Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I just realized I should probably link you to my site that site is mostly out of date but it should give you the gist of my skill level.

At 1 day ago, Mocotaugan wrote: Something that I am working on... http://www.newgrounds.com/projects/movies/539767/preview

I agree, it could be slower, also your drawings are good but your compositions aren't as dramatic as I would like to see. Before you start animating start breaking down your scenes into light and dark and really think about what emotional content you want to convey in your comps.

If you are working in the (American) animation industry you should be able to pump out at least a minute of puppet animation a week, or 25-30 seconds of hand drawn. I had one project at the end of last year where we were trying to crank out 3 minutes a week per person.

Nobody ever warned me about this. But it has been my experience consistently. It is a good idea to get fast.
That said: how long does a thirty second animation take?
If it's taking you more than 3 weeks your probably doing something inefficiently.

When I'm working on something and I want to crush it:
Either (Puppet)
3 hours per background
2 hours per character design
4 hours per character rig
.5 hours per environmental object rig
1 hour: per animated element per second
2.5x modifier for perspective shifts.
(where an animated element is either a particle effect or a character)

or(Hand-drawn)
3 hours per background.
1 hour per second of animation rough per dynamic object
2 hours per second of cleanup/inbetween per dynamic object

At 3 hours ago, Kellexx wrote: Since I don't have or want your full code, I'll just give you this. It's everything you should ever need to do with using functions as variables and parameters. For the parameters, there is a default function, and it can pass an unlimited number of parameters along with it. You can adjust this in ways to suit your situation.
I trust you can figure it out. I can answer any specific questions about it.

HOLY RESPONSE! Thanks so much I'm going to comb through this and figure out if it's exactly what I needed.
It looks promising though.

At 52 minutes ago, Diki wrote: If your tick() is a member function of each of your TestMC objects then why can't you just put all the code inside that function?
I don't see a need for you to be passing a function reference to another function.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what it is that you're trying to do.
Are you essentially just trying to create an update function for your TestMC class?

(thanks again)
Yes, exactly. also, I wanted to make it so that I can satisfy all of my basic for-loop needs with this one function. So that I don't have a million different for-loops in the level class. In a sense, this does work for that, but it only allows me to use functions within the Level class. I just cant seem to get it to do anything to any of the Level class's children.

I did come up with a solution of looking at f1 as a string and then doing a kind of
if(f1=="tick")a[i].tick();

but I can't help but feel like this is a lazy, inefficient solution, created entirely by my misunderstanding of exactly how this stuff works.

as for my reason for not just using an Event.ENTER_FRAME listener: I had read that having many Event.ENTER_FRAME listeners can bog down a game. Again, I am very new at this so I just take what I read as gospel.

At 10 minutes ago, Diki wrote: However, I have to ask.
What are you trying to do here:

function tick(e:Event) {
arrayfunction(Badguys, tick);
}

I think you are misunderstanding how function references work.

Are you intentionally ignoring the event object from your event listener?
Why are you passing the callback of an event listener as a parameter to another function?

Firstly: THANKYOU SO MUCH for the quick response!

It's sometimes hard for me to express these things accurately as I'm quite new to all this, but as best as I can describe it:
The code above is from a Level class. TestMC is a child of the Level class.
I'm trying to run a function within TestMC named "tick" Which in turn manages all of TestMC's behavior.

This is the actual function inside TestMC:

public function tick() {
			priority();
		}

(all priority currently does is moves TestMC to the left.)

I should say that I keep getting this in my output box:
ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property f1 not found on Enemies.treeElemental and there is no default value.
at Level/arrayfunction()
at Level/tick()

For some reason this works:

function tick(e:Event) {
				testMC.tick();
		}

But when testMC is Badguys[0] this doesn't work:

function tick(e:Event) {
				arrayfunction(Badguys, tick);
		}
		function arrayfunction(a1:Array, f1:Function) {
				var arraylength1 = a1.length;
				for (var i = arraylength1 - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
					trace (i)
					var a1target = a1[i];
					a1target.f1();
				}
			
		}

Thankyou for your expert time. I'm sure this is some sort of stupid mistake.

At 1/30/12 09:52 PM, Adeebness wrote: Started this summer.

OH? Well then I would say your doing very well. Just keep smashing it and check out saveloomis "figure drawing for all it's worth" it's a very good book to start with.

A forest is one of the most beautiful things in creation.
so take a look at some refs

in fact, before you go any farther just googleimage search forest

Take a look at the greens and oranges and reds. Really look at the colors and let them soak in, even bring them into photoshop or flash and start building a rough pallet from them on the side of your screen. You will be astonished at the colors you end up with.

The sword next to the couch looks a little out of place, and I'm not certain I love the color of the ninja.

These again are by no means bad drawings. They could be much better though if you paid a little more attention to your pallets.

I feel like everything is just slightly lower quality than it needs to be to hold my attention. Everything is just OK, the animation is good, but not really very exciting. The voiceacting is passable (by no means embarrassing) but I wouldn't stick around for it. The backgrounds (even as plans) are lacking depth or interest, but again aren't like, terrible.

I need something to hook me. Push something further. My suggestion would be the voiceacting. With great voice, you could really have something.

At 1/29/12 04:01 PM, Adeebness wrote: Uhh? Ive been on this for about a week, most of my focus is on the movements since it is just wire framing

No I mean, how long since you as a person first started drawing seriously. In years.

At 1/28/12 07:22 PM, Adeebness wrote: I need an opinion on this Animatic Ive worked very hard on it and was just wondering what someone else thought about the drawings, animations, or story in general. I will be counting on your suggestions.

my thoughts depend heavily on how long you have been drawing.

At 1/23/12 12:38 AM, LordAdon wrote: Flash's tools are terrible. I've been using TBS for the past year, though I havent posted any aniations, ive been improving alot. Adam philips uses TBS too (the maker of BITEY). every line you draw comes out as a masterpiece, I can't explain it. But its more for FBF animators and theres no script or anything.

There are always whispers of ToonBoom becoming more standard but it's best not to get too used to it as it's a total pain in the ass finding ToonBoom work. Youll spoil yourself. As for flashes drawing tools.. I don't know, I actually dig them. I think it's just a matter of taste.

At 1/20/12 05:42 PM, bigCman321 wrote: I love how I'm the only person who comments in my thread. It's so quiet and serene.

Hey dude, I have some suggestions.
Firstly, decide if something is going to be a study or if it's going to be all about style. Secondly, keep track of your perspective even on a face, if it's not stylized DO NOT push the mouth over to the side of the face. Remember that faces have symmetry.
This is a link to a redline I made for you, I can't remember how to post images directly

Remember that it is made up of flesh and bone, not just lines, respect the volume of the meat! When you smile, your lower lid will lift. that's because of the meat. You can't just move one feature and not have the whole face stretch and twist to accommodate it.

ps. sideways mouths rock, but only when you are doing it on purpose.

Also, another suggestion on color:
Don't use the color that you think something is abstractly. If you think that a white house is actually white, or a lake is blue, or that tree trunks are brown, you are suffering from a very common misconception. One which is almost impossible to break without doing the following exercise and taking it seriously: Take a sheet of paper, and cut a little square hole in it (about half the size of a stamp). Now pick a particular object either in your room or outside (this works better outside).
and take a look at it, think about what color you think it is. Then take the piece of paper at about half an arms length away from your face. Look through the hole and line it up so you can only see a little bit of the surface of the object in question. Make sure you can't see any of the edges of the object. Now free your mind from it's preconception of the objects color. Take a REALLY REALLY hard look at the color in your little portal. It's not the color you would have used is it? The surface color is surprisingly different.

When you look at the surface of an object out of context you see it's real color. Flesh is one of the best examples of this:
Play some where's waldo with this painting and find the blue and green and grey in the flesh:
lucian-freud-portrait

OR THIS:

Lucian again

or check out the crazy colors in these hands:

Lucian-froid-again-again

So stop it. Stop using just blue to draw blue characters, they are clearly not just blue, and the sooner you get a grip on that the better your colors will be.

Well, good luck dude/dudette.

This is neat but I wouldn't use it as a logo. I don't understand what your trying to get across with it unless your primary business is going to be tattoo designs.

At 1/24/12 02:43 PM, cmkinusn wrote: Based on your previous thread, if you wanted it that high quality, you would not get anyone for 500$ for 2 minutes. Maybe 500$ for one minute, but thats extremely pushing it because that person probably does it for a living and $1000 bucks for a full month of work is ridiculous.

Somebody cutting their teeth at school might be interested. What is the goal of this two minute animation anyway?

At 1/22/12 05:16 PM, bonkanailios wrote:
Are you guys programmers? Do you have any previous game work? How do you plan on making money on this project?

.
Those were real questions, I am actually considering this, I just wanted to know some details, and figured this would be a great place to ask, since then you wont have to re-iterate the details.

Read these

Thats because you still are getting used to the idea of the anatomy. Right now the muscles and bones are still just symbols to you. "if I draw six squares here, that's the abs" "if I draw a pointed oval here that's the bicep" This is a step in the right direction. Solidifying your drawing can be intimidating because the more specific you are, the more exposed you are. First figure out the seperate parts, where they are how they connect. That's what your doing right now. Then figure out how THICK they are, and how they are nestled against eachother. Those are very important steps that you have to climb before you can just comfortably draw well. If you can work through a lot of text, check out the loomis books, they are online, and they are fantastic resources to start out with.

Good luck.

Any artist working for MONEY UP FRONT can totally expect to see their designs handed over to companies. That's no problem, but asking for work up front, for possible income later, with no previous products to show is less exciting.

Are you guys programmers? Do you have any previous game work? How do you plan on making money on this project?

Also, you might want to invest in a graphic designer before you make the leap to gobbling up some illustrators, your website looks a little rough around the edges.

There are areas in these that look good, but it seems like you almost lose interest after your done doing a wicked looking face. So that's what I mean, everything should be at the same level, and everything should have volume, or not have volume... otherwise it ends up looking a little jumbled.
Everyone is guilty of this to some extent. a drawing that is consistent is more impressive than one that has two or three well drawn parts, but overall is inconsistent. The well done parts make the less thought out areas look out of place.

Pay more attention to the volume of the objects you are painting.

Depends on what its for.
If you want all of your MC's to play at the same time you could just throw all of the symbols onto the stage at the same time, and the ones that you don't want to be on screen you can just keep in your pasteboard till you move them on screen.

Firstly, and maybe it's because I haven't met the mythical "bone tool user"
but I haven't used it, and none of the other people that I know working professionally bother with it.
This might be due to being older and less familiar with it... but let me just suggest:
don't use the bone tool in flash.
If I remember correctly, it actually forces you to turn all of your component parts into MC's so that's probably the problem your running into. There are good 2d ik tools out there, but not the one that comes with flash. From what I understand ToonBoom has a pretty good rig set up, so if your heart is set on it, I think Toonboom has a freeware version or a pretty cheap learning version.

At 12/27/11 06:29 PM, Otto wrote:

works at 30 and he does fine, but here is what is almost certainly my final draft.

http://www.newgrounds.com/dump/item/30ce 990c615e2c7434a180ed16cb5f61

Digging the smears on that mop!

Howdy,
thought I'd get in on some of this animation goodness.
This is a rough draft of a spell I'm working on for a game that may or may not ever exist.
<a>http://www.newgrounds.com/dump/item/9 755b3bcfdefa4316bcf4370babda3b5<a>

Thanks for the links, I actually did know a lot of that I was just exasperated when I wrote the post. I always forget to type.length, I will think more carefully and phrase my question better next time. I will also follow the links and read them carefully. Thanks again for taking time to help.

Wait no... nevermind, the spells work now, but they dont kill anything in the Animals array.
I think I'm just going to start over from scratch.

Do you guys know if there is some weird relationship between Boolean statements and for loops?
It seems like if I make a for loop that asks:

for (var i=Array-1;i>=0;i--){
if (Array[i].Boolean==true){
Array.splice(Array[i],1)}
}

it splices every goddamn thing in the array the second the Boolean is true for one of the items in the array. Is it because I leave the Boolean as just "var varname:Boolean=false;" when I define them?

does that make them an attribute of every item in that class? one that gets changed globally?

Because it doesn't seem like that's the case...

I'm just pretty confused about this, because I really thought I understood how for-loops and arrays worked together to access specific objects in an array, but I must have seriously misunderstood something. I'll keep searching, but I really could use a hand.

Make things that people are interested in looking at. Just because you drew it doesn't mean it's interesting or engaging in any way, and if your only sample is done on notebook paper then I don't understand what kind of response you were looking for.

if you don't want to do figure drawings, or environmental drawings, or anything that is subjective then do interesting abstract work. Use color and form to entice us. I want to see entire page spreads of these pattern drawings, landscapes and scenes that swirl together and vibrate. I don't care about a 2 inch by 2 inch swirlfish unless its in a 30by 20 swirlingocean that is crashing against the boarders of the page, with swirling clouds and seagulls, with the sun and the moon melting into the sky.

So basically, be more invested. People dedicate their entire lives to the pursuit of an audience. They play music on the streets, they paint on walls and they obsessively update their sketchbooks...
In many cases, obviously not all of them: these are the people you want to scout you.

If you show no interest in making engaging art I have no idea why anyone would like to see you churn it into an already crowded arena.