Thanks Rob, I was a bit more inclined to ICE in the beggining :)
Now I waas wondering a couple things:
Which of these two options will perfom better?
Also the other thing is, Alan's script also aligns the null with tangency,
while your ICE tree doesnt.
I m notmuch of a rigging head but looking at
Thanks Rob, I was a bit more inclined to ICE in the beggining :)
Now I waas wondering a couple things:
Which of these two options will perfom better?
Also the other thing is, Alan's script also aligns the null with tangency,
while your ICE tree doesnt.
I m notmuch of a rigging head but looking at
Hi Nuno I am really not the best person to ask as I posses next to nothing
skills in regards to rigging and optimising these compared to others here
on the list. Tangency can be gained in a similar way that the poly normal
is obtained in the 2nd example was just helping with an alternative nulls
Ohh well, 2800 nulls, the ice way performs much worse, it took nearly 2
hours to apply the transform to all the nulls, after, to test the
deformation performance on the cage mesh i got 1.5 FPS.
The alternative using the script to create and constraint each null to each
poly performed much better
Ohh well, 1400 nulls, the ice way performs much worse, it took nearly 1
hour to apply the transform to all the nulls, after, to test the
deformation performance on the cage mesh i got 2 FPS.
The alternative using the script to create and constraint each null to each
poly performed much better on
wow, very interesting! 2 hours to constrain 2800 nulls - so thats only 15
nulls per minute , bit of a joke! Am sorry for suggesting it, I really did
not appreciate how slow it is and thought the menu call to ICE Kinematics
transform objects by particles might have been more optimised than
Sorry mate, i made a mistake on my initial null amount, i had 2x more nulls
than i needed, i counted triangles instead of polys,duh!, i changed my post
a bit too late.
Anyways, ive cut the time to half, but still was very slow, i think once it
is large data sets it can get very slow in softimage
and my timings are 2400 nulls in 54 minutes. A rate of 44.4 nulls
constrained per minute on 2013SP1 64bit dual Xeon X5680s @3.33ghz - my
workstation must be faster.
still, a ridiculous amount of time for such a basic task. Alan's script
btw took 2 minutes to create, place and constrain all 2400
Yes, definitely, by the way my PC is just a Core i7 920, so the better
performance of yours makes sense. Im using 2012 SAP by the way.
Right now my struggle is to do the envelope weights...each stroke is very
slow, my enveloped mesh has been reduced to 350 thousand polys now...
On Fri, Jan 11,
deform by cluster
Hehe, I knew ICE was slower for this hence my more traditional solution.
It's dissapointing, but ICE is just not fast enough when it comes to
singlethreaded things and it has a lot of overhead. It kicks ass and takes
names when it comes to large datasets (where it magically
...@gmail.com
An: XSI Mailing List softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Betreff: Re: Cage deform by cluster
Hehe, I knew ICE was slower for this hence my more traditional solution.
It's dissapointing, but ICE is just not fast enough when it comes to
singlethreaded things and it has a lot of overhead
...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Alan Fregtman
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:30 AM
To: XSI Mailing List
Subject: Re: Cage deform by cluster
Hehe, I knew ICE was slower for this hence my more traditional solution.
It's dissapointing, but ICE is just not fast enough when it comes to
singlethreaded things
...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Alan Fregtman
*Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 8:30 AM
*To:* XSI Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: Cage deform by cluster
** **
Hehe, I knew ICE was slower for this hence my more traditional solution.
It's dissapointing, but ICE is just not fast enough when it comes
with a single call to Duplicate() vs. ‘n’ calls to
Duplicate().
Matt
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Rob Chapman
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:52 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Cage deform by cluster
Oh I see, so this is to potentially break the 1200 nulls per minute speed
barrier that Mr Fregtman set with his Python script earlier?
Nice idea Matt. I wonder how its possible to 'dynamically' create a
specific xml file to disk though. probly in Python - ha!
And surely when this compound/xml is
Hey Rob,
Firstly, if you go ahead and use the ICE menu to do that Transform Objects
By Particles thing, go ahead and select any of those nulls and do Alt+9 to
see the icetree. You will find one per null, as I implied in a previous
message.
Secondly, yes, when the xml is loaded you'll suffer the
holy shit batman! there is 2403 icetrees in my scene. My word, really I
did not think there were as I swear looked at a null and there is no
operator stack and under a cursory inspection looked like a constraint to
the xform_container_pointcloud null that is created which *does* have a
Years ago I rigged some braids to deform by low res poly strips. There is a
simpler way. Cage is overkill.
You could constrain a null per polygon (cluster) and turn on all the
options (in the Constrain-Object to Cluster constraint) so it locks to the
poly orientation well. You can then use those
Thanks Alan
Even though I think this solution using clusters would be interesting and
probably easier to setup ill try to use your method.
Couple questions though:
1. The object to cluster constraint doesn't seem to constrain to polys,
only points, am i missing any option here or I need to
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Nuno Conceicao nunoalexconcei...@gmail.com
wrote:
1. The object to cluster constraint doesn't seem to constrain to polys,
only points, am i missing any option here or I need to constrain to a point
then offset it manually?
2. I have 140 braids and each
thanks for the help Alan, I do need to get more into Python, this script
makes it look soo simple :)
On 10-01-2013 20:25, Alan Fregtman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Nuno Conceicao
nunoalexconcei...@gmail.com mailto:nunoalexconcei...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The object to cluster
woops sorry that extra get data on point 2 should be primitive
On 10 January 2013 23:06, Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Nuno Conceicao
nunoalexconcei...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The object to cluster constraint doesn't seem to constrain to polys,
only
As per your screenshot, I don't believe your particles are getting any
Orientation. That's sort of important.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Nuno Conceicao
nunoalexconcei...@gmail.com wrote:
1. The object to
23 matches
Mail list logo
