Nulldev

Well-Known Member
Nov 28, 2017
1,577
2,802
So long as I don't see a space ship arriving at a space station, pointing towards it, engines going full throttle (so max acceleration as it arrives) and then magically stopping as it arrives.... I'm good :).
...
What if you got a hard and dense space station? :)
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
 

I'm Not Thea Lundgren!

AKA: TotesNotThea
Donor
Jun 21, 2017
6,579
18,928
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
You can't put things like that on here when I've just got here! You need to start me off slowly, ease me into the page :eek:;)
A bit grainy....but could I get away with it? I mean that level of quality for animation?
Fantastic! :)
I would rather say she knows us well enough and likely is cackling about how easy it is to play us. :p
I hadn't thought of that angle, you're probably right! :unsure:;)
No idea about Control(can't find on steam/gog) but i did found SOMA, going to put it on my watchlist to check it later during some sale.
I saw it on Humble Bundle.
There is also a thread on here for games that are free or very cheap.
https://f95zone.to/threads/steam-free-games-deals.17546/
The trouble with stills animation is that of file size. Even on that small scale test, 60 stills rocks out as 9MB as opposed to 2.8 for the GIF shown earlier or 187KB for a MP4

Certainly not as much grain and smallest file size too *thinks*
Is it me or does the MP4 look quicker? Or is just the loop making it look like that? :unsure:
 

Dripping

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
1,323
3,291
Other than Mass Effect i haven't played many scifi game who actually try to take time to make some sense from their ingame science. Most just briefly mention things, similar the way Star Wars games do.

Hell i played the Anno 2250 from ubisoft and i don't remember the game ever bothering to explain much of the tech behind the ships and the lunar colony you needed to build.
Many Star Wars fans hate me when I mention this, but Star Wars isn't "science" at all. No science, all fiction. It's a hotch-potch futuristic steampunk setting. And the more you look at it, the more steampunk it gets. It's sci:fi ratio would be around 1:99
Star Trek is noticably more sci-fi. It's more consistent in technology and terminology. It's not realistic, it also fully qualifies for the fiction identifier in its categorization. I'd say, 30:70. I don't think many sci-fi books or movies actually go far over 50:50. No, not those "hard scifi" books either. They still exist on the premise that the technology, at its core, is fictional. That the advances made with that technology is fictional. That there is actually a story (more fiction) running through the book, for which the technology acts as a sort of background.

Going past that 50:50 ratio moves the book or movie into the more theoretical books, making predictions, working out and extrapolating current trends and theories. Or, which are also a great read, though the ones you should be the most careful with before believing them, the conspiracy books, which tend to use a LOT of real life and official data and technological references, but make a habit to fill in the blanks, often in a way that makes it hard to distinguish the little fiction from the lot of fact. Another problem with them is that they may omit some facts, and obviously, make no mention of any facts that were left out. Most books about JFK's assassination fall in this category, as do flat-earth readings and books denying the moonlandings. Books by Erich von Däniken are also a fun example of the 90% fact /10% fiction books.
 

Dripping

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
1,323
3,291
I think you can. Something feels wrong about it though, I'm not sure what

EDIT could be just the grain though
It's because her left cheek (the one on the right side for us) doesn't contract from the winking, while the chin only moves up from the kissing, while it should also move just a smidge to her left from the winking as well. Expressions are one of the hardest things to capture as an artist. There are some decent "expression" morphs available for DAZ, but it's hard to find them. Most are too exaggerated, or just very cartoony. And this one would be an a-symmetric as well, which are also a pain to find. You're going to want an exaggerated expression anyway, but there definitely is something like "too much" in that, and most are. Using only partial sliders like setting expressions at 30-70% does help, but it's still tricky to find the sweet spot for what you're trying to accomplish.
And expressions are generally not meant for animating, that's another problem..
 

I'm Not Thea Lundgren!

AKA: TotesNotThea
Donor
Jun 21, 2017
6,579
18,928
Many Star Wars fans hate me when I mention this, but Star Wars isn't "science" at all. No science, all fiction. It's a hotch-potch futuristic steampunk setting. And the more you look at it, the more steampunk it gets. It's sci:fi ratio would be around 1:99
Star Trek is noticably more sci-fi. It's more consistent in technology and terminology. It's not realistic, it also fully qualifies for the fiction identifier in its categorization. I'd say, 30:70. I don't think many sci-fi books or movies actually go far over 50:50. No, not those "hard scifi" books either. They still exist on the premise that the technology, at its core, is fictional. That the advances made with that technology is fictional. That there is actually a story (more fiction) running through the book, for which the technology acts as a sort of background.

Going past that 50:50 ratio moves the book or movie into the more theoretical books, making predictions, working out and extrapolating current trends and theories. Or, which are also a great read, though the ones you should be the most careful with before believing them, the conspiracy books, which tend to use a LOT of real life and official data and technological references, but make a habit to fill in the blanks, often in a way that makes it hard to distinguish the little fiction from the lot of fact. Another problem with them is that they may omit some facts, and obviously, make no mention of any facts that were left out. Most books about JFK's assassination fall in this category, as do flat-earth readings and books denying the moonlandings. Books by Erich von Däniken are also a fun example of the 90% fact /10% fiction books.
Star Wars is set in the past, not in the future ;)
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
 

Akamari

Forum Fanatic
Donor
May 28, 2017
4,371
13,330
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
I don't love it to be honest. (WTF you mean you don't love it? I thought you love Annie!) (Shut up, Annie romance MC! Not your turn to play now!)

Err...where was I? Right. I mean it's not bad (which still means it's good), but it evokes in me why I don't like animations in general. The mechanical stiffness.

It's strange because you know I love your winks, but add the "kiss" to it and suddenly it looks odd. I think it may be that with just a wink I focus on the eye, so it works. But add more movement, my focus is on the whole face and it feels like there isn't enough movement.

I may just really be a bitch to please in this area, but it's why I prefer still renders.
 

somebodynobody

Engaged Member
May 11, 2017
3,251
4,200
That too! Original Chapter One wink was better speedwise.(y)
I think a poster earlier also mentioned the missing cheek scrunch that should happen with a wink, it being behind the hair probably makes it also harder to see. I mostly agree on the speed, unless it is supposed to be that slow, like a joke wink/kiss that is being over emphasized.
 

Oddball2k

Woof, woof, woof!
Donor
Jun 1, 2018
390
1,503
I think a poster earlier also mentioned the missing cheek scrunch that should happen with a wink, it being behind the hair probably makes it also harder to see. I mostly agree on the speed, unless it is supposed to be that slow, like a joke wink/kiss that is being over emphasized.
Yep, a slight cheek scrunch would be a +:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
And i agree also about a faster wink (both eyes movements), to be desynchronized with the kiss, would be more natural.
The animation length would be the same as before.:)
 
Last edited:

TheDevian

Svengali Productions
Game Developer
Mar 8, 2018
13,674
31,985
Yep, a slight cheek scrunch would be a +:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
And i agree also about a faster wink (both eyes movements), to be desynchronized with the kiss, would be more natural.
The animation length would be the same as before.:)
That is a good point...
 

TheDevian

Svengali Productions
Game Developer
Mar 8, 2018
13,674
31,985
Well thanks TheDevian if i may understand it right.:unsure:;)

As i couldn't myself mimic this face expression, i had to find a good example first before any thoughts.:rolleyes:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that girl was the best example to copy, she looked pretty uncomfortable, but the point stands. ;)
 
4.10 star(s) 64 Votes