Re: Rolling banner -with ICE compound?

[Dan Yargici]

"I´ve been googling about this, and I can´t seem to hit the right search
words."

Carpet? ;)

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!searchin/xsi_list/carpet



On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:13 AM, David Rivera <
activemotionpictu...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone.
> Couple of days past, I remember seeing a video in vimeo that showed an Ice
> compound to roll stuff.
> I´ve been googling about this, and I can´t seem to hit the right search
> words.
> If anyone could please post the link to that ICE video that showed a rug
> rolling itself, I´d be greatly thankful.
>
> Bests.
> David R.
>

Rolling banner -with ICE compound?

[David Rivera]

Hello everyone. 

Couple of days past, I remember seeing a video in vimeo that showed an Ice 
compound to roll stuff.
I´ve been googling about this, and I can´t seem to hit the right search words.
If anyone could please post the link to that ICE video that showed a rug 
rolling itself, I´d be greatly thankful.

Bests.
David R.

Re: price increases?

[Thomas Cannell]

Modo does in fact have the ability to edit and build materials with nodes.
 Just add them into the Schematic view and connect away.  You will still
have to use it in conjunction with the tree for certain effects as it won't
support everything you can do with tree.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Thomas Helzle wrote:

> Steffen, sorry for the confusion - they call it Rendertree as well ;-)
> While it's not node based (and I really am a node addict myself) this is
> much less of a problem than I thought, in some areas it's even better. Now
> that I used it for a while, my old impression (not so different from yours,
> Steffen) has changed a lot.
>
> BTW. Lightwave isn't "layerbased" and never really was, Ronald? Current
> versions of Lightwave (for many years now actually) have full blown node
> shading which is in some areas better than XSI (no conversion nodes, yay
> ;-) ) and less good in others (some factory shaders are a bit simple). But
> I think the Lightwave Renderer is still top notch and GI is very fast.
>
> Again, I don't think modo is for everybody, but IMO it's more artist
> friendly and -centered approach goes a long way towards getting stuff done
> fast where the big packages can be a bit long in the tooth.
>
> Regarding the price: 20 years ago even a rotating cube was considered
> awesome and you needed a lot of special knowledge, gear and patience for
> even the most simple stuff. Been there, done that.
> But the times are changing and today 3D is no longer something special.
> I see an inflation happening: falling rates, cheaper, better and faster
> gear, more people wanting "in" etc.
> The big tools are up against Blender - with Cycles, Camera Tracking,
> Volumetrics, Fluids, Compositing etc. today.
> Very very different times IMO.
>
> I can't see how Autodesk prices are cost-of-development driven in any
> reasonable way.
> The packages they have already exist. They are noodling around with them a
> bit, but the last time I saw something really impressive in a major 3D
> package was ICE in XSI 7.
>
> But anyway, I don't want to convince anybody of anything here, it's just
> that I get the impression of a serious "Stockholm Syndrome" from some of
> the discussions on this list ;-)
>
> Each to his own - YMMV
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tom
>
> On 19 June 2012 12:55, Steffen Dünner wrote:
>
>> 2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle 
>>
>>> especially their render tree
>>
>>
>> They have a render tree? Node based?
>> Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack that
>> felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature
>> description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Steffen
>> --
>> PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
>> Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F
>>
>
>


-- 

puppetstring.com

Re: price increases?

[Thomas Helzle]

Steffen, sorry for the confusion - they call it Rendertree as well ;-)
While it's not node based (and I really am a node addict myself) this is
much less of a problem than I thought, in some areas it's even better. Now
that I used it for a while, my old impression (not so different from yours,
Steffen) has changed a lot.

BTW. Lightwave isn't "layerbased" and never really was, Ronald? Current
versions of Lightwave (for many years now actually) have full blown node
shading which is in some areas better than XSI (no conversion nodes, yay
;-) ) and less good in others (some factory shaders are a bit simple). But
I think the Lightwave Renderer is still top notch and GI is very fast.

Again, I don't think modo is for everybody, but IMO it's more artist
friendly and -centered approach goes a long way towards getting stuff done
fast where the big packages can be a bit long in the tooth.

Regarding the price: 20 years ago even a rotating cube was considered
awesome and you needed a lot of special knowledge, gear and patience for
even the most simple stuff. Been there, done that.
But the times are changing and today 3D is no longer something special.
I see an inflation happening: falling rates, cheaper, better and faster
gear, more people wanting "in" etc.
The big tools are up against Blender - with Cycles, Camera Tracking,
Volumetrics, Fluids, Compositing etc. today.
Very very different times IMO.

I can't see how Autodesk prices are cost-of-development driven in any
reasonable way.
The packages they have already exist. They are noodling around with them a
bit, but the last time I saw something really impressive in a major 3D
package was ICE in XSI 7.

But anyway, I don't want to convince anybody of anything here, it's just
that I get the impression of a serious "Stockholm Syndrome" from some of
the discussions on this list ;-)

Each to his own - YMMV

Best regards,

Tom

On 19 June 2012 12:55, Steffen Dünner wrote:

> 2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle 
>
>> especially their render tree
>
>
> They have a render tree? Node based?
> Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack that
> felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature
> description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.
>
> Cheers
> Steffen
> --
> PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
> Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F
>

Re: Intermittent "script" errors

[Nicolas Burtnyk]

Thanks Stephen!

Btw - I believe I did get some incomplete snipped portions of your answer
from ADN support.  But now I actually understand what I'm supposed to try.
 Plus I got the answer in a couple minutes.  My case with ADN is on day 6
now!
You guys need to solve the broken telephone there.  It causes a huge amount
of frustration and wasted time for us.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Stephen Blair
wrote:

> In case my answer was not forwarded to you yet.
> Btw, I've never seen this error reported before.
>
>
>
>
>
> This script error is coming from the Send To panel.
>
> [cid:image001.jpg@01CD4E00.C1A0F490]
>
>
> Then Send To panel is a NetView view (an embedded IE browser) that shows
> the OneClickStatus.html page.
> The script that causes the error is defined in the body of that HTML page.
>
> I've assumed the Send To panel is shown, because Softimage is updating the
> Send To panel, which forces the script to run.
>
> Here's how the Send To panel looks when there is no status to report (when
> Softimage is not connected to Maya or 3ds Max or Mudbox):
> [cid:image006.jpg@01CD4E1B.82420260]
>
> The Send To panel when there is a status to report:
> [cid:image008.png@01CD4E1B.3583B540]
>
>
>
>
>
> When you have problems with the Render Manager:
>
> -  Exit Softimage
>
> -  Open a Softimage command prompt
>
> -  In the Softimage command prompt, run runonce.bat.
>
> runonce.bat re-registers DLLs and Softimage objects. I have had several
> other support cases where users complained about missing panels in the
> Render Manager, and runonce.bat fixed those problems. That is one reason I
> suggest trying it.
>
> In this case, I'm also assuming that the Render Manager worked fine until
> you got the script error. So the script error somehow "messed up"
> Softimage, and I'd like to see if runonce.bat restores the Render Manager
> to working condition.
>
>
>
>
> -  Start Softimage and check if the Render Manager works again.
>
> -  If not, please check the Plugin Manager. In the Plugin Tree,
> under Factory Root, do you see the Render Manager addon? Are all Render
> Manager plugin items loaded?
>
> [cid:image007.jpg@01CD4E1B.82420260]
>
>
>
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nicolas Burtnyk
> Sent: June-19-12 4:06 PM
> To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Subject: Intermittent "script" errors
>
> Hello list,
>
> One of our developers is having a problem where every once in a while
> (once or twice a day, sometimes more), he gets an error (
> http://imgur.com/cmuaZ) saying:
>
> Script Error: An error has occurred in the script on this page.
> Line: 79
> Char: 4
> Error: Script aborted.
>
> Once he gets this error, XSI no longer works correctly (e.g. render
> options don't show up when you go to Render > Render Manager...), even
> after quitting and restarting XSI. He has to reboot his machine for things
> to return to normal.
>
> have any of you ever run into this issue?
> Any idea what might be causing this error?
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Nicolas
>

Intermittent "script" errors

[Nicolas Burtnyk]

Hello list,

One of our developers is having a problem where every once in a while (once
or twice a day, sometimes more), he gets an error (http://imgur.com/cmuaZ)
saying:

Script Error: An error has occurred in the script on this page.
Line: 79
Char: 4
Error: Script aborted.

Once he gets this error, XSI no longer works correctly (e.g. render options
don't show up when you go to Render > Render Manager...), even after
quitting and restarting XSI. He has to reboot his machine for things to
return to normal.

have any of you ever run into this issue?
Any idea what might be causing this error?

Thanks!

-Nicolas

RE: SI2013SP1

[Stephen Blair]

http://usa.autodesk.com/getdoc/id=DL19744363


From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Dana Smith
Sent: June-19-12 3:28 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

Sorry, where is 2013 SP1?

Dana L. Smith
Technical Infrastructure Management
SAS
(919) 531-4116
dana.sm...@sas.com
http://www.sas.com
<>

RE: SI2013SP1

[Dana Smith]

Sorry, where is 2013 SP1?

Dana L. Smith
Technical Infrastructure Management
SAS
(919) 531-4116
dana.sm...@sas.com
http://www.sas.com

RE: SI2013SP1

[Stephen Blair]

Yes, he did. It's in progress, but didn't make it into SP1.

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: June-19-12 2:11 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: SI2013SP1

ok i see, the ui needs to protect better the inputs to the operator. the op 
doesn't support that value (not that it couldn't).

@szabolcs, have you logged this?
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Eric Cosky 
mailto:e...@cosky.com>> wrote:
Yeah it's no big deal to me but technically it is a bug. I didn't even know 
about it until Szabolcs asked someone to double check it.

Dragging a slider to one spot, having the dialog not clamp the UI value as 
specified in SPDL, and not having the actual operator results match the SPDL 
slider or UI value are a little concerning since that seems like it would be a 
more general UI bug that goes beyond this one control. Do I now have to wonder 
if using the slider of any PPG will not be tracked correctly? I don't know. 
Curious bug though.


From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:55 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: SI2013SP1

i dont see that as an issue, they are blocking really low values which might 
result in the split to actually be right on top of the boundary edge. if you 
want a really really close edge use the "]" key (split edge tool) middle click 
and drag for a loop and left click and drag for a single point

s
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Cosky 
mailto:e...@cosky.com>> wrote:
This is what I get, http://imgur.com/60YJx
The point isn't able to get to the corner and there is the unexpected error in 
the log.


CreatePrim "Cube", "MeshSurface"
ActivateEdgeSelTool
ActivateEdgeSelTool
SelectGeometryComponents "cube.edge[10]"
SplitEdge "cube.edge[10]", 50, False, True, siPersistentOperation
' ERROR : 2006-EDIT-SetValue - Unexpected failure.
SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001


Trying to execute the SetValue command manually gives an overflow error.
SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001
' ERROR : Overflow: 'SetValue' - [line 1]

Setting to 0.001001 doesn't cause the error though, so it's not a parser 
error skipping the last digit.. odd.

I found that modifying C3DSplitEdgeOp.spdl so the ratioedgerange was clamped to 
0.002 avoided the problem (0.0011 and smaller numbers didn't work for me, 
didn't try to converge on the smallest usable value - the ui only shows 3 
digits so 0.002 might be the limit).


Parameter "ratioedge"
{
GUID = {CF8F1A90-46B9-11d4-8C28-009027BC3A0E};
Name = "Ratio Edge ";
Description = "Ratio on edge where to split the 
edge";
Type = VT_R8;
Caps = Persistable, Animatable;
Class = E3DPROPERTY_CLASS_TOPO;
Range = 0.002 to 99.999;
UIRange = 0.002 to 99.999;
}


Oddly I found if moving the mouse quickly, it would still show 0.001 with the 
new clamping and the actual point location was nowhere near 0.001 - pic here: 
http://imgur.com/EGahh

So, yeah, it's a little buggy.


From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:46 AM

To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:


1.   Make a cube

2.   Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the slider to 
the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it's just a local 
issue, and not worldwide...

From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.

From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

Hey

And where is this update? I can't see on su

Re: SI2013SP1

[Steven Caron]

ok i see, the ui needs to protect better the inputs to the operator. the op
doesn't support that value (not that it couldn't).

@szabolcs, have you logged this?

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Eric Cosky  wrote:

> Yeah it’s no big deal to me but technically it is a bug. I didn’t even
> know about it until Szabolcs asked someone to double check it.
>
> ** **
>
> Dragging a slider to one spot, having the dialog not clamp the UI value as
> specified in SPDL, and not having the actual operator results match the
> SPDL slider or UI value are a little concerning since that seems like it
> would be a more general UI bug that goes beyond this one control. Do I now
> have to wonder if using the slider of any PPG will not be tracked
> correctly? I don’t know. Curious bug though. 
>
>  
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Caron
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:55 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* Re: SI2013SP1
>
> ** **
>
> i dont see that as an issue, they are blocking really low values which
> might result in the split to actually be right on top of the boundary edge.
> if you want a really really close edge use the "]" key (split edge tool)
> middle click and drag for a loop and left click and drag for a single point
> 
>
> ** **
>
> s
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Cosky  wrote:
>
> This is what I get, http://imgur.com/60YJx 
>
> The point isn’t able to get to the corner and there is the unexpected
> error in the log.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> CreatePrim "Cube", "MeshSurface"
>
> ActivateEdgeSelTool
>
> ActivateEdgeSelTool
>
> SelectGeometryComponents "cube.edge[10]"
>
> SplitEdge "cube.edge[10]", 50, False, True, siPersistentOperation
>
> ' ERROR : 2006-EDIT-SetValue - Unexpected failure.
>
> SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Trying to execute the SetValue command manually gives an overflow error. *
> ***
>
> SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001
>
> ' ERROR : Overflow: 'SetValue' - [line 1]
>
>  
>
> Setting to 0.001001 doesn’t cause the error though, so it’s not a
> parser error skipping the last digit.. odd. 
>
>  
>
> I found that modifying C3DSplitEdgeOp.spdl so the ratioedgerange was
> clamped to 0.002 avoided the problem (0.0011 and smaller numbers didn’t
> work for me, didn’t try to converge on the smallest usable value – the ui
> only shows 3 digits so 0.002 might be the limit). 
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Parameter "ratioedge"
>
> {
>
> GUID =
> {CF8F1A90-46B9-11d4-8C28-009027BC3A0E};
>
> Name = "Ratio Edge ";
>
> Description = "Ratio on edge where to
> split the edge";
>
> Type = VT_R8;
>
> Caps = Persistable, Animatable;
>
> Class = E3DPROPERTY_CLASS_TOPO;
>
> Range = 0.002 to 99.999;
>
> UIRange = 0.002 to 99.999;
>
> }
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Oddly I found if moving the mouse quickly, it would still show 0.001 with
> the new clamping and the actual point location was nowhere near 0.001 – pic
> here: http://imgur.com/EGahh
>
>  
>
> So, yeah, it’s a little buggy.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:46 AM
>
>
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
>  
>
> Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:
>
>  
>
> 1.   Make a cube
>
> 2.   Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the
> slider to the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it’s
> just a local issue, and not worldwide…
>
>  
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
> mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
>  
>
> Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.*
> ***
>
>  
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs
> Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
>  
>
> Hey
>
>  
>
> And where is this update? I can’t see on subscription…
>
>  
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Cosky
> *Sent

Re: ice context

[Alan Fregtman]

If you have a per-object attribute you can convert it to another context
through location magic.

For example, if you need a per-point context you could try getting your
attribute from self.PointLocation (which docs claim is predefined so it
should already exist.) PointLocation is per-point thus any data you get off
it will be in that context.

If you're new to using locations: You just get a GetData for
self.PointLocation and another GetData for just "yourattribute" (no 'self.'
bit) where the Value output of the first GetData goes to the second's
"Source" input.

If self.PointLocation doesn't exist or fails, you can get it by hand by
feeding "Get Point ID" to "Point Index to Location" (not to be confused
with "ID to Location") with self as the geometry. The output will be the
same as self.PointLocation should be.

"ID To Location" is for particles. "Point Index to Location" is for
geometry.


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Roman Kaelin wrote:

> how do i simply switch the context from object to point if i set a custom
> attribute in ice? i got a weird pointid set and overwrite solution, which
> works. but there might be a way more simple solutionto this i guess?
>
> geerz,
> roman
>
>

RE: SI2013SP1

[Eric Cosky]

Yeah it's no big deal to me but technically it is a bug. I didn't even know
about it until Szabolcs asked someone to double check it.

 

Dragging a slider to one spot, having the dialog not clamp the UI value as
specified in SPDL, and not having the actual operator results match the SPDL
slider or UI value are a little concerning since that seems like it would be
a more general UI bug that goes beyond this one control. Do I now have to
wonder if using the slider of any PPG will not be tracked correctly? I don't
know. Curious bug though. 

 

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steven Caron
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:55 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: SI2013SP1

 

i dont see that as an issue, they are blocking really low values which might
result in the split to actually be right on top of the boundary edge. if you
want a really really close edge use the "]" key (split edge tool) middle
click and drag for a loop and left click and drag for a single point

 

s

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Cosky  wrote:

This is what I get, http://imgur.com/60YJx 

The point isn't able to get to the corner and there is the unexpected error
in the log.

 

 

CreatePrim "Cube", "MeshSurface"

ActivateEdgeSelTool

ActivateEdgeSelTool

SelectGeometryComponents "cube.edge[10]"

SplitEdge "cube.edge[10]", 50, False, True, siPersistentOperation

' ERROR : 2006-EDIT-SetValue - Unexpected failure.

SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001

 

 

Trying to execute the SetValue command manually gives an overflow error. 

SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001

' ERROR : Overflow: 'SetValue' - [line 1]

 

Setting to 0.001001 doesn't cause the error though, so it's not a parser
error skipping the last digit.. odd. 

 

I found that modifying C3DSplitEdgeOp.spdl so the ratioedgerange was clamped
to 0.002 avoided the problem (0.0011 and smaller numbers didn't work for me,
didn't try to converge on the smallest usable value - the ui only shows 3
digits so 0.002 might be the limit). 

 

 

Parameter "ratioedge"

{

GUID =
{CF8F1A90-46B9-11d4-8C28-009027BC3A0E};

Name = "Ratio Edge ";

Description = "Ratio on edge where to split
the edge";

Type = VT_R8;

Caps = Persistable, Animatable;

Class = E3DPROPERTY_CLASS_TOPO;

Range = 0.002 to 99.999;

UIRange = 0.002 to 99.999;

}

 

 

Oddly I found if moving the mouse quickly, it would still show 0.001 with
the new clamping and the actual point location was nowhere near 0.001 - pic
here: http://imgur.com/EGahh

 

So, yeah, it's a little buggy.

 

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs
Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:46 AM


To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:

 

1.   Make a cube

2.   Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the slider
to the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it's just a
local issue, and not worldwide.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs
Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs
Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Hey

 

And where is this update? I can't see on subscription.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Cosky
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:23 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: SI2013SP1

 

Just installed SP1, no problems so far and it's nice to see a few pet bugs
have been fixed. 

 

Thanks for the update.

 

-Eric Cosky

 

 

ice context

[Roman Kaelin]

how do i simply switch the context from object to point if i set a 
custom attribute in ice? i got a weird pointid set and overwrite 
solution, which works. but there might be a way more simple solutionto 
this i guess?


geerz,
roman

Re: SI2013SP1

[Steven Caron]

i dont see that as an issue, they are blocking really low values which
might result in the split to actually be right on top of the boundary edge.
if you want a really really close edge use the "]" key (split edge tool)
middle click and drag for a loop and left click and drag for a single point

s

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Eric Cosky  wrote:

> This is what I get, http://imgur.com/60YJx 
>
> The point isn’t able to get to the corner and there is the unexpected
> error in the log.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> CreatePrim "Cube", "MeshSurface"
>
> ActivateEdgeSelTool
>
> ActivateEdgeSelTool
>
> SelectGeometryComponents "cube.edge[10]"
>
> SplitEdge "cube.edge[10]", 50, False, True, siPersistentOperation
>
> ' ERROR : 2006-EDIT-SetValue - Unexpected failure.
>
> SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Trying to execute the SetValue command manually gives an overflow error. *
> ***
>
> SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001
>
> ' ERROR : Overflow: 'SetValue' - [line 1]
>
> ** **
>
> Setting to 0.001001 doesn’t cause the error though, so it’s not a
> parser error skipping the last digit.. odd. 
>
> ** **
>
> I found that modifying C3DSplitEdgeOp.spdl so the ratioedgerange was
> clamped to 0.002 avoided the problem (0.0011 and smaller numbers didn’t
> work for me, didn’t try to converge on the smallest usable value – the ui
> only shows 3 digits so 0.002 might be the limit). 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Parameter "ratioedge"
>
> {
>
> GUID =
> {CF8F1A90-46B9-11d4-8C28-009027BC3A0E};
>
> Name = "Ratio Edge ";
>
> Description = "Ratio on edge where to
> split the edge";
>
> Type = VT_R8;
>
> Caps = Persistable, Animatable;
>
> Class = E3DPROPERTY_CLASS_TOPO;
>
> Range = 0.002 to 99.999;
>
> UIRange = 0.002 to 99.999;
>
> }
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Oddly I found if moving the mouse quickly, it would still show 0.001 with
> the new clamping and the actual point location was nowhere near 0.001 – pic
> here: http://imgur.com/EGahh
>
> ** **
>
> So, yeah, it’s a little buggy.
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:46 AM
>
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
> ** **
>
> Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:
>
> ** **
>
> **1.   **Make a cube
>
> **2.   **Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the
> slider to the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it’s
> just a local issue, and not worldwide…
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
> mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
> ** **
>
> Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs
> Matefy
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: SI2013SP1
>
> ** **
>
> Hey
>
> ** **
>
> And where is this update? I can’t see on subscription…
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Eric Cosky
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:23 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* SI2013SP1
>
> ** **
>
> Just installed SP1, no problems so far and it’s nice to see a few pet bugs
> have been fixed. 
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> ** **
>
> -Eric Cosky
>
> ** **
>

Re: Ice : processing each point in an specific order

[Sam Cuttriss]

Good approach for accessing data in an specific order andy.
but i guess ice at its core retrieves data at the start of frame, then sets
it at the end within one node.
anything that needs child data to be set before parent data is retrieved is
a loop by its very nature.


ben, i had a little dig with c++ ice stuff but stalled out when the example
pass through node crashed when trying to cope with polymorphism.
ill have another look into it, i imagine its been fixed by the softimage
crew by now.

_sam




On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Ben Houston  wrote:

> You could very easily write a C++ node that takes the arrays and
> processes them in a specific order, but you probably want to stay
> within ICE.
> -ben
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Andy Nicholas 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sam,
> > You can't reorder the actual evaluation as it gets called from the tree,
> but I
> > think you can fake it.
> >
> > Off the top of my head, I'd try something like this:
> >
> > 1) Create list of unique point indices dictating order of processing
> (There
> > should be a one-to-one mapping between this list of indices and the list
> of
> > indices generated by using Element Index, i.e. the maximum index should
> be equal
> > to the number of points -1)
> > 2) Use your custom index with "Index to Location" to get the point
> location for
> > the point you want to process
> > 3) From that location, get any data from that point you need
> > 4) Process your data
> > 5) Save the result into a custom attribute
> > 6) Use "Build Array From Set" on your custom attribute, and do a "Sort
> Array
> > With Key"
> > 7) Index into the sorted array using the current point's "Element Index"
> and use
> > that value to set the data onto the correct point.
> >
> >
> > Instead of doing "Index To Location" in step 2, you could alternatively
> index
> > into an array made using "Build Array From Set", but it's not as
> flexible as it
> > stops you being able to access things like "PointNeighbours" (it means
> you have
> > to have an array of arrays).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 19 June 2012 at 02:40 Sam Cuttriss  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> is there a way (avoiding loop/ while nodes) to define an array of point
> id's
> >> that dictate the order they are assesssed.
> >>
> >>  i can think of plenty of ways with loops etc but im drawing a blank
> for an
> >> efficent way of doing it.
> >>  _sam
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ben Houston
> Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
> http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.
>
>

RE: SI2013SP1

[Eric Cosky]

This is what I get, http://imgur.com/60YJx 

The point isn’t able to get to the corner and there is the unexpected error in 
the log.

 

 

CreatePrim "Cube", "MeshSurface"

ActivateEdgeSelTool

ActivateEdgeSelTool

SelectGeometryComponents "cube.edge[10]"

SplitEdge "cube.edge[10]", 50, False, True, siPersistentOperation

' ERROR : 2006-EDIT-SetValue - Unexpected failure.

SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001

 

 

Trying to execute the SetValue command manually gives an overflow error. 

SetValue "cube.polymsh.splitedgeop.ratioedge", 0.001

' ERROR : Overflow: 'SetValue' - [line 1]

 

Setting to 0.001001 doesn’t cause the error though, so it’s not a parser 
error skipping the last digit.. odd. 

 

I found that modifying C3DSplitEdgeOp.spdl so the ratioedgerange was clamped to 
0.002 avoided the problem (0.0011 and smaller numbers didn’t work for me, 
didn’t try to converge on the smallest usable value – the ui only shows 3 
digits so 0.002 might be the limit). 

 

 

Parameter "ratioedge"

{

GUID = {CF8F1A90-46B9-11d4-8C28-009027BC3A0E};

Name = "Ratio Edge ";

Description = "Ratio on edge where to split the 
edge";

Type = VT_R8;

Caps = Persistable, Animatable;

Class = E3DPROPERTY_CLASS_TOPO;

Range = 0.002 to 99.999;

UIRange = 0.002 to 99.999;

}

 

 

Oddly I found if moving the mouse quickly, it would still show 0.001 with the 
new clamping and the actual point location was nowhere near 0.001 – pic here: 
http://imgur.com/EGahh

 

So, yeah, it’s a little buggy.

 

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:46 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:

 

1.   Make a cube

2.   Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the slider to 
the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it’s just a local 
issue, and not worldwide…

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Hey

 

And where is this update? I can’t see on subscription…

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Cosky
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:23 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: SI2013SP1

 

Just installed SP1, no problems so far and it’s nice to see a few pet bugs have 
been fixed. 

 

Thanks for the update.

 

-Eric Cosky

 

RE: price increases?

[Graham Bell]

I’ve been following the thread. I don’t have any information on impending 
changes to pricing and policy, other than what Autodesk have announced here:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/pc/index?id=19221634&siteID=123112

But I will try and find out.

G

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of pete...@skynet.be
Sent: 14 June 2012 19:57
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: price increases?

nope – a bet it is, as for now it is just a rumour.



From: Thomas Helzle
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 8:37 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: price increases?

"bets"?
They are called "Screws" as far as I know ;-)
Applied to the thumbs or other sensitive body extensions they can be very 
effective.
Especially in an endless spiraling economic crisis they are needed to extract 
shareholder value from customers who might have become a bit reluctant to let 
go of possessions, even if it's for the greater good.

It's easily fixed with the:
S.C.R.E.W.E.D. 2013 Subscription Benefit Pack Extender Set.

Once applied, the needed flow of fresh blood, ahem, cash, is guaranteed.

Enjoy your stay ;-)

Cheers,

Tom
On 14 June 2012 19:59, mailto:pete...@skynet.be>> wrote:
a little fairy told me today...
in about two weeks we (Europe) would see 25% increase on licenses/maintenance 
for autodesk 3D software, and upgrades at about 75% of the cost of new licenses.

all bets are on.


-Original Message- From: Stephen Blair
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 11:17 AM

To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: price increases?

It's a North American price change.
I haven't seen anything about price changes in the rest of the world.

-Original Message-
From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of pete...@skynet.be
Sent: June-12-12 3:15 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: price increases?

but with north america vs europe vs japan equivalency, we'll see 10 % in
europe and 20% in japan.
(sorry, couldn't resist)


-Original Message- From: Stephen Blair
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 3:20 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: price increases?

The price increase for commercial US and Canada licenses will be something
on the order of 5%, I believe.
I don't have the actual prices atm.

-Original Message-
From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Matt Lind
Sent: June-11-12 7:43 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: price increases?

What are the new prices for new licenses?




-Original Message-
From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of Stephen Blair
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:38 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: price increases?

Subscription prices do not change.
Price changes apply to new licenses.


-Original Message-
From: 
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
 On Behalf Of David
Gallagher
Sent: June-11-12 7:04 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: price increases?


What are the new subscription prices?


On 6/11/2012 6:36 PM, Eric Gunther wrote:
You know,

I was just subscribed to this list to pick up the odd bit about 3d and
softimage...but I feel the need to comment.

I initially got softimage (decided to use it) because it was selling
for
400 bucks or something.  Seemed like a good way to get into the
industry, small.

what is happening and has been happening with this is just $%#@ed up.

-eric



On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 00:00 +0200, Thomas Helzle wrote:
yeah, got some funny emails as well.
It seems that in the future you can update up to 6 or 7 versions
back, but have to pay 70% of the full original price (which funny
enough was increased quite considerably for XSI not that long ago).
I'm sure an Autodesk representative would be able to explain why this
is a fantastic thing to happen.


I'd call it your basic miss-use of a monopoly.


Cheers,


Tom


http://www.screendream.de

On 11 June 2012 21:15, Paul Griswold
mailto:pgrisw...@fusiondigitalproductions.com>

Re: price increases?

[Luc-Eric Rousseau]

they're not raising the price of Softimage specifically, it applies to
most Autodesk products

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Lampi  wrote:
> Prices rise from time to time, there has to be some profit in it. Since the
> port to Windows NT back around '95/'96, SoftImage's price per seat has
> continued to fall.
>
> Maybe it's fallen too far to cover development costs?
>
> Eric

Re: price increases?

[Eric Lampi]

Prices rise from time to time, there has to be some profit in it. Since the
port to Windows NT back around '95/'96, SoftImage's price per seat has
continued to fall.

Maybe it's fallen too far to cover development costs?

Eric

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:08 AM, David Gallagher <
davegsoftimagel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> For those of us who've been doing this for 20 years, I'm not inclined to
> get worked up about the price. Considering it used to be tens of thousands
> per seat.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- the monopolistic aspects of this is disturbing to
> me. But they have to pay the developers from some stream of cash, after
> all. I'm happy if they make money from Softimage development because I'm
> hoping they'll do more of it.
>
> Dave
>
> On 6/18/2012 9:38 AM, Szabolcs Matefy wrote:
>
>  To be honest, due to the increased unreliability of Autodesk products,
> and the increasing price, we are considering to migrate to cheaper, more
> reliable product out of the Autodesk household. Why I should pay for
> bugfixes? Why should I pay money for delivering useless, untested stuff?
> It’s not against the excellent guys at support (hats off for you guys, you
> really rock), but Autodesk policy. Shame on them. And that’ll lead to
> increased software piracy, it’s sure.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
> mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Williams, Wayne
> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 3:26 PM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: price increases?
>
> ** **
>
> “I can't believe AD's policy concerning pricing. I've dropped both my
> subs due to the 70% price increase for uk subscribers - so are the prices
> going up even more?!”
>
> ** **
>
> You are doing the right thing. Money talks, and when enough of it does, it
> roars. Just stop upgrading, stop subscription. When enough people do so
> Autodesk will be forced to re-evaluate their policies or hemorrhage money.
> Will probably get flamed to the depths of Hades for the contrarian opinion
> but monopolistic price gouging isn’t a sustainable business model due to
> various factors, most notably the demand curve. Only so many people can
> afford the new, higher premiums so they wind up losing customers there.
> They also  extremely piss off much of the rest of their customer base with
> the higher prices  which makes that base more prone to look elsewhere for
> solutions. This is when competitors step in and offer more value to lure
> that customer base away. It may be that the competition has the same sort
> of product for a cheaper price, or it may be they offer something that does
> more than what Autodesk software can do but at the same price.  Eventually,
> this results in an equilibrium of prices for goods and services being made
> possible. Know it sounds a bit odd, but this price exploration is something
> that is desirable in the long term. It’s one of the things which drives
> innovation, competition and helps producers to determine what is the right
> price for their product. Non-market based external factors aside
> (government’s injecting themselves into the economy (typically due to
> lobbying from a weaker competitor) via subsidies, tax breaks, no bid
> contracts, etc.) this process is the most efficient one our species has
> observed to date for the allocation of resources. 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
> [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt
> Morris
> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 7:26 AM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* Re: price increases?
>
> ** **
>
> I can't believe AD's policy concerning pricing. I've dropped both my subs
> due to the 70% price increase for uk subscribers - so are the prices going
> up even more?!
>
> ** **
>
> I'll think about upgrading again when they sort out their INSANE price
> policies. 2013 should do me for a while yet. Given that we're in a
> worldwide recession and the 3d market in particular seems to be being
> squeezed, I have no idea how they are validating these decisions.
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> On 16 June 2012 11:43, Tim Leydecker  wrote:
>
> On 15.06.2012 18:21, Byron Nash wrote:
> > Is this an effort to get everyone on subscription? I haven't heard any
> word about that going up. (crossing fingers!) I personally like
> subscription.
>
> +1
>
>
> I just recently tried to consolidate my licenses into
> one single subscription covered Ultimate package.
>
> It would have been very favorable for me but unfortunately,
> my reseller would only offer a stiff +/- 5000 EUR option,
> dropping Maya and upgrading Premium into a single Ultimate bundle.
>
> If I would just go and get my subscription for my Premium bundle
> and the Maya license instead, even including pesky late subscription fees,
> which are imho sending a wrong message in terms of marketing anyway,
> I would 

Re: price increases?

[David Gallagher]

For those of us who've been doing this for 20 years, I'm not inclined to 
get worked up about the price. Considering it used to be tens of 
thousands per seat.


Don't get me wrong -- the monopolistic aspects of this is disturbing to 
me. But they have to pay the developers from some stream of cash, after 
all. I'm happy if they make money from Softimage development because I'm 
hoping they'll do more of it.


Dave

On 6/18/2012 9:38 AM, Szabolcs Matefy wrote:


To be honest, due to the increased unreliability of Autodesk products, 
and the increasing price, we are considering to migrate to cheaper, 
more reliable product out of the Autodesk household. Why I should pay 
for bugfixes? Why should I pay money for delivering useless, untested 
stuff? It's not against the excellent guys at support (hats off for 
you guys, you really rock), but Autodesk policy. Shame on them. And 
that'll lead to increased software piracy, it's sure.


*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of 
*Williams, Wayne

*Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 3:26 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* RE: price increases?

"I can't believe AD's policy concerning pricing. I've dropped both my 
subs due to the 70% price increase for uk subscribers - so are the 
prices going up even more?!"


You are doing the right thing. Money talks, and when enough of it 
does, it roars. Just stop upgrading, stop subscription. When enough 
people do so Autodesk will be forced to re-evaluate their policies or 
hemorrhage money. Will probably get flamed to the depths of Hades for 
the contrarian opinion but monopolistic price gouging isn't a 
sustainable business model due to various factors, most notably the 
demand curve. Only so many people can afford the new, higher premiums 
so they wind up losing customers there. They also  extremely piss off 
much of the rest of their customer base with the higher prices  which 
makes that base more prone to look elsewhere for solutions. This is 
when competitors step in and offer more value to lure that customer 
base away. It may be that the competition has the same sort of product 
for a cheaper price, or it may be they offer something that does more 
than what Autodesk software can do but at the same price.  Eventually, 
this results in an equilibrium of prices for goods and services being 
made possible. Know it sounds a bit odd, but this price exploration is 
something that is desirable in the long term. It's one of the things 
which drives innovation, competition and helps producers to determine 
what is the right price for their product. Non-market based external 
factors aside (government's injecting themselves into the economy 
(typically due to lobbying from a weaker competitor) via subsidies, 
tax breaks, no bid contracts, etc.) this process is the most efficient 
one our species has observed to date for the allocation of resources.


*From:*softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] 
 *On Behalf 
Of *Matt Morris

*Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 7:26 AM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com 


*Subject:* Re: price increases?

I can't believe AD's policy concerning pricing. I've dropped both my 
subs due to the 70% price increase for uk subscribers - so are the 
prices going up even more?!


I'll think about upgrading again when they sort out their INSANE price 
policies. 2013 should do me for a while yet. Given that we're in a 
worldwide recession and the 3d market in particular seems to be being 
squeezed, I have no idea how they are validating these decisions.


On 16 June 2012 11:43, Tim Leydecker > wrote:


On 15.06.2012 18:21, Byron Nash wrote:
> Is this an effort to get everyone on subscription? I haven't heard 
any word about that going up. (crossing fingers!) I personally like 
subscription.


+1


I just recently tried to consolidate my licenses into
one single subscription covered Ultimate package.

It would have been very favorable for me but unfortunately,
my reseller would only offer a stiff +/- 5000 EUR option,
dropping Maya and upgrading Premium into a single Ultimate bundle.

If I would just go and get my subscription for my Premium bundle
and the Maya license instead, even including pesky late subscription fees,
which are imho sending a wrong message in terms of marketing anyway,
I would end up at "just" roughly 2200 EUR.

This doesn´t make sense at all and really, really sends the wrong message.

I would have thought AD would be happy to simplify things and even 
sell the full pack?


Cheers,


tim






On 15.06.2012 18:21, Byron Nash wrote:

Is this an effort to get everyone on subscription? I haven't heard
any word about that going up. (crossing fingers!) I personally
like subscriptio

RE: price increases?

[Szabolcs Matefy]

I think modo’s rendering is a quite different approach, it’s really layerbased, 
where materials, objects are mostly layer masks. However rendering is quite 
fast, and progressive. I think it’s a good alternate (and cheap(er))

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Steffen Dünner
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:24 PM
To: ron...@toonafish.nl; softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: price increases?

 

Thanks for confirming my first impressions :)

That's what I meant by "ancient". I hoped that such a brand new architecture 
would offer me a more modern concept of material editing.

The RayGL mode is awesome though!

 

2012/6/19 Toonafish 

Neh, unfortunately the Render Tree in Modo is not node based. I works more like 
Photoshop layers, just like in Lightwave, but a bit more advanced. There are 
some advantages over the Render Tree in Softimage, but even in a medium complex 
scene it becomes extemely flaky and very confusing. 

-Ronald




On 6/19/2012 12:55 PM, Steffen Dünner wrote:

2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle 

especially their render tree


They have a render tree? Node based? 

Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack 
that felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature 
description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.

 

Cheers

Steffen
-- 
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F





 

-- 
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F

Re: Ice : processing each point in an specific order

[Ben Houston]

You could very easily write a C++ node that takes the arrays and
processes them in a specific order, but you probably want to stay
within ICE.
-ben

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Andy Nicholas  wrote:
>
> Hi Sam,
> You can't reorder the actual evaluation as it gets called from the tree, but I
> think you can fake it.
>
> Off the top of my head, I'd try something like this:
>
> 1) Create list of unique point indices dictating order of processing (There
> should be a one-to-one mapping between this list of indices and the list of
> indices generated by using Element Index, i.e. the maximum index should be 
> equal
> to the number of points -1)
> 2) Use your custom index with "Index to Location" to get the point location 
> for
> the point you want to process
> 3) From that location, get any data from that point you need
> 4) Process your data
> 5) Save the result into a custom attribute
> 6) Use "Build Array From Set" on your custom attribute, and do a "Sort Array
> With Key"
> 7) Index into the sorted array using the current point's "Element Index" and 
> use
> that value to set the data onto the correct point.
>
>
> Instead of doing "Index To Location" in step 2, you could alternatively index
> into an array made using "Build Array From Set", but it's not as flexible as 
> it
> stops you being able to access things like "PointNeighbours" (it means you 
> have
> to have an array of arrays).
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On 19 June 2012 at 02:40 Sam Cuttriss  wrote:
>
>
>> is there a way (avoiding loop/ while nodes) to define an array of point id's
>> that dictate the order they are assesssed.
>>
>>  i can think of plenty of ways with loops etc but im drawing a blank for an
>> efficent way of doing it.
>>  _sam
>>



-- 
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.

Re: Ice : processing each point in an specific order

[Andy Nicholas]

Hi Sam,
You can't reorder the actual evaluation as it gets called from the tree, but I
think you can fake it.

Off the top of my head, I'd try something like this:

1) Create list of unique point indices dictating order of processing (There
should be a one-to-one mapping between this list of indices and the list of
indices generated by using Element Index, i.e. the maximum index should be equal
to the number of points -1)
2) Use your custom index with "Index to Location" to get the point location for
the point you want to process
3) From that location, get any data from that point you need
4) Process your data
5) Save the result into a custom attribute
6) Use "Build Array From Set" on your custom attribute, and do a "Sort Array
With Key"
7) Index into the sorted array using the current point's "Element Index" and use
that value to set the data onto the correct point.


Instead of doing "Index To Location" in step 2, you could alternatively index
into an array made using "Build Array From Set", but it's not as flexible as it
stops you being able to access things like "PointNeighbours" (it means you have
to have an array of arrays).

Cheers,
Andy





On 19 June 2012 at 02:40 Sam Cuttriss  wrote:


> is there a way (avoiding loop/ while nodes) to define an array of point id's
> that dictate the order they are assesssed.
> 
>  i can think of plenty of ways with loops etc but im drawing a blank for an
> efficent way of doing it.
>  _sam
> 

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Leo Quensel]

While we are at it:
Are there any news of 'Keep shape updated' with GImpact actual shape?
Last time I needed this I ran into a wall because bullet didn't support it.

Cheers,
Leo


 Original-Nachricht 
> Datum: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:08:57 +0100
> Von: Helge Mathee 
> An: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> Betreff: Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

> Sure, find it here.
> 
> https://dl.dropbox.com/s/b55evi388oezwrt/MOM_collision_issue.scn?dl=1
> 
> Note that I am using the convex hull collision shape though. Bullet
> Physic's
> GImpact collision configuration doesn't support collision against 
> softbodies, which
> means that your scenario won't be possible other than decomposition.
> 
> This feature has just been added to the latest version of Bullet 
> Physics, and
> hasn't been implemented in Momentum yet.
> 
> Bullet hasn't been built for this kind of scenario, so I think you are 
> hitting
> an edge case here.
> 
> -H
> 
> On 6/19/2012 13:03, Dan Yargici wrote:
> > Thanks Ben, I actually posted to the Momentum-Users group last night 
> > but it told be I had to wait to have my post approved
> >
> > Would mind sharing with me a scene you have where this works?
> >
> > DAN
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Ben Houston  > > wrote:
> >
> > I had a quick look, but I'm actually not a Momentum expert in terms
> of
> > usage.  It should all be possible because all collision items are
> put
> > into the same Bullet space.
> >
> > I figure your setup should just be a Momentum Passive Rigid Body on
> > the sphere.  When I tried to do that I got this message:
> >
> > # WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
> > sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> > # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
> > # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through
> sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> > # WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE
> > SPECIFIED GRAPH
> > # WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
> > sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> > # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
> > # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through
> sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> > # WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE
> > SPECIFIED GRAPH
> >
> > If I add another object into the scene and I add a Momentum Passive
> > Rigid Body operator on it seems to work.  Just check "Keep Shape
> > Updated" if the object is deforming.
> >
> > Just be aware that there are +250 people on the Momentum user's
> > list here:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/group/momentum-users
> >
> > -ben
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Dan Yargici  > > wrote:
> > > One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici
> > mailto:danyarg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take
> > a quick
> > >> look and get an idea of what I mean.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Ben Houston
> > Voice: 613-762-4113  Skype: ben.exocortex
> > Twitter: @exocortexcom
> > http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.
> >
> >
> 

-- 
Empfehlen Sie GMX DSL Ihren Freunden und Bekannten und wir
belohnen Sie mit bis zu 50,- Euro! https://freundschaftswerbung.gmx.de

Re: price increases?

[Steffen Dünner]

Thanks for confirming my first impressions :)
That's what I meant by "ancient". I hoped that such a brand new
architecture would offer me a more modern concept of material editing.
The RayGL mode is awesome though!


2012/6/19 Toonafish 

>  Neh, unfortunately the Render Tree in Modo is not node based. I works
> more like Photoshop layers, just like in Lightwave, but a bit more
> advanced. There are some advantages over the Render Tree in Softimage, but
> even in a medium complex scene it becomes extemely flaky and very
> confusing.
>
> -Ronald
>
>
>
> On 6/19/2012 12:55 PM, Steffen Dünner wrote:
>
> 2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle 
>
>> especially their render tree
>
>
> They have a render tree? Node based?
> Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack that
> felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature
> description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.
>
>  Cheers
> Steffen
> --
> PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
> Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F
>
>


-- 
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F

Re: price increases?

[Toonafish]

Neh, unfortunately the Render Tree in Modo is not node based. I works 
more like Photoshop layers, just like in Lightwave, but a bit more 
advanced. There are some advantages over the Render Tree in Softimage, 
but even in a medium complex scene it becomes extemely flaky and very 
confusing.


-Ronald


On 6/19/2012 12:55 PM, Steffen Dünner wrote:
2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle >


especially their render tree


They have a render tree? Node based?
Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack 
that felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature 
description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.


Cheers
Steffen
--
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Helge Mathee]

Sure, find it here.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/b55evi388oezwrt/MOM_collision_issue.scn?dl=1

Note that I am using the convex hull collision shape though. Bullet Physic's
GImpact collision configuration doesn't support collision against 
softbodies, which

means that your scenario won't be possible other than decomposition.

This feature has just been added to the latest version of Bullet 
Physics, and

hasn't been implemented in Momentum yet.

Bullet hasn't been built for this kind of scenario, so I think you are 
hitting

an edge case here.

-H

On 6/19/2012 13:03, Dan Yargici wrote:
Thanks Ben, I actually posted to the Momentum-Users group last night 
but it told be I had to wait to have my post approved


Would mind sharing with me a scene you have where this works?

DAN


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Ben Houston > wrote:


I had a quick look, but I'm actually not a Momentum expert in terms of
usage.  It should all be possible because all collision items are put
into the same Bullet space.

I figure your setup should just be a Momentum Passive Rigid Body on
the sphere.  When I tried to do that I got this message:

# WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE
SPECIFIED GRAPH
# WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE
SPECIFIED GRAPH

If I add another object into the scene and I add a Momentum Passive
Rigid Body operator on it seems to work.  Just check "Keep Shape
Updated" if the object is deforming.

Just be aware that there are +250 people on the Momentum user's
list here:

https://groups.google.com/group/momentum-users

-ben

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Dan Yargici mailto:danyarg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici
mailto:danyarg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take
a quick
>> look and get an idea of what I mean.
>>
>>
>



--
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113  Skype: ben.exocortex
Twitter: @exocortexcom
http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Dan Yargici]

Thanks Ben, I actually posted to the Momentum-Users group last night but it
told be I had to wait to have my post approved

Would mind sharing with me a scene you have where this works?

DAN


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Ben Houston  wrote:

> I had a quick look, but I'm actually not a Momentum expert in terms of
> usage.  It should all be possible because all collision items are put
> into the same Bullet space.
>
> I figure your setup should just be a Momentum Passive Rigid Body on
> the sphere.  When I tried to do that I got this message:
>
> # WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
> sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
> # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> # WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE SPECIFIED GRAPH
> # WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
> sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
> # WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
> # WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE SPECIFIED GRAPH
>
> If I add another object into the scene and I add a Momentum Passive
> Rigid Body operator on it seems to work.  Just check "Keep Shape
> Updated" if the object is deforming.
>
> Just be aware that there are +250 people on the Momentum user's list here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/momentum-users
>
> -ben
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Dan Yargici  wrote:
> > One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take a quick
> >> look and get an idea of what I mean.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Ben Houston
> Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
> http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.
>

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Dan Yargici]

Hi Helge, this is just a simple example to demonstrate the point.  My
actual production scene is made up of pointcached running people...

DAN.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Helge Mathee  wrote:

>  Is there a particular reason to use a cluster center?
>
> This works just fine with deform / normal rigid bodies without the cluster
> center
> and transform animation.
>
> -H
>
>
> On 6/19/2012 11:40, Dan Yargici wrote:
>
> One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici  wrote:
>
>> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take a quick
>> look and get an idea of what I mean.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Helge Mathee]

Is there a particular reason to use a cluster center?

This works just fine with deform / normal rigid bodies without the 
cluster center

and transform animation.

-H

On 6/19/2012 11:40, Dan Yargici wrote:

One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici > wrote:


Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take a
quick look and get an idea of what I mean.

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Ben Houston]

I had a quick look, but I'm actually not a Momentum expert in terms of
usage.  It should all be possible because all collision items are put
into the same Bullet space.

I figure your setup should just be a Momentum Passive Rigid Body on
the sphere.  When I tried to do that I got this message:

# WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE SPECIFIED GRAPH
# WARNING : 3000 -  Cycle breaking point
sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.polymsh.clsctr
# WARNING : 3000 - Cycle through sphere.kine.global.MomentumKinematics
# WARNING : 3000 - PROBLEMATIC EVALUATION CYCLES ARE IN THE SPECIFIED GRAPH

If I add another object into the scene and I add a Momentum Passive
Rigid Body operator on it seems to work.  Just check "Keep Shape
Updated" if the object is deforming.

Just be aware that there are +250 people on the Momentum user's list here:

https://groups.google.com/group/momentum-users

-ben

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Dan Yargici  wrote:
> One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici  wrote:
>>
>> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take a quick
>> look and get an idea of what I mean.
>>
>>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Ben Houston
Voice: 613-762-4113 Skype: ben.exocortex Twitter: @exocortexcom
http://Exocortex.com - Passionate CG Software Professionals.

Re: price increases?

[Steffen Dünner]

2012/6/19 Thomas Helzle 

> especially their render tree


They have a render tree? Node based?
Last time I checked, all I found was some sort of layer-based stack that
felt somehow "ancient". Can you point me to a tutorial or feature
description that shows this render tree? I would be very interested in it.

Cheers
Steffen
-- 
PGP-ID(RSA): 0xCCE2E989 / 0xE045734C CCE2E989
Fingerprint: 394B 3DA9 9A9A 96C6  3A5A 0595 EF92 EE1F

Re: Calling all Momentum experts!

[Dan Yargici]

One final caveat... it needs to be an Actual Shape collision


On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Dan Yargici  wrote:

> Here is a small quicktime of the setup if you just want to take a quick
> look and get an idea of what I mean.
>
>
>

Re: price increases?

[Thomas Helzle]

Good to hear that more people let their subscription lapse.
This business model makes it way too easy to feed crap to the customer.
While I basically understand that it is great for the developer to have a
fixed income, I can't see how it would keep people on their toes if I can't
vote with my updating.

I'm wary of Adobes new policies too, but they at least offer an
alternative, although I am VERY cautious about the current cheap prices for
their rental - as soon as most people no longer have normal licenses, they
are free to increase the rental price. And they just killed most of the
large second hand software market in one bold strike too.
Thankfully, I need less and less of Adobes tools, so this isn't as big of a
problem.
Initially I planned to do my new fullscreen-website in Flash, but in the
end decided on HTML5, which I did mostly in a text editor and  with open
source tools - turned out just fine: http://www.screendream.de ;-)

I'm really curious how the software market will develop in the near future
- on one hand you have the cheap apple model, a professional app for 35 to
250 euro so almost everybody can afford it, on the other hand you have
heavy handed Autodeskish companies who try to get us back to the silicon
graphics days. I'm wary of both, but thankfully there is still a "normal"
software market left.
modo 601 may not be the tool for full on feature film production, but in my
experience, it works much better than I would have expected (especially
their render tree) and I like it that I just downloaded SP2 which again
fixes a lot of bugs after SP1 did the same just some weeks ago.
For Freelancers and small companies, it definitely is worth a try.
At least it works for me :-)
SItoM anybody?

Cheers,

Tom

On 18 June 2012 20:06, Simon Van de Lagemaat wrote:

> I love Modo but it is in NO way ready for even moderate production loads.
> I know because I've tried to implement it here for commercial production
> and there are quite a few roadblocks that hold it back.  That's not to say
> it isn't capable on smaller jobs, it most certainly is. 
>
> ** **
>
> As it stands now the core of the program is not able to deal with the
> heavy lifting that comes up in film and some commercials, both in
> capability and stability.  I also don't believe that the Lux guys want Modo
> to become a heavy lifting package that could replace Soft or Maya.  Right
> now Arnold and Soft are light years ahead of Modo in terms of stability and
> capabilty with a moderate to heavy production load.
>
> ** **
>
> That said I feel your pain, we've let our subscription lapse because we
> don't feel that 2013 warrants a paid upgrade.  I really feel like AD is
> holding us hostage with subscription fees, they force you into paying for
> upgrades that you don't feel are worth the cost simply because not paying
> for them is more expensive in the short term... of course all that does is
> make us not upgrade for a longer period of time to offset the penalty.  **
> **
>
> ** **
>
> I wish AD would shit or get off the pot and either move to standalone paid
> upgrades or go to a full rental model like Adobe has which is closer to a
> pay for play model.  At least that way we could properly budget licensing
> costs per project.
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Szabolcs Matefy
> *Sent:* June-18-12 7:11 AM
>
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* RE: price increases?
>
> ** **
>
> Modo is one of the possible candidates. I was working with LW for four
> years, and I was working with modo for a while. It’s quite different, but
> it might be a good direction. Of course it’s just my opinion, my bosses
> will make the decision, but looking at the facts, if the price increase is
> that large, we probably wouldn’t renew our subscription. It’s not a fair
> way to pay for bugfixes. It’s like you buy a car, but wheel is working in
> the opposite direction.. You have to pay an additional fee for fixing the
> wheel? C’mon. Luxology seems to be delivering service packs addressing the
> issues
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [
> mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com]
> *On Behalf Of *olivier jeannel
> *Sent:* Monday, June 18, 2012 3:53 PM
> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
> *Subject:* Re: price increases?
>
> ** **
>
> "...we are considering to migrate to cheaper, more reliable product..."
> Which one ? ...just curious.
>
>
> Le 18/06/2012 15:38, Szabolcs Matefy a écrit : 
>
> To be honest, due to the increased unreliability of Autodesk products, and
> the increasing price, we are considering to migrate to cheaper, more
> reliable product out of the Autodesk household. Why I should pay for
> bugfixes? Why should I pay money for delivering useless, untested stuff?
> It’s not against the excellent guys at support (hats off for you guys, you
> really rock), but 

Re: Ice feathers..

[Stefan Kubicek]

And obviously the last point would be than it's all open and we can do pretty 
much whatever we want with it now.


I figured, thanks for the explanation Vince. I love the Johnny Walker ad btw, 
it's one of the best moments in the Mills 2012 demo reel too.




Ext: 2311
Mobile: 917-664-1830
www.the-mill.com

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Kubicek 
[s...@tidbit-images.com]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:33 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Ice feathers..

Hi Vince,

welcome aboard!

With all the recent talk about custom feather systems being developed and 
employed at Psyop and The Mill, I was wondering if you looked at mbFeathers 
(http://feathertools.michael-buettner.com/)
before deciding to build your own system, and why you ended up investing the 
time and taking your own rout. I assume you were looking for specific features 
you could not find in,
or build upon, mbFeathers? Simply out of curiosity, I'd love to understand what 
it was you couldn't find elsewhere that justified building a feather system 
from scratch.

Cheers,

Stefan


Thank you very much Bradley.

Yes it's a full on ICE feather system.
I started to layer all the main compound from scratch at the beginning of 
Hallmark, then Dave Barosin joined a month later and help me out with few very 
helpful features and scripts.

Version 1.0 of this feather system at the end of Hallmark was really nice, but 
version 2.0 that Bradley actually worked on is absolutely amazing and pleasure 
to use!
We had a very nice time brainstorming and figure out how to improve it. Bradley 
did all the hard work, cleaning it up and build a very nice interface around it.

We are using it now for an other bird (i can't mentioned the project yet, but 
it looks great), and we are using it for other type of scattering like leaves 
for trees for exemple.
Very very useful!

I can't wait to show you the next projects using it!

And i am glad i am finally on the Softimage list
It was about time.

Thanks again Bradley!

Vince.

Ext: 2311
Mobile: 917-664-1830
www.the-mill.com


Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message in 
error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

Please use the following link to view The Mill Showreel 2012.
http://www.themill.com/work/the-mill-showreel-2012.aspx



From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Bradley Gabe 
[witha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:04 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Ice feathers..

You are correct. :-)

This would be a good time to introduce Vince Baertsoen, VFX Supe here at The 
Mill in NYC. He's the bearded fellow who appears at 1:25 in the video, and I 
believe the main architect behind the feather system, along with David Barosin.

I've been working with Vince since the beginning of the year, a super nice 
fellow who really should be more visible in the community, especially 
considering The Mill here in NY are using ICE like crazy and are on the prowl 
for talent.

-Bradley

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Adam Seeley 
mailto:adam_see...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
I spy Ice feathers

https://vimeo.com/43978044#

Adam.






--
---
Stefan Kubicek   Co-founder
---
   keyvis digital imagery
  Wehrgasse 9 - Grüner Hof
   1050 Vienna  Austria
 Phone:+43/699/12614231
--- www.keyvis.at  ste...@keyvis.at ---
--  This email and its attachments are
--confidential and for the recipient only--





--
---
Stefan Kubicek   Co-founder
---
  keyvis digital imagery
 Wehrgasse 9 - Grüner Hof
   1050 Vienna  Austria
Phone:+43/699/12614231
--- www.keyvis.at  ste...@keyvis.at ---
--  This email and its attachments are
--confidential and for the recipient only--

RE: SI2013SP1

[Szabolcs Matefy]

Unfortunately not repaired. Could you check please:

 

1.   Make a cube

2.   Use the split edge with ratio control, and try to slide the slider to 
the left extreme, see the result on the viewport. I hope it’s just a local 
issue, and not worldwide…

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:15 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Hey

 

And where is this update? I can’t see on subscription…

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Cosky
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:23 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: SI2013SP1

 

Just installed SP1, no problems so far and it’s nice to see a few pet bugs have 
been fixed. 

 

Thanks for the update.

 

-Eric Cosky

 

RE: SI2013SP1

[Szabolcs Matefy]

Never mind I found it. I hope, that the split edge ratio PPG is repaired.

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Szabolcs Matefy
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 7:58 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: RE: SI2013SP1

 

Hey

 

And where is this update? I can’t see on subscription…

 

From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Cosky
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:23 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: SI2013SP1

 

Just installed SP1, no problems so far and it’s nice to see a few pet bugs have 
been fixed. 

 

Thanks for the update.

 

-Eric Cosky