I didn't say I didn't get any useful feedback from ndchristie in relation to the artwork, I said I didn't learn anything from ndchristie about the process.
Sorry, I thought I was being clear. The traditional animation process involves beginning with simple wireframes, scribble- or block-men and animating though the keyframes to the tweens until you have a set motion.
I generally begin with the spine and two axes for the hips and shoulders (whose motion will always oppose each other, because they are connected), followed by 'leading' parts such as two-part stick arms and legs and a block for the head and chest. then come the following parts which often include hands, feet, hair, tails, etc - things that flow behind, but in some animations (say a character is dead, or being dragged) this can include any limb, and in some animations (attacks and other determined motion) things like the hands and feet can be leading. I also tend to plot on paper a spacing*. I also like recently to pull out a basic music-writing program and set beats out for frames to see if it "sounds like a ______," because when planning frames you can never engage too many senses.
*A spacing might look something like this:
.1_.2_.3_.4_.5_.6_.7
x | - - | - o - - | - | x | - - | - o - - | - | x
the numbers above are evenly spaced frames, the x is the start of the cycle and o's are other key frames, with |'s being tweens. I and most others use a static frame length so this is actually not a timing chart, but a sense of where in the animation the frames are. This example shows a cluster of frames around the step with fewer around a slightly advanced passing.
Even if that wasn't clear though, I made a number of direct references to the animation that I think were quite clear. He can't move his head forward without moving his shoulders or having an elastic spine - you should, if your goal is believability, move the body with its parts or you'll end up breaking it. He can't move one shoulder without moving the other, which would throw off aim - either lose the motion on the off-arm or sacrifice aim by moving them against each other the way our skeletons demand--- I didn't leave a prescription here because that choice is left to
you. I would LOVE to play a game that only allowed you to fire accurately by timing your shots to when his aim is true - that sort of S&M game design has a huge following.
Talk is cheap.
No, that reply is cheap. Everyone here owes you nothing and is making a commitment of time to your growth. That's not cheap. What also isn't cheap is listening to others and being respectful.
Using key frames is animation 101... Am I not using key frames? I've got two mirror key contact frames on frame 1 and two 7 with matching passing positions on frame 4 and 10 plus two extra key frames that double for jumping frames. That's an animation technique I haven't seen anyone use in gaming before. When jumping I keep running the cycle until I hit the jump-frame and then I freeze until I land when I continue the run cycle. That makes for really smooth jumping action.
This is a fantastic trick I'll admit but you should also know that it is pretty common. Since you're an expert on my project, you should know that I did the same thing about a year and a half ago. Squaresoft did it a decade and a half ago. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples. I'm not trying to bash you, you've hit on a good trick - I'm just trying to point out the benefits of looking around include not laying claim to discovering common practices.
Now TrevoriuS is telling me [...] Richard Williams suggests [...]
What you're doing is actually worse than leaving the pieces off, you've got them there, static, interacting with the other parts of the animation in ways that they will not later. Moreover the pieces you leave static, like the spine, are central to and defining of all the body's motion. And Richard Williams would never suggest neglecting motion in favor of the parts; that's something that needs re-reading. What he's talking about in that section (...things that
have to be there, like anticipations...) is a highly developed framework before he gets anywhere near working on the different sections, and by then he has so many guides and hit-points that he KNOWS the motion is going to work. He even references watching a video of just his essentials. He moves into the straight-ahead when he hasn't got any room left for error, if he's been watching himself. You on the other hand have posted more than one piece that has nearly finished motion on the legs without a moving torso. That's not what Williams is getting at.
You think you know how I work and then you tell me I have a bad method when in fact I just did a crappy animation because it's not easy to animate things moving slowly.
You have plenty of examples here of your process. Internet forum is unique form of time-based media which allows actually for great insight into a person's process on a piece. That's what most of us are actually here to study.
Try for yourself, it's much harder doing a slow walk than doing a fast run. If you point out errors I've made I will most likely change them because I listen to advice. If you tell me I should change my method then you have to showing me your way of working and then I might adapt some of that but without showing any examples it's all talk.
I don't remember pixelation as ever being the place for some sort of fantasy showdown, winner-take-art, nor is issuing double-dare challenges the way to learn anything, but if you're asking for an example of the methods I'm proposing as further explanation of technique, I'll be happy to provide one.
Good advice also does not need to come from your betters or even necessarily from a skilled mouth. Someone who speaks from experience, training, or with regard to fundamentals will have a better chance of offering good advice, but this isn't final fantasy, you don't get double experience points just for battling a higher-level animator. Good advice must be judged on its truth and perceptiveness alone and not the speaker's ability to implement it. Find me someone who always does exactly what they know is best, flawlessly, and I will show you a fake. Show me someone who is inexperienced but whose advice should still be valued and I'll show you 6,000,000,000 others just like him.
What kind of anticipation is it you're looking for? I'd say that the contact frame I call the heel-strike where the heel is just about to touch the ground is an anticipation frame.
Anticipation is self-evident, you can't just call something anticipatory and have that become truth. As it is, you're about half-right with the contact frame; you've got some interesting stuff on that frame but it doesn't define the motion of the piece in any notable way (and it should). For the record too you're including two frames in your description - one where the foot is off the ground and one that is contact. These are distinct and both very important.
Now for the Professor that might actually be a good idea because then you could make it look like he had a limp but for the running guy it's out of the question.
Sometimes characters have different needs, as you've stated yourself:
I think i need different types of character models
A lot of the time I have only one pixel to play with and I want to use as little sub pixel animation on key features like the head, gun, shoes and other features.
I think you misunderstood me. My criticism was that you just grabbed a whole chunk of animation and dropped it a pixel without other consideration and called that adding weight. that's
not the same as animating a sinking, weighty motion. I don't think you should move that chunk of animation more than a single pixel, i think you should animate that section properly with an integrated and anticipated sink of, perhaps, a single pixel.
As for what you've referenced in my work, you're right, I had specific design reasons (evolving tactics job class system - very common) which demanded I keep the characters of a uniform model type. Beyond that, I'm not pretending to be a genius, nor am I saying that work I've done in the past, particularly what you're looking at (stuff that's over a year old in a young career) is perfect or relevant to what pixels you should move. There's a lot of problems with that stuff, that's why it was posted for critique. If anything I like to look at that stuff and enjoy how I've grown in such a short time since because I have been open to the advice of those around me in the weeks and months since.