JF make 105
JF Nav
JF Nav
Creation Date: 2002-03-12
Today in Physics 227 - out of the blue - I came up with a brilliant idea to make a body that is made of seperate bodyparts that are connected by flabby skin. When the skeleton moves, the flabby skin stretches while the body part stays solid. That is how these arms are working. They aren't great, but they show the system. The system is not working very well. You can see that the armpits are flipped inside out. It's slightly better than the Jav model, but comparable to the Dojo Ambush perp model which uses a different system. I think this system will work pretty well once I figure out the correct placement of joints and vertexes. As for the vertex and triangle waste, it's pretty compact for all the detail that it gives. It's also pretty close to my vision of the human anatomy. That's a good thing. We all like being truthful to reality at some points in the process. Body dynamics is my area.

I had this great idea the other day and it's roots are actually deep in the gutter. Sadly enough, I won't put my deepest secrets on this web page. Those type of things are better left for the confessional or to be blurted out when you're drunk or suicidal (likely both). Anyway, I will tell you about my idea. I was thinking that JF and every work from now on that I make should follow a very precise style. The style is that of clean, large, bright, soft, clear, simple, gradients from light, and smoothness. That was my goal long ago and it has been my attempt at every juncture, however it has not come close to my expectations. JF is dark, small, unclear, over-exposure, under-exposure, too complex, and not very special over-all. For example, a person's eyes should have a black outline, white fill, small eyelashes, a simple gradient on the iris, and an off-black pupil. No eyelid, no cheekbones, no veins, no icky eyelashes, and no noise. That's what I've done, but I need to make it clearer for myself. A lot of it has to do with the lighting. The scenes are poorly lit and the lights are poorly placed for correct lighting. Then somehow it goes from bright and big on my screen to dark and small on the page. I'm going to fix that. I should deviate from it on very rare occasions only when it will enhance the overall style.

What follows is not really important for anyone to read. Actually, unless you are awed by the first sentence, I'd say forget about reading it. It tries to be logical at the start, but becomes very emotional at the end. I'd delete it, but I put a bunch of work into it and I haven't been generous enough to my readers when it comes to interesting stuff lately.

There are certain things that a rational human being must do to continue to call himself or herself a rational human being. One of those is to tell the truth when it matters. Some people (like myself) would try to convince you that telling the truth all the time is the right thing to do, but I won't even go that far for this argument. When it counts, a person must tell the truth or they become a social deviant. Another simple thing would be to not attack innocent people. Pacifists like myself would say that attacking any person in any situation is the wrong thing to do. But I will not go that far in this argument. Innocent people only. That includes people who are not attacking, people who are not threatening to a large extent, people who are not able to lethally or non-lethally attack you. But where this line fades is when the other person comes close to the line. It does not depend on you, but rather them. Their actions should dictate yours if you are reacting rationally to stimuli. When does an innocent person cross the line? Given the definitions I lay out here, it ought to be once the person has visibly crossed the line. It does depend on you, though. If you're a little old lady and see an innocent person who is getting close to the grey, you might want to look for the nearest safe place. But if you and ten other police officers are holding a sword-wielding person at gunpoint, you're going to wait until the line is visibly crossed. Not when they step into the gray padding of safety that an old lady would, right? If the innocent person is not thinking rationally themselves, you as a rational person have a duty to that irrational person or else you become the irrational person. Do you see my point? Given a situation, you act appropriately.

Check out this example. A person is threatening you. You kill him because he threatens you. However, look at the reverse. You certainly must have been threatening him if you ended up killing him, right? So if you are right in killing him, he has EQUAL right to kill you. You now have an ethical paradox, a hypocritical judgement. Obviously, by your action, you have put yourself into the realm of irrational and by your own judgement must be killed yourself. Of course, we as rational people of the community are rational. We know that you can be rehabilitated after twenty years in a maximum security prison.

Home Characters Making Of Technical Mail News Links |< First < Prev Next > Latest >|  bandwidth version Goto Scene