Hi I'm an animation and anime studio newbie from the UK. I'm having problems with a point animation exercise I'm doing. I can animate the points OK put AS has problems determining which points should appear in front of others.
I've put an example at http://www.mytoons.com/animation/play/3271.
I've not yet finished the exercise put the problem can be seen right at the very end. The green side is in front of the red side, but the green side becomes red when placed in front of it. This problem occurs in other places, but I over came this by animating transparency and opacity. I could probably overcome this by having each side a seperate shape, but was wondering if this is a bug?
I'm having problems with point animation
Moderators: Víctor Paredes, Belgarath, slowtiger
You need to play with layer ordering.
If those shapes are all on one layer this will never work.
If each shape (sides of the box) are on different layers than you can animate the z-depth of the layers.
At the present time there is no way to animate the order of shapes (the green shape over the red shape).
The only way is to animate a layers translation in the z by a teeny tiny amount, 0.01.
You would need to turn on "Order layers by depth" on the layer properties of a parent layer and place all the layers in that layer and then key a slight change in the z layer translation.
-vern
If those shapes are all on one layer this will never work.
If each shape (sides of the box) are on different layers than you can animate the z-depth of the layers.
At the present time there is no way to animate the order of shapes (the green shape over the red shape).
The only way is to animate a layers translation in the z by a teeny tiny amount, 0.01.
You would need to turn on "Order layers by depth" on the layer properties of a parent layer and place all the layers in that layer and then key a slight change in the z layer translation.
-vern
There is no way for AS to know anything unless you tell it. 
So it can't possibly know when or if you want a shape to be above another shape.
At the moment shape order CAN be changed but the ordering is not an animateable attribute.
Meaning you can't make a shape higher on frame 20 and have it the same as it was before the change on frame 10. If you change a shapes order on any frame it changes for all frames. No key frame is created.
Same goes with layers. If you change a layer's position in the LAYER PALETTE it changes for the whole time line.
BUT... a layer has a "3D" translation value and AS can interpret ordering of layers regardless of the layer palette based on where that layer is in 3D space.
So by keying its z value higher than 0 it will rise above all the layers at 0 on the z. AS knows this because it is "math". 0.01 would be higher than 0 so it will draw that layer above the other layers.
If you key that layer later to be below 0 it will lower below all the layers that are at 0.
This is a "trick" that is used to animate layer ordering. I don't know for sure if that was the original intent but it works very well.
Yes, you will have to change your artwork. Break up the shapes. You could however leave the vectors the way they are and create multiple duplicate layers from the original layer and only delete the SHAPES not the vectors. The vecotrs stay the same but now the shapes are only visible on the appropriate layers.
-vern
So it can't possibly know when or if you want a shape to be above another shape.At the moment shape order CAN be changed but the ordering is not an animateable attribute.
Meaning you can't make a shape higher on frame 20 and have it the same as it was before the change on frame 10. If you change a shapes order on any frame it changes for all frames. No key frame is created.
Same goes with layers. If you change a layer's position in the LAYER PALETTE it changes for the whole time line.
BUT... a layer has a "3D" translation value and AS can interpret ordering of layers regardless of the layer palette based on where that layer is in 3D space.
So by keying its z value higher than 0 it will rise above all the layers at 0 on the z. AS knows this because it is "math". 0.01 would be higher than 0 so it will draw that layer above the other layers.
If you key that layer later to be below 0 it will lower below all the layers that are at 0.
This is a "trick" that is used to animate layer ordering. I don't know for sure if that was the original intent but it works very well.
Yes, you will have to change your artwork. Break up the shapes. You could however leave the vectors the way they are and create multiple duplicate layers from the original layer and only delete the SHAPES not the vectors. The vecotrs stay the same but now the shapes are only visible on the appropriate layers.
-vern
Re: I'm having problems with point animation
You can fake animating shape order on a single layer by shape transparency and having two shapes, but it sounds like you've already started playing with that when you said:
Regards, Myles.ianc wrote:animating transparency and opacity.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted."
-- Groucho Marx
-- Groucho Marx
Holy cow!!!
How long has THAT technique been around?
Up until recently, when I created that layer flipper script, to change the order of layers I have been using the duplicate layer technique to fake the lowering and raising of things like arms and legs.
It never even occurred to me to use duplicate shapes and transparency.
I think this could be scripted just like the layer translation! Rather than try to reorder shapes with a script which is what I tried first, it would be easier to change the transparency. With shape ordering the darn shapes keep "moving around" can't keep track of them. With this technique the shapes are always in the same place.
Nice tip!
-vern
How long has THAT technique been around?
Up until recently, when I created that layer flipper script, to change the order of layers I have been using the duplicate layer technique to fake the lowering and raising of things like arms and legs.
It never even occurred to me to use duplicate shapes and transparency.
I think this could be scripted just like the layer translation! Rather than try to reorder shapes with a script which is what I tried first, it would be easier to change the transparency. With shape ordering the darn shapes keep "moving around" can't keep track of them. With this technique the shapes are always in the same place.
Nice tip!
-vern
Hi Vern,
thanks!
It occurred to me when the topic came up on the Content Paradise forum.
Having to create hold keyframes before the transparent keyframes seemed somewhat clunkier than simply animating layer visibility, although there is the compensation of having partial shapes like the upper and lower arm.
A script would be fantastic solution, albeit only available to Pro version users.
Regards, Myles (crossing his fingers in the hope Vern or some other scripter picks up the idea).
thanks!
It occurred to me when the topic came up on the Content Paradise forum.
Having to create hold keyframes before the transparent keyframes seemed somewhat clunkier than simply animating layer visibility, although there is the compensation of having partial shapes like the upper and lower arm.
A script would be fantastic solution, albeit only available to Pro version users.
Regards, Myles (crossing his fingers in the hope Vern or some other scripter picks up the idea).
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted."
-- Groucho Marx
-- Groucho Marx
Genete came up with a great idea for his "3d" bone rigging scripts.
Since he is automating the creation of the bones based on points in a mesh he theorizes that any fill shapes associated with the vectors could be used to "reorder" the shapes based on the rotation during animation. So shapes would "automatically" be reorganized on the fly. We are miles away from implementing this right now.
But that got me thinking about shape ordering for my flipper script. The only problem was that I was thinking shape "order" which is very difficult as I mentioned. Changing the order really messes things up because once the file is saved or you change the order... how the heck to do you know where to change it back? The shapes keep changing order which changes the document. You would need to create some way of "resetting" the order on frame 0. Some way to store the original shape order.
I even tried to do this with layers by changing the order in the layer palette. Pain in the arse!
By using the transparency trick the shapes "stay put" so you can keep track of them easier. Their ID's never change. They are always in the same spot. Only the SECOND shape would be changed.
Eliminating the "extra" key frame is a piece of cake. If the transparency is being done with a script, the keys are placed programmatically... I would just put in a "step" key frame instead of a "smooth" one. The shape would instantly "vanish" on just one key frame.
I plan to fool around with this when I get a chance
-vern
Since he is automating the creation of the bones based on points in a mesh he theorizes that any fill shapes associated with the vectors could be used to "reorder" the shapes based on the rotation during animation. So shapes would "automatically" be reorganized on the fly. We are miles away from implementing this right now.
But that got me thinking about shape ordering for my flipper script. The only problem was that I was thinking shape "order" which is very difficult as I mentioned. Changing the order really messes things up because once the file is saved or you change the order... how the heck to do you know where to change it back? The shapes keep changing order which changes the document. You would need to create some way of "resetting" the order on frame 0. Some way to store the original shape order.
I even tried to do this with layers by changing the order in the layer palette. Pain in the arse!
By using the transparency trick the shapes "stay put" so you can keep track of them easier. Their ID's never change. They are always in the same spot. Only the SECOND shape would be changed.
Eliminating the "extra" key frame is a piece of cake. If the transparency is being done with a script, the keys are placed programmatically... I would just put in a "step" key frame instead of a "smooth" one. The shape would instantly "vanish" on just one key frame.
I plan to fool around with this when I get a chance
-vern
Drat, I should have thought of that.heyvern wrote:Eliminating the "extra" key frame is a piece of cake. [...] I would just put in a "step" key frame instead of a "smooth" one. The shape would instantly "vanish" on just one key frame.
Thanks Vern!
Thanks. First I'm going to redo it (hopefully this weekend) using step interpolation on the keyframes as Vern suggested.ianc wrote:Can I suggest putting it in the Tips and Techniques section.
Regards, Myles.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted."
-- Groucho Marx
-- Groucho Marx
Thanks for the tutorial Myles, that's a brilliant technique which i shall be trying out.
ShoePie.co.uk - My animations.
-
toonertime
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:34 am
- Location: ST. LOUIS
masked man
i am wondering if the hiding the hand effects
couldn't be handled with masking?
couldn't be handled with masking?