tools. In here somewhere, of course, I should mention that nearly all of C4D's mograph module is a form of this "easy button," but I'll defend my statements by also noting that the mograph module as a toolset is extremely flexible and multipurpose. I haven't seen the Transform interface quite yet, but from the way its been marketed I'm fairly certain that people will open it up with some solid expectations of what can come out of it. That's really the main danger here, in my mind. These are, of course, only my thoughts, and anyone is welcome to disagree. Just thought it'd be worth speaking up here, seeing as to how you're already listening.
  2. I wil say that if the axis problem is the one I'm thinking of (it plagued me for a while), then option-d will hide the ever-loving daylights out of the little bastard until you're ready for him to come back and drag things around some more.
  3. Every time somebody uses the Stage Object, an fairy gets it's wings. Or, every time someone puts two keyframes right next to each other to make an angle snap, a fairy dies. It might work both ways. I'm never quite sure with these things.
  4. I'm taping this shit to my wall. Edit: Screw it, I had a couple of minutes.
  5. That looks like a combination of trapcode particular and trapcode shine. Check out Andrew Kramer's tutorial from a couple years back on VideoCopilot to make the streak effect, then duplicate the Particular layer and shorten the life of the particles, precomp it, and slap shine on it to give it that lightray effect on the the first few hundred particle units.
  6. No one should have to pay to someone else for the privilege of providing them with free labor. It's rough enough trying to stick it out with an unpaid internship and holding down a paying day job on the side. If it ever comes to that point, I think I'd rather do some pro-bono work for some nonprofits who don't have deep pockets for fancy design work. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-social organizations who would be more than happy to accept some free MoGraph sex appeal if it was offerred. At least then you'd be building your portfolio and working for a good cause. Plus, you know, open briefs are pretty tight.
  7. Unpaid internships are sort of a scam any way you look at it. If the company is really putting their interns to work on real projects, they're exploitative because that's the kind of work that they should be paying people to do. Conversely, many interns just end up hanging out around the office waiting to be told to get coffee, and that's just a waste of their time. Although they're scarce, paid internships are the only real solution. Just give me minimum wage and I'll be happy to push your pixels in the morning and take your trash out at night. Interns are generally understanding of the fact that someone in the office has to take the semi-janitorial duties and --let's face it-- everyone else's time is too valuable to be wasted on those sorts of tasks anyway. What I can't abide is when a company will only offer those sorts of duties to interns without compensation. Interns too often end up spending the time they could otherwise be using to sharpen their skills or earn some cash just waiting to get someone else's lunch. Paid interns are probably less likely to get caught in the hurry-up-and-wait trap, since time they spend idling about is an actual expense to the company.
  8. These are great. Great idea, great execution, and an economical concept. This is everything a one-man operation ought to be.
  9. Read up on the "Magic" Deamon and get ready for many, many hours of bashing your head against your monitor.
  10. I'll sign the daylights out of this, but I've seen reports of Hackintoshes far out-speccing Mac Pros and it seems to be a viable option for the higher-end market. I personally run C4D and CS6 on my Hackintosh (although it's closer to an iMac than a Mac Pro in terms of performance) and it's as stable as any Apple-manufactured system out there.
  11. Good keyframing never goes out of style.
  12. douwe's solution was exactly what I needed. Many thanks to both of you!
  13. Hey guys! First some background on the project, if you're curious. For tl;dr pop down to the second paragraph. I'm woking on a scene in C4D where I want a "trail" coming off an object to bank along with that object as it moves through space. Right now I have a long thin rectangle nested in a Sweep NURBS along with a Tracer Object. This produces the trail I want, but because the Sweep NURBS does not look at the rotational values of my rectangle, there's no banking occurring even if the rectangle would be constrained to the bank of the object which is producing the trail. The solution I've hatched up (which seems close to working) is to use xpresso to connect the bank of the leading object directly to the initial rotation found within the 'details' section of the sweep NURB. The only problem now is that the value of the Sweep NURBS internal rotation feature is mapped from two user-determined values on a 0-1 scale...not a true degree system. Mine is set to the default of -180˚ to 180˚, meaning that a rotational value of 0 would be entered into the graph as the exact midpoint, 0.5 . The challenge I have is finding a formula to convert my bank rotation into a 0-1 scale that reflects rotation between -180˚ and 180˚. Does anyone have any tips on performing this sort of operation in C4D, or might know any resources worth consulting? Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...