DragonCon had seperated with the founder but he still had shares in the company. Apparently it was a difficult process but as of last year he no longer has those, meaning he now has zero ties to it in theory.
As Gvzbgul said, Ed Kramer no longer has any ties to DragonCon. And I've been attending since 2004 and other than the immense crowds I've never had a bad experience.
And that article did say it was non-con goers causing the trouble.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
+2
Options
turtleantGunpla Dadis the best.Registered Userregular
Chinook: the lovable, dependable fat kid of helicopters
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
The average salary for a Senior Technical Director/Rigger, the people behind creating rigging systems on models usually, on a feature film is roughly $120k-$150k a year.
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
The average salary for a Senior Technical Director/Rigger, the people behind creating rigging systems on models usually, on a feature film is roughly $120k-$150k a year.
you mean it's not automated?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Look, the rigs on the TF2 characters are great. For the TF2 characters, which is exactly what they were made for. They aren't super high-res or complicated or need anything fancy like cloth or hair or any of that stuff. They are pretty much exactly what I see on any game character rig.
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
The average salary for a Senior Technical Director/Rigger, the people behind creating rigging systems on models usually, on a feature film is roughly $120k-$150k a year.
you mean it's not automated?
Hahaha noooooooooooope. Well sorta.
See, there is an intermediate process between when the character model is created and when it is actually animated. This is called 'rigging'. A rig is basically a skeleton that is created inside the model and then the vertices on that model are all 'weighted' to a specific bone on that skeleton. This process can be somewhat automated, creating the joints and bones to fit in the model for example, and programs are getting better at setting reasonable values on all those vertices.
But a computer is pretty dumb and can end up having stuff like the shoulder vertices being influenced by the knee bone or something, so a rigger or an animator will go in and 'paint' the weighting on the model by hand. It's a tedious process that simply just takes time, but a necessary one.
Look, the rigs on the TF2 characters are great. For the TF2 characters, which is exactly what they were made for. They aren't super high-res or complicated or need anything fancy like cloth or hair or any of that stuff. They are pretty much exactly what I see on any game character rig.
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
The average salary for a Senior Technical Director/Rigger, the people behind creating rigging systems on models usually, on a feature film is roughly $120k-$150k a year.
you mean it's not automated?
Hahaha noooooooooooope. Well sorta.
See, there is an intermediate process between when the character model is created and when it is actually animated. This is called 'rigging'. A rig is basically a skeleton that is created inside the model and then the vertices on that model are all 'weighted' to a specific bone on that skeleton. This process can be somewhat automated, creating the joints and bones to fit in the model for example, and programs are getting better at setting reasonable values on all those vertices.
But a computer is pretty dumb and can end up having stuff like the shoulder vertices being influenced by the knee bone or something, so a rigger or an animator will go in and 'paint' the weighting on the model by hand. It's a tedious process that simply just takes time, but a necessary one.
I'm not experienced in source filmmaker, but given the prolific amount of amateur animators that are putting out decent video game level work (I think), and they aren't all getting paid $$$bux, doesn't that speak to the notion that the source engine rigging software is more powerful than it has a right to be?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, compared to feature film rigs they are not very complicated. But that's also why they are so impressive. You can do animation like that flute video with a rig designed for video game models, meant to be animated in real time with tight optimization, bone and polycount limits.
Models for CGI and such don't have to be rendered in real time so you can just have thousands of bones and morphs and super-high polycount face meshes and so on and just render your scene frame-by-frame. The fact that the TF2 characters (and most of valve's source engine character models) have facial rigs and meshes which allow near-feature film quality animation, while still keeping the complexity low enough for those models to animate in real time in a game engine is what is amazing about them. And while a lot of games these days are at that level of quality, valve made these models in 2007, in an engine they released in 2004.
Yeah, compared to feature film rigs they are not very complicated. But that's also why they are so impressive. You can do animation like that flute video with a rig designed for video game models, meant to be animated in real time with tight optimization, bone and polycount limits.
Models for CGI and such don't have to be rendered in real time so you can just have thousands of bones and morphs and super-high polycount face meshes and so on and just render your scene frame-by-frame. The fact that the TF2 characters (and most of valve's source engine character models) have facial rigs and meshes which allow near-feature film quality animation, while still keeping the complexity low enough for those models to animate in real time in a game engine is what is amazing about them. And while a lot of games these days are at that level of quality, valve made these models in 2007, in an engine they released in 2004.
Oh yeah, this part is awesome. And absolutely correct. Though I feel like that's more attribute to Source Filmmaker itself than just the rigs. It's basically the game version of the software Pixar uses for their films.
Yeah, compared to feature film rigs they are not very complicated. But that's also why they are so impressive. You can do animation like that flute video with a rig designed for video game models, meant to be animated in real time with tight optimization, bone and polycount limits.
Models for CGI and such don't have to be rendered in real time so you can just have thousands of bones and morphs and super-high polycount face meshes and so on and just render your scene frame-by-frame. The fact that the TF2 characters (and most of valve's source engine character models) have facial rigs and meshes which allow near-feature film quality animation, while still keeping the complexity low enough for those models to animate in real time in a game engine is what is amazing about them. And while a lot of games these days are at that level of quality, valve made these models in 2007, in an engine they released in 2004.
Oh yeah, this part is awesome. And absolutely correct. Though I feel like that's more attribute to Source Filmmaker itself than just the rigs. It's basically the game version of the software Pixar uses for their films.
Yeah, SFM is pretty cool, and the animator is pretty good too.
Posts
DragonCon had seperated with the founder but he still had shares in the company. Apparently it was a difficult process but as of last year he no longer has those, meaning he now has zero ties to it in theory.
And that article did say it was non-con goers causing the trouble.
Safety Dance meets Metal
Yes.
Yeessss.
STEAM
I wanna play with these guys. Way more entertaining than those obnoxious twits who usually make GTAV videos.
Also for some reason Sips is my favorite Yogscaster lately.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
pull back, Indie! pull back!
can't... too... relaxed...
Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot.
They plan and plot but always get caught.
My memory is shwarbage.
I can do that but I don't wanna
Not...especially? I mean they are pretty standard. At least the TF2 stuff anyway.
They're well done, don't get me wrong, just.... it ain't nothing compared to feature film stuff.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
what's the going rate for animation company facial expression software
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The average salary for a Senior Technical Director/Rigger, the people behind creating rigging systems on models usually, on a feature film is roughly $120k-$150k a year.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
you mean it's not automated?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hahaha noooooooooooope. Well sorta.
See, there is an intermediate process between when the character model is created and when it is actually animated. This is called 'rigging'. A rig is basically a skeleton that is created inside the model and then the vertices on that model are all 'weighted' to a specific bone on that skeleton. This process can be somewhat automated, creating the joints and bones to fit in the model for example, and programs are getting better at setting reasonable values on all those vertices.
But a computer is pretty dumb and can end up having stuff like the shoulder vertices being influenced by the knee bone or something, so a rigger or an animator will go in and 'paint' the weighting on the model by hand. It's a tedious process that simply just takes time, but a necessary one.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
I'm not experienced in source filmmaker, but given the prolific amount of amateur animators that are putting out decent video game level work (I think), and they aren't all getting paid $$$bux, doesn't that speak to the notion that the source engine rigging software is more powerful than it has a right to be?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Models for CGI and such don't have to be rendered in real time so you can just have thousands of bones and morphs and super-high polycount face meshes and so on and just render your scene frame-by-frame. The fact that the TF2 characters (and most of valve's source engine character models) have facial rigs and meshes which allow near-feature film quality animation, while still keeping the complexity low enough for those models to animate in real time in a game engine is what is amazing about them. And while a lot of games these days are at that level of quality, valve made these models in 2007, in an engine they released in 2004.
Oh yeah, this part is awesome. And absolutely correct. Though I feel like that's more attribute to Source Filmmaker itself than just the rigs. It's basically the game version of the software Pixar uses for their films.
hey satan...: thinkgeek amazon My post |
Yeah, SFM is pretty cool, and the animator is pretty good too.
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Need some stuff designed or printed? I can help with that.