Re: maya control-like XSI's congruent move?

[Eugene Flormata]

seems like the universal move tool almost did the trick
but the minute i use it on objects with keyframes
it completely changes the objects worldspace

ah i figured it out, I can group some objects,
move the group pivot
move the object group parent how I like
then ungroup, then keyframe the objects

so simple. thanks maya

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Eugene Flormata 
wrote:

> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.justtodosomethingbad.com_blog_2017_10_13_how-2Ddo-2Dwe-2Dinbetween=DwIBaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=Ae2gR4Ys1DSP12HS2bPuh2TBP2-pvSWEYG8Tj48BcJc=-yLq2VObR2Siyx1NyD5SX1U_9gLDIYTvNiE0-exhZMY=
> I was reading up on this new animation process with ephemeral rigging
>
> and I recall XSI being able to move separate objects with COG on, moving
> separate things as one thing temporarily, by default, built into the system
>
> does anyone know how to do that in maya? without building a tool? or is a
> tool like that available for download?
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

maya control-like XSI's congruent move?

[Eugene Flormata]

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.justtodosomethingbad.com_blog_2017_10_13_how-2Ddo-2Dwe-2Dinbetween=DwIBaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=MH6ctfaisEHmVhiuahBLkzc3xjkrdeMz3JLya-gCtwk=OV9DQS_nBSlD9N7V92f8QP3d6khdkMLp4FpEAYkgvNw=
I was reading up on this new animation process with ephemeral rigging

and I recall XSI being able to move separate objects with COG on, moving
separate things as one thing temporarily, by default, built into the system

does anyone know how to do that in maya? without building a tool? or is a
tool like that available for download?
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

RE: Houdini hierarchical organization

[Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II]]

Jordi,

Yes, I agree, it is a hierarchy, but the issue is the type of hierarchy it is.

The hierarchy that the Tree View presents is neither procedural nor spatial, 
but rather resembles that of a file system. The word I used earlier was 
“container view”. Tree View appears to be, for lack of a better description, 
more appropriately a “Path View” like Windows Explorer where it reflects the 
scene relative “file paths” of all objects in the scene. This is reflected in 
your example of the first torus when we use 
/obj/subnet1/subnet2/subnet1/torus_object1/tx to address x translation. This is 
similar to the absolute Dag paths in Maya I suppose, those seen when  when 
using “ls –l”. Though it seems to employ a more absolute context in Houdini 
whereas in XSI or Maya you can address parameters from an object’s relative 
path. The confusion in Houdini, for me at least, seems to be that the hierarchy 
relative an object’s name path appears to be exclusive and different from any 
spatial hierarchy? Or is this just a skewed perspective as a result of studying 
the Tree View?

The subnet example you provided appears to be capable of producing a hierarchy 
separate of  the torus and null, but in the context of the view they would seem 
to be all part of the same hierarchy relative their absolute scene path names. 
The second torus and null would seem to be peers to subnet1 under obj for 
example.  So it doesn’t seem that they are exclusive of the hierarchy at all, 
they’re just not part of an extended hierarchy.

What I wanted to see was not the node path hierarchy but rather the 
articulation hierarchy, or spatial hierarchy, the way either Explorer or 
Outliner present it relative object ownership and spatial parenting. I’m 
learning the spatial hierarchy in Houdini has to be constructed in Network View 
buts its not clear from Network View whether these spatial relationships are 
“hierarchical” or “procedural” since they are being constructed in way that 
appears to be visually procedural, but it’s not clear if this is just an 
abstraction (at Network View::Scene Level) or if it is actually procedural.

For example, the spatial relationships established at Geometry level (Network 
View::Geometry) do appear to be procedural, since piping things into a 
transform node for example can both transform and instance. This is not the 
same behavior at Scene level and at Scene level there appears to be very few 
nodes, if any, that appear to behave procedurally. That is, there appears to be 
very few operators at Network View::Scene level, only objects or generator 
nodes or subnet. I get the feeling that the “procedural” connections made at 
the Network View::Scene level aren’t really procedural at all, but rather only 
objective and/or spatial, though they inherently “look” procedural. This just 
isn’t clear.

If that’s the case, the contextual behavior between Scene level and Geometry 
level provides some degree of confusion because the underlying behavior of each 
doesn’t match the similar visual context they are both using which suggests 
procedural relationship and modification. That’s why I wanted to see a clear 
spatial hierarchy representation, vs a path hierarchy or “procedural 
hierarchy”, so I could determine what was acting procedurally on each other vs 
what was related spatially, or both for that matter.

I guess the primary concern I have is in determining what is the best practice 
for setting up any spatial hierarchies, and for that matter, where can spatial 
hierarchies even be set up and how do they differ from context to context 
(Scene vs Geometry for example). Until a couple days ago I thought all network 
connections in Houdini were actually procedural. I’m now questioning whether 
that is the case or are some of these connections that look procedural, are 
they only abstractions for the sake of establishing spatial hierarchy? If that 
is the case, which ones are abstractions and which ones aren’t? How and what do 
I use to establish an awareness of what is being edited by an operator vs what 
is taking only spatial transformation or spatial governance? Is any spatial 
ownership actually occurring at all in Houdini, like in XSI or Maya, or is my 
current assumption incorrect and are all spatial relationships actually 
procedural but  more similar to constraints? I could see that to be the case at 
the Geometry level but that’s not the way it appears at the Scene level. None 
of this is very clear or I’m just not looking in the right place yet ☺

And yes, “procedural hierarchy” is probably a misnomer. Since in theory a 
procedural tree isn’t supposed to be rank based but rather restricted only by 
IO type. Any node at the bottom should be capable of feeding back to any node 
above it that at a minimum matches or uses its IO classes, so ownership (rank) 
should be irrelevant. I guess that’s why I’m finding the use of a procedural 
tree to establish spatial relationships, which are rank based, to be 

Re: Friday Flashback #317

[Olivier Jeannel]

Tekkon kinkreet was a shock !

2017-10-20 16:09 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore :

> Ta, really enjoyed that.
>
> On 20 October 2017 at 14:23, Stephen Blair 
> wrote:
>
>> 2003 xsibase interview with Michael Arias
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wp.me_powV4-2D3t4=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H_A-nOqIL8l5erTbps40SNsVQlbRzC0-wjjTaprPTak=uYnvuYbCDGNk5HoNGDaWIrh0tgDeZlWYYsC7qez1w7c=
>> 
>>
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>
>
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Houdini hierarchical organization

[Jordi Bares]

That would make the TreeView very useful… nice ideas!

> On 20 Oct 2017, at 09:42, Tim Bolland  wrote:
> 
> I have campaigned for the tree view to allow control over hierarchies and 
> exhibit other useful features similar to Soft. These would include 
> manipulating parent/child relationships, duplicating objects and deleting 
> objects. I was also asking for an option to see and edit parameters on the 
> object node (such as kinematics and custom promoted parameters). 
> 
> They seemed interested in this and have submitted and RFE for the changes 
> (Submitted as RFE (ID=85595)), so fingers crossed this is coming in a future 
> update!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>  on behalf of Ponthieux, Joseph G. 
> (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] 
> Sent: 19 October 2017 19:54
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: RE: Houdini hierarchical organization
>  
> Olivier,
>  
> Yes, that’s what I was looking for. Though it really isn’t Tree View but 
> rather Network View in List Mode . Apparently its not possible to make Tree 
> View behave the way I was expecting it to. But I guess there is a greater 
> advantage to having Tree View and Network View in use simultaneously as long 
> as you understand that Tree View is neither procedural nor spatial in its 
> representation.
>  
> This is useful, and it confirms my initial perception of Tree View. It also 
> confirms that reconciling the multiple contexts that Network View apparently 
> governs, procedural vs spatial for example, is going to take a bit more 
> effort than I originally anticipated.  
>  
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Joey
>  
>   <>
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Olivier Jeannel
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:25 PM
> To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=ScFIn7D4C28koShcB40kW_jG5xL8zYOKII9bGEUKYCE=ohuEXEToqJg7X6ZaqlvKeAaQsLvTbYU7l5UKLKImT48=
>  
> Subject: Re: Houdini hierarchical organization
>  
> Not sure I understand you well Jopseph, but here a little tutorial with som 
> "gem" about the tree view
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=ScFIn7D4C28koShcB40kW_jG5xL8zYOKII9bGEUKYCE=bFWjwFCeLVZGKXZii1JxLho9Ae8s7KLQJWp4aJUY8yg=
>  
> 
> Apologies if I'm way out of topic.
>  
> 2017-10-19 20:08 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore  >:
> Apologies for the rushed response as I'm heading out for an event. However, 
> the tree view in Houdini is best viewed simply as an alternative data 
> visualisation (best utilised a-z filtering). It's not an organisational view 
> or a place where you manipulate data. Transform hierarchies should be created 
> in the Network Editor and you can quickly traverse nesting structures via the 
> tree view.
>  
> In simple terms the Network Editor is where all major scene manipulations 
> take place and the Tree View is provided to aid navigation in complex node 
> structures.
>  
> At least that's the way I've always worked in Houdini.  ;)
>  
> jm
>  
> On 19 October 2017 at 16:47, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] 
> > wrote:
> Hello folks,
>  
> I figured people using Houdini on this list would understand the context of 
> this question better, coming from a Softimage background, rather than an 
> exclusive Houdini background. I’ve been trying to learn Houdini the past 
> several months and I’ve suddenly realized something that has me questioning 
> some things that may very well be misconceptions on my part, about the 
> interface.
>  
> To get right to it, is there a way to make Tree View represent object 
> hierarchical parenting relative transform relationship?
>  
> I’ve discovered that I can create transform relationships just fine in 
> Network View, but that it has also taken some effort to realize what happens 
> in Network::Scene is both similar and dissimilar to what happens in 
> Network::Geometry and neither is exactly reflected the same way in Tree View. 
>  A big part of the dissimilarities that I’m starting realize differ on how, 
> and when, a network produces transform relationships versus when it permits 
> procedural editing of object data.
>  
> It seems that Tree View 

Re: Houdini hierarchical organization

[Tim Bolland]

I have campaigned for the tree view to allow control over hierarchies and 
exhibit other useful features similar to Soft. These would include manipulating 
parent/child relationships, duplicating objects and deleting objects. I was 
also asking for an option to see and edit parameters on the object node (such 
as kinematics and custom promoted parameters).


They seemed interested in this and have submitted and RFE for the changes 
(Submitted as RFE (ID=85595)), so fingers crossed this is coming in a future 
update!

Cheers,

Tim




From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 on behalf of Ponthieux, Joseph G. 
(LARC-E1A)[LITES II] 
Sent: 19 October 2017 19:54
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: Houdini hierarchical organization


Olivier,



Yes, thatÂ’s what I was looking for. Though it really isnÂ’t Tree View but 
rather Network View in List Mode . Apparently its not possible to make Tree 
View behave the way I was expecting it to. But I guess there is a greater 
advantage to having Tree View and Network View in use simultaneously as long as 
you understand that Tree View is neither procedural nor spatial in its 
representation.



This is useful, and it confirms my initial perception of Tree View. It also 
confirms that reconciling the multiple contexts that Network View apparently 
governs, procedural vs spatial for example, is going to take a bit more effort 
than I originally anticipated.





Thanks



Joey





From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Olivier Jeannel
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:25 PM
To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist=DwIF-g=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=Vkqh3r5bQUYsFIT9BVW6iHUz7oy_JVi2RqLK-6VonPo=qtMFTTWi53LRolboDzgqEJ-zq3a8eRMeRkz2cVWATCQ=
 
Subject: Re: Houdini hierarchical organization



Not sure I understand you well Jopseph, but here a little tutorial with som 
"gem" about the tree view
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773=DwIF-g=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=Vkqh3r5bQUYsFIT9BVW6iHUz7oy_JVi2RqLK-6VonPo=3E9Pnk3_VPoSCgi5rCR4nPiDrVqoR05YhtsWnlLI-VI=
Apologies if I'm way out of topic.



2017-10-19 20:08 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore 
>:

Apologies for the rushed response as I'm heading out for an event. However, the 
tree view in Houdini is best viewed simply as an alternative data visualisation 
(best utilised a-z filtering). It's not an organisational view or a place where 
you manipulate data. Transform hierarchies should be created in the Network 
Editor and you can quickly traverse nesting structures via the tree view.



In simple terms the Network Editor is where all major scene manipulations take 
place and the Tree View is provided to aid navigation in complex node 
structures.



At least that's the way I've always worked in Houdini.  ;)



jm



On 19 October 2017 at 16:47, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] 
> wrote:

Hello folks,



I figured people using Houdini on this list would understand the context of 
this question better, coming from a Softimage background, rather than an 
exclusive Houdini background. IÂ’ve been trying to learn Houdini the past 
several months and IÂ’ve suddenly realized something that has me questioning 
some things that may very well be misconceptions on my part, about the 
interface.



To get right to it, is there a way to make Tree View represent object 
hierarchical parenting relative transform relationship?



IÂ’ve discovered that I can create transform relationships just fine in Network 
View, but that it has also taken some effort to realize what happens in 
Network::Scene is both similar and dissimilar to what happens in 
Network::Geometry and neither is exactly reflected the same way in Tree View.  
A big part of the dissimilarities that IÂ’m starting realize differ on how, and 
when, a network produces transform relationships versus when it permits 
procedural editing of object data.



It seems that Tree View only depicts a kind of “container view” context. Or 
rather, what is “inside” something else as opposed to what is the parented 
relationship by transform or articulation context. Tree View is great for 
finding and selecting something but more or less seems ineffective in setting