chillyche

Your thread, dude! Post as much as you want!

I had CS2 for a while. I think when we started Aria, I was still using the CS2 products. Premiere Pro and Audition are part of the CS2 suite, so that will be an improvement over Vegas, to be sure. Audition isn't really used in professional studios, but it COULD be. Sorta like Premiere. At this point (CS5) Premiere is a serious contender with FCP, particularly with the AfterEffects and sound stuff integration, but nobody uses it, because it sorta got burned by being wack in the past. As far as editing goes, people usually use either FCP and Logic for audio, or they use Avid and Protools for audio. Professionally, at least. Due to the amount of post production work, I was heavily considering using Premiere to edit Aria, since we could easily bounce between Audition, Soundbooth, AfterEffects and Premiere. But I'd rather use Avid. Whatevs.

That's AWESOME. That's what a dub, is, internet genius, replacing the original sound. The quality of the voiceover is up to debate. I happen to think your voice cast for DYRL was mostly awesome. Best dub that film ever had. You already know that. Can you tweak it and make it better? Sure. We can always clean up our work, especially after we're wiser and more skilled. To me, the biggest issue in your DYRL is that some of the volumes aren't quite perfectly matched. And some of the VA's had mics with differing qualities of audio. Can't do anything about the latter, but you could definitely remix it. I think that as you get better software and better gear, you'll find you'll be able to make more nuanced mixes, as the hardware will react better.

Nice.

Honestly, more helpful than any tutorial ever, was this one BOOK I actually got way back in the days of 3ds Max 4. It was called "Mastering the Art of Production with 3ds Max 4" and the basic methodology is still the same today. Some of the tools have evolved, but ultimately, it's a great place to learn language of modeling. Animation and all that is another beast altogether, as are lighting and rendering and texturing, but I think as far as fundamentals go, that book is priceless. Even if it's like 9 versions out of date, now. I think the only thing keeping fans from recreating an episode is time and organization. From my own experience, Aria has been a challenge, as various team members all have different tools, schedules, interest levels, and goals. Real life commitments seem to be the biggest monkey wrench thrown into the mix. I believe that a college or grad school campus would be the best place to launch a project like that, because you would have an talent base not only dedicated to the subject matter, but to the process. Anyway, I just hope that Aria is released before the 10 or 5 years are up for the DYRL or SDFM CGI redux hits! I didn't mean fans are disorganized, I meant there isn't a central organization like in a production. Contributors are free to come and go, and they are not bound to see a project through, and they're all working on personal gear of varying kinds, qualities, etc.

Okay, folks, go here to get a look at Captain Rafe Townsend: Go here for a turn around animation. This isn't a final production model, but it's close. I have yet to UVW map the fella, and once I have, I'm also going to be adding some detailing like folds and wrinkles in the clothing. Currently, the material of the glass on the helmet is not rendering the lines through, so I have to figure out what that is (I'm using a map type that is specifically for seeing lines through a transparent material, so it should work). This is the first complete character model based on Cannon_Fodder's new designs.

Haha, I fell asleep! I had a 530am call time yesterday and we didn't get any breaks. So, I revise. NOW get ready...

DYRL: Special Edition?

Yeah, I feel like I want to add that I'm impressed by all the cool stuff you're generating. It's really promising, so that's why I've been coming at you with serious critiques.

Okay, I'm excited for your project! One suggestion: that Macross cannon blast should be illuminating the front of the Macross, it looks like it's still only being lot by the sun and the sky. I apologize if you're already planning that, and I'm just pointing out the obvious.

I'd like to introduce those of you who haven't been by the Fan Works section to a little side project of the Macross Aria team. The site is Mercury's Word, at http://mercurysword.macrossaria.com and it's an in-universe news site with all the latest happenings from the world of Macross Aria. Well, by latest I mean occasional. As we make progress on Macross Aria, occasionally we will be posting new stories on Mercury's Word. The site introduces users to the world of Aria, and the happenings of the Macrossverse circa 2014, particularly on or around the newly colonized planet Eden. We intend to add video and audio content as our assets become available, so check back every so often. Of course, I'll likely make posts when a new "issue" goes live. Thanks everybody!

Get ready...

Awesome, thanks for the detailed response.

I have a question then, about the CAG bird paint schemes. If more than one squadron is operating off of a ship (like, say Angel, Apollo, and Skull, operating off of the SDF -- or the ARMDs) in a carrier group, does the squadron commander or flight leader for each squadron get a CAG bird, even if said pilot is not the CAG for the carrier group?

I like the model, the WIP version is very nice. But in my opinion, that bump mapping is not doing any justice to your geometry. First of all, given the size of the Macross, most of the greebles and panel lines would be near invisible at that distance. The thing is over a kilometer long, so the seams between armor panels would be invisible at the distance that image is taken from. Your bump mapping, however, is so strong that not only the seams visible, but they appear to be chasms. Easily large enough for people to fall into and die! Meanwhile, the rail guns are so badly dented by the bump map, that it looks like they've been destroyed in battle, crumpled by an even larger mecha's fist. From looking at the untextured WIPs, I know that your geometry is way better than that, so, again, I have to conclude it's the strength of your bump maps. For reference on how panel lines might appear from a distance, check out any photos of naval vessels. More often than not, at that distance (100 to 500 meters), the different panels wind up just looking like slightly different colored patches, if they're distinguishable at all. Anyway, to reiterate, I really like the models you've been posting. But I feel like the bump maps are generally (also on the battle damaged VF-1) a bit too strong, and maybe too low resolution, so that I'm seeing pixels and chunks where I would expect to see smoothness unless I was very close up. That said, you seem to be pumping out models a lot faster than I am right now! Congrats on that!

Heh. I have no idea how to properly do DOF in Max, either, mainly because it takes so much time, I've never had the patience to do trial and error tests with it. The fastest and most controllable way to mess with the effect would probably be to render it out with a Z-buffer channel, and then, in some program that extracts that info (like After Effects) mess with the settings. I dunno. I'm still very new to the render elements workflow.

Your models and renders look INCREDIBLE. Great stuff! As for this particular image, I'm going to offer a critique. The depth of field makes the image stand out as fake to me. The reasoning here is that the DOF looks too shallow. Given the size of the pilots in the frame, we have to assume that we are either on a very wide lens or a long lens at quite a distance. Because the VF-25 in the background is roughly the same size as the foreground VF, we have to assume that it is extremely close, or that we're on a long lens. It does appear a bit close, perhaps only one or two wingspans away. But, with a wide lens, that distance would cause the object to shrink to some degree. So, I'm going to posit that we're on a longer lens and we're sort of further from the action. Let's say that we're no wider than a 50mm and it's possible we're as long as a 200mm (assuming we're using a 35mm CINEMA size frame -- I'm no good making these estimates with still size frames). I'm making the assumption that we've got our f-stop set at around a 5.6 (it looks pretty sunny out, it'd probably have to be way stopped down, but I'm throwing a bunch of ND filters on there for you, to get us a shallower DoF). With a 200mm lens, we'd have to be 200' or more from the action to get the pilot that small in the frame, probably closer to 400'. At that distance, everything behind the focal point receding to infinity will look relatively sharp, and everything in front to 200something will also look sharp. Thus, that out of focus VF appears optically incorrect. With a 50mm lens, we're looking at the VFs being around 100' away from the camera. Again, with this lens, at that distance, everything behind the focal point will be sharp, out to infinity, and everything in front up to 40' will be sharp enough. If I open up the f-stop to f1.4, we're still sharp until about 140' away. It's conceivable that this is the f-stop you're shooting at, and the other plane is 50' feet away, falling out of the focal range of this lens. BUT, in that case, it would only be slightly out of focus (enough to notice). AND, you'd have to have at least 8 stops worth of ND filters to get the lens that wide open, but the exposure that reasonable. We can see that in the foreground VF, the front tail fin is sharp, whereas the rear tail fin is soft, meaning that our depth of field is actually shallower than 50'. All this amounts to the optics of the scene being outside of the realm of our normal experience. What it reminds us of, though, is the sort of depth of field you see in Macro photography, of models and toys. And as a result, our brains and eyeballs conspire to suggest that this image is not real. At the end of all that junk, it turns out that using up processor cycles and making your renders longer for DoF effects is sometimes just not worth it! This is decent information that any of us can take with us. Models can be super high poly. Lighting can be photometric with ambient occlusion and raytracing and refractions. Images can be HDRI with reflections. Textures can be photorealistic. But if the lenses we're rendering with don't behave like the glass we're used to seeing used in the world, the brain is gonna shout that something is off. Most of the time when I see a model that looks like a toy, it's because the distances and DoF aren't right. If I can see the entire SDF Macross in the frame, that means the camera has got to be standing pretty far away, or the lens has to be exceptionally wide. If we're focused on the bow of the ship, from a mile away, then the stern is ALSO going to be in focus. ANYWAY, besides all that lens junk (I pull focus for a living), I LOVE LOVE LOVE your models and renders. I can't express enough how awesome this latest batch is. Don't for a second think that my camera-nerding out diminishes that.

I was thinking the same thing.

I can dig it.

Wow, that looks great to me already!

First of all, here here. I concur. That seems like the right idea. Second of all, did you just settle once and for all the RT vs. Macross bad blood by suggesting a Marvel vs Capcom style crossover battle? I think you did. "Which universe is better? Hop in the cockpit and show your stuff, Hunter! Think you can take on Dyson here?" Of course... in the tuning phase of the game, all sorts of people will crawl out of the woodwork to suggest which has more thrust, a reflex engine or a reaction engine. Smirk. I love it.

Yeah, I know that what I like in a game requires a lot of time and effort and consistency. Much as I support the HW2 mod coming out in pieces, as it becomes ready, I support this game being more open-ended, just so there's something to play and look at and inspire. I also hear you about the scenarios players create: I have fond memories of some of the simple games of yesteryear, where I was asked to fill in the narrative gaps. My memory of playing the original Zelda looks like the illustrations in the manual, rather than the 8-bit in-game graphics, because I filled in the narrative and details and went on an epic adventure that the gaming system couldn't possibly provide. Same with my X-Com war stories. That's the goal of a game, I think, is to engage you in such a way that you create memories of experiences. Of course, I don't really enjoy most multiplayer, or rather pvp games, because as I already mentioned, I like narratives, particularly nuanced ones. Just beating the other team is a little light for me. I think my gaming heyday was during the era of Wing Commander -- wherein space combat was driven by an engaging storyline. If SeminNV allows us some way to script scenarios, I would be totally interesting in building a campaign, if the game supports such a thing. It'd be a lot of work for very little payoff, I think. But, it'd be cool. Truth is, I'll probably play it whatever it is and winds up being. -Che

Yum.

I'm the contrarian here. A game without an engaging storyline keeps me playing for about one session. A game with a defined storyline keeps me coming back for more. In the case of a fan game, the question becomes: fan-fiction storyline or canon storyline? And how do you incorporate vehicles from across not only timelines, but franchises as we know that you've been steadily referring to this as something that appeals to both Macross and RT fans. If there are modding tools, maybe we'll make an Aria mod... provided the gameplay itself is remotely fun. Oh, and Ace Combat by air, Max Payne by ground doesn't sound bad to me. It just has to capture the frenetic pace and dynamism of the Itano Circus, basically. I know I'm going to get a series of collective groans and flames for this, but when I figured out how to affectively play RT: Battlecry, I thought it was a blast. Easy, but there's something fun about knowing when to transform, how it benefits you. Jetting in somewhere, switching to Battroid to cut your velocity and enhance your maneuverability, then jetting back outta there. Fun.

That is wacky, but it's unique.