Existing users, 
 Animation:Master - 14.0digital character modeler/renderer |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
Sadly, just what I expected to hear 
- Version: 14.0, 10/7/2007 12:57AM PST
dave356
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Sadly, just what I expected to hear
Do buy the hype about this product from its fans - Version: 12.0v, 7/13/2006 08:52AM PST
(4 of 7 users found this comment useful)
Kerwin Rabbitroo
Until recently, I did not feel compelled to review. I've replied to one review (scroll down) if you want to see my comments more in full, but I'll summarize:
It's a mac-port of a PC Program. Stability, support, reliability all lacking on a Mac. Company attitude: "Get a PC." User group attitude: "Get a PC."
It uses non-standard patch-based modelling rather than the more universally accepted Sub-Division Surface technique. Since most renderers now support dynamic SDS, their is almost no advantage to patch-based modelling for charcacter animaiton.
It claims many advanced features that are so poorly implemented to be almost unusable.
It is so unstable that it is an exercise in frustration to actually learn the program and even old hands trip over existing bugs.
Company attitude is" "We're a small company, so you can't expect a quality product." If you don't mind that, then I guess A:M is OK. If you have to make a living, it's completely unacceptable.
Tiger version more than a year late. Their response? Blame Apple.
They proudly point out the three or four alumni who have gotten "industry Jos" while ignoring the *thousands* (maybe tens of thousands at this point) who will have nothing to do with A:M and Hash.
Caveate Emptor! Steer clear if you value your time and money.
-Kerwin Rabbitroo
It's a mac-port of a PC Program. Stability, support, reliability all lacking on a Mac. Company attitude: "Get a PC." User group attitude: "Get a PC."
It uses non-standard patch-based modelling rather than the more universally accepted Sub-Division Surface technique. Since most renderers now support dynamic SDS, their is almost no advantage to patch-based modelling for charcacter animaiton.
It claims many advanced features that are so poorly implemented to be almost unusable.
It is so unstable that it is an exercise in frustration to actually learn the program and even old hands trip over existing bugs.
Company attitude is" "We're a small company, so you can't expect a quality product." If you don't mind that, then I guess A:M is OK. If you have to make a living, it's completely unacceptable.
Tiger version more than a year late. Their response? Blame Apple.
They proudly point out the three or four alumni who have gotten "industry Jos" while ignoring the *thousands* (maybe tens of thousands at this point) who will have nothing to do with A:M and Hash.
Caveate Emptor! Steer clear if you value your time and money.
-Kerwin Rabbitroo
Most Recent Replies: View All 2 Replies
A:M - Much better than many will tell you.... - Version: 12.0v, 6/8/2006 02:18PM PST
(3 of 4 users found this comment useful)
Fuchur
Hi!
Many of you told us about the bad things about Animation:Master... some things are more or less true, some are not, so I as an user of Animation:Master for several years now will comment on some of your statements if you dont mind.
Some of you told us about their bad experiences with the support of Hash... the most unseen aspect of your comments were:
- Hash is a small company which cant afford a own support-team. So they implemented an forum and A:M Reports, which will connect you to the community (which is a very helpful and friendly one) and the programmers and even Martin Hash (company-owner) himself. If you have questions, especially the once like "Will A:M work with Tiger?" you should ask them there. In fact, many people did and I think they didnt answer you because of the 20 replies of Martin to the forum-topic... for all of you who didnt know that till now:
The latest A:M v12.0 and of course A:M v13.0 ARE available for Tiger.
One of the comments which really annoyed me is this:
"A:M has very few modelling features. Maya has many... why doesnt they get that fixed?"
There are quite many modelling-features available. Sure Maya has more, but you leave some facts out: Most of the modelling-features in Maya are for polygones and cant be transfered to Patches so easily.
Other possible reasons why they "dont get it fixed...":
1.) You keep the control over your modell if you do much by hand. If you dont like that, you should stick to Poser...
2.) Many features are available through free plugins.
3.) Most users like/love the clean interface of A:M which would become the same optionlist/overwhelming-thing as 3ds's GUI is if you add too much at the surface. In fact, A:M has many more modelling features if you work with it in the depth than you can imagine... nevertheless they are easy to access for the advanced users and at the same time won't irritate the new user.
"A:M is buggy."
I have to admit, that the Windows-version of A:M is more stable than the one for the Mac.
I cant tell you much about the Mac-problems there, because I use A:M at my Windows-machine. There I have to say that with the exception of Cinema4D there is not other 3d-program which is more stable than A:M, if you use a good and more or less clean system. I worked with 3ds and Maya at work and I had the same amount of crashes there too.
I admit that for example in version 9.x A:M was very unstable but that changed since version 10.0.
My conclusion:
The Cons:
1.) A:M cant easily communicate with other 3d-apps, because patches and polygones dont like each other much... but in v13, a new patches->polygones-engine is introduced which makes it a bit better.
The Pros:
1.) A:M has some nice features like the hair-system, the new cloth-system
2.) Great animation-set which can easily be compared to the one of XSI
3.) A good and easy to learn interface
4.) It has the most reasonable price I can imagine... 299 Dollars? Which other 3d-software package can be bought for that price? (Blender... that's it...)
5.) A nice community and a nice Bug-Report-System. -> A:M Reports. Your problems will in general be fixed within 1-2 weeks in the next release of A:M which can be downloaded free for one year.
6.) Update-costs from any version to the newest version (even v1.0->v13.0) are 99 Dollars.
My 2 cents...
*Fuchur*
Many of you told us about the bad things about Animation:Master... some things are more or less true, some are not, so I as an user of Animation:Master for several years now will comment on some of your statements if you dont mind.
Some of you told us about their bad experiences with the support of Hash... the most unseen aspect of your comments were:
- Hash is a small company which cant afford a own support-team. So they implemented an forum and A:M Reports, which will connect you to the community (which is a very helpful and friendly one) and the programmers and even Martin Hash (company-owner) himself. If you have questions, especially the once like "Will A:M work with Tiger?" you should ask them there. In fact, many people did and I think they didnt answer you because of the 20 replies of Martin to the forum-topic... for all of you who didnt know that till now:
The latest A:M v12.0 and of course A:M v13.0 ARE available for Tiger.
One of the comments which really annoyed me is this:
"A:M has very few modelling features. Maya has many... why doesnt they get that fixed?"
There are quite many modelling-features available. Sure Maya has more, but you leave some facts out: Most of the modelling-features in Maya are for polygones and cant be transfered to Patches so easily.
Other possible reasons why they "dont get it fixed...":
1.) You keep the control over your modell if you do much by hand. If you dont like that, you should stick to Poser...
2.) Many features are available through free plugins.
3.) Most users like/love the clean interface of A:M which would become the same optionlist/overwhelming-thing as 3ds's GUI is if you add too much at the surface. In fact, A:M has many more modelling features if you work with it in the depth than you can imagine... nevertheless they are easy to access for the advanced users and at the same time won't irritate the new user.
"A:M is buggy."
I have to admit, that the Windows-version of A:M is more stable than the one for the Mac.
I cant tell you much about the Mac-problems there, because I use A:M at my Windows-machine. There I have to say that with the exception of Cinema4D there is not other 3d-program which is more stable than A:M, if you use a good and more or less clean system. I worked with 3ds and Maya at work and I had the same amount of crashes there too.
I admit that for example in version 9.x A:M was very unstable but that changed since version 10.0.
My conclusion:
The Cons:
1.) A:M cant easily communicate with other 3d-apps, because patches and polygones dont like each other much... but in v13, a new patches->polygones-engine is introduced which makes it a bit better.
The Pros:
1.) A:M has some nice features like the hair-system, the new cloth-system
2.) Great animation-set which can easily be compared to the one of XSI
3.) A good and easy to learn interface
4.) It has the most reasonable price I can imagine... 299 Dollars? Which other 3d-software package can be bought for that price? (Blender... that's it...)
5.) A nice community and a nice Bug-Report-System. -> A:M Reports. Your problems will in general be fixed within 1-2 weeks in the next release of A:M which can be downloaded free for one year.
6.) Update-costs from any version to the newest version (even v1.0->v13.0) are 99 Dollars.
My 2 cents...
*Fuchur*
Most Recent Replies: View All 3 Replies
- A:M - Much better than many will tell you.... (1 replies)
I upgraded to what the company promised was the OSX version, thinking that the migration to that more stable system would do the trick. Infuriatingly, it was merely the 'Classic' enabled version. The company posted a true OSX version some time later, that I was qualified to run from the disk I had (the 'martian').
That version was so slow, even the interface took forever to load.
I gave up on trying to do anything after spending 300 dollars total on this turkey. I feel very ripped off. And now I read from others that nothing has changed, it's still a kludge on the mac platform.
I strongly advise anyone (with a mac, anyway) to steer clear of this software.