That's great Ahmidou, looking forward to it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:27 AM, Ahmidou Lyazidi ahmidou@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with mean value coordinates is that they're negative with concave
cages,
and harmonic coordinates more complex and slower to generate.
I
New to shattering I am looking at how to separate the chunks for RBD
simulation. I saw some methods on rray.de/xsi and I know Momentum can
simulate it without separating, but being in a bit of a hurry I want to ask
what the quickest and easiest way is for this?
On a side note - is Momentum the
PolygonIndex is a read only attribute. So you should store your random
value in a user defined attribute (like 'Self.RandomPolygonIndex')
Cheers,
Guillaume Laforge
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:21 AM, pedro santos probi...@gmail.com wrote:
Heya
Trying to randomize IDs but I can't seem to be
You cannot modify certain attributes, including inconsistent changes to
topology. If you want to assign some random ids to polygon for later use,
create a custom attribute.
And yes you can set kine.global but not local.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:21 AM, pedro santos
I have a shot of a character covered in vegetation, that starts from a
closeup of his hand and ends in a full body shot. The last frames, where we
see the whole character (including the hand), are very fast to render.
Hoever the closer we are to the hand, the longer the render is, up to a
point
Hi Antonin,
What is your vegetation made of?
Are there any particles involved?
Are you rendering with Mental Ray?
Cheers,
Eric
What renderer are you using?
On Friday, December 13, 2013 10:59:54 AM, Antonin Messier wrote:
I have a shot of a character covered in vegetation, that starts from a
closeup of his hand and ends in a full body shot. The last frames,
where we see the whole character (including the hand), are very
I bet it is the strands. MR does adaptive meshing which can get very costy whit
closeups.
You should do a little debugging, for example:
Hide an object... render... hide a further object... render, ... etc., until
you get a sudden speed up. Then you know which object is causing the trouble.
I did try that, but not with the strands as they were out of frame in the
closeup. Just tried right now and... yup that was the problem. Just
keyframing their visibility seems to work.
Thank you very much Eric!
2013/12/13 Eric Mootz e...@mootzoid.com
I bet it is the strands. MR does
something easily overlooked: a close up could fill the whole of the image,
while a long shot might have for example 10% of the image area covered with the
subject. In which case a ten fold difference in rendering time is totally
normal.
other than that, any combination of stochastic sampling -
Thanks Peter, I would have seriously begun contemplating your parallel
universe theory but the problem seemed to have been the strands. I'm still
not sure what causes the strands to be so long to mesh the closer you get
to them though.
2013/12/13 pete...@skynet.be
something easily
Friday Flashback #150
XSI v2.0 Special Competitive Trade in Program, valid till 31-December 2001
http://wp.me/powV4-2VY
My pleasure, Antonin.
Hi list,
Is there a way to select the fbx version use to export from the SDK ?
In the UI, We have a nice combo to select from FBX6.1 to 7.*
Any chance we can access this option from python ?
thanks,
Jeremie
And the strands are default particle shapes right? There are a few little
known setting for changing the subdivision level per particle and from
screen size to world size etc , by default I think it is setup for distance
to camera so if its close then the setting may be too high, it is easy to
From a post of mine from three years ago:;)
Application.FBXExport( options )
Application.SetValue(ExportFBXOptions.FBXSDKVersion, FBX201000, )
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jeremie Passerin gerem@gmail.comwrote:
Hi list,
Is there a way to select the fbx version use to export from
I'm running into an interesting problem with weighted constraints. I
have a feeling of what's causing it, but I wanted to see if anyone
has ran into it before.
I've got a fairly straightforward 3-arm animation setup. One chain
is the IK arm, another chain is the FK arm,
Thanks, I knew the quantity of segments was fixed but I forgot about the
subdivision of the cross-section...
2013/12/13 Rob Chapman tekano@gmail.com
And the strands are default particle shapes right? There are a few little
known setting for changing the subdivision level per particle
Fantastic ! thanks
On 13 December 2013 12:02, Stephen Blair stephenrbl...@gmail.com wrote:
From a post of mine from three years ago:;)
Application.FBXExport( options )
Application.SetValue(ExportFBXOptions.FBXSDKVersion, FBX201000, )
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Jeremie Passerin
offset1 and offset2, then its constrained to both, with a 0.5 weight on
each constraint.
Soft constraints are layered, meaning that the order the constraints are
applied is important. The last applied constraint trumps the previous
one. So if you want to blend a 50/50 amount you have to leave
Okay. I wasn't aware of this. How would you do this in a setting
where you want the object constrained 80-20, for example? You don't
want the constraint to be 100, because it means the object would
move all the way with it with the constraining object, and you want
it to
The problem I'm seeing is that each time I move the arm(s) (either), be it by
manually moving the animation controls I have for them, or by playing with my
blending slider, these small nulls seem to not return precisely to their
original locations.
Key them perhaps, that way they know where to
Okay, I just read a bit about Rigid vs Soft coupling. That clears
that up.
The thing is that all my constrained objects are using Rigid
coupling, so in theory, this should not be the source of the
problem. Right?
Sergio M.
On 13/12/2013 4:32 PM, Sergio
'2 point' constraint...Which should probably be called '2 object' constraint.
-manny
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Sergio Mucino
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject:
look at the 2 point constraints for this type of stuff. It gives you
control of what axis points down the joint and also to set an object as
an up vector to stabilize them. Might get rid of the need for the 2
constraints.
If you're sticking with the 2 constraints, you'd set the first
Thanks a lot! I will look into all suggestions offered. Cheers
people! (It's Friday! :-) ...
cue Rebeca Black... * duck*)
On 13/12/2013 4:38 PM, Eric Thivierge
wrote:
look
at the 2 point constraints for this type of stuff. It gives you
I would immediately suspect motion blur, especially if it is Mental Ray...
N
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Antonin Messier
Sent: Saturday, 14 December 2013 2:00 AM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Closeup
27 matches
Mail list logo
