Does animation: master have a easy learning curve? How does it compare to a noob like me who gives up on programs like 3ds Max and Maya? Why has it been troublesome finding a 3d package that is best suited for me.

Also, does animation: master have good modeling tools? Does it now work with polygons or is it still patch modeling?

thanks for your time,

Jack

Jack,

My 2 cents is that A:M has an easier learning curve then the polygon programs. But I used polygon programs for 8 years before picking up AM in 2001 so keep that in mind. I'm not sure but I think you'll find it easier but you have to go through the video tutorials -- although I think less work there is still a lot of work. I'd have to say that YES polygon programs like Max and Maya are harder to learn. Modeling tools? It has wonderful modeling tools but where Max might have 23, base tools in AM number 2 (two). With patches that's all you need. And, there are dozens of plug-ins tools to make life easier though. No it does not work with polygons -- its still all patch modeling. I'm not sure about how compatible it is with polygon models and such... use to be that this was very poor (the conversion programs simply did not work well). This may have changed, I don't know.

I'd have to say alot depends (a great big whole lot!) on what you want to use AM for.

Rusty

Animation:Master is a very easy to learn programm. Very easy means for 3d-software. It is certainly a challenge to learn any program in this sector.

3ds, Maya and XSI are all stuffed with features, most of them just not necessary and blocking the interface down, if you ask me...
if the software has a bad interface too, it is no wonder that people are confused.

A:M is very different. A:M uses less tools to model in the first instance while if you dig deeper into it, you will find many more tools. Another thing that really helps to stay focused on the model you are currently working on are the separte sections of A:M. Modeller, Animation, Choreography, etc.

Have a look on this demonstration of A:M. You will get some answers here. It is a older one, but it is just great.
A:M Demonstration (Video, 135 MB)

*Fuchur*

Well, the key is to not give up. :-) For me, it helps to seek out help to learn the software. There are tutorials out there and books that can tell you a lot. As with anything, though, you've got to stick with it.

Me, I think the modeling in A:M is closer to drawing in 3D, so it makes more sense to me. The other way is too alien to my way of thinking, so I think patch modeling is easier. I think that's subjective, though and depends on the person.

I think that the A.M. program is the eisiest on the market for the features. Yes, it does take some time to get through everything and many give up. I gave up a couple of times and then came back. Each time I started from scratch and it was amazing how much more I learned.. Finally, getting to where I feel comfortable with A.M.
Just get started with it and it will come.
A.M. Highly recommened.
Keith

No worthwhile program has an easy learning curve. I say "worthwhile" because there are freebies you can learn in ten minutes, but in another hour you've hit the limit of what they can do.

A more useful question might be, How far can I go in A:M before I'll hit its limit, and need to go to something else? You can do almost anything you want in A:M.

Polygon programs have more modelling tools because they NEED more, since they're trying to fake what comes naturally with splines.

If you're doing primarily organinc modelling, and especially animation of organic models, there's a naturalness to the way splines work that saves a lot of time once things are up and rigged. The main difference in patch modelling is that you have to pay attention to where the splines go and how they terminate. This is aggravating at first but becomes second nature before too long.

Also, don't underestimate the value of the forum. You can get almost any question answered here, and for free no less. Any program that isn't supported by an A:M-like user forum is no program for a self-learner.

A:M works a lot like a windows application. It's a simple point click and drag interface that you should already be familiar with. The first day I took A:M for a spin I was able to produce renders of models I had made, which is a lot more than I can say about the other packages. The first day I tried Lightwave, it took me four hours to make a simple room, and it felt like it was put together with duct tape and baling wire. The newest version of A:M also has tons of great features that could make A:M easily cost over $1000, so it's a great package.

A.M is the future of animation software.
Buy it and love it.
LOL
Keith

Learning curves relate more to the individual than the software. When I was learning 3DSMax, I had a very hard time switching to A:M. But with the development of this forum and the great improvements achieved by A:M, I decided to make the time to learn it. And it paid off. I now have the confidence to make a decent 3D film. A:M is the best value that you can get.

I agree with Dhar it relates more to the individual than the software....... A:M is easy to learn, but what was hard for me is understanding how to model with splines since A:M splines are very unique....It was my first time using splines exclusively at such an intense powerful caliber; A:M's concept makes sence and is designed for you...