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 slices up operations to many threads) like with most deformers, but with simple tasks it's slow.
Maybe if and when we ever become able to set an icetree on a group of objects and drive everything from 1 tree, then it could potentially be better. — 2400 icetrees is nuts, no matter how simple. :p On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:08 AM, Rob Chapman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 nulls. A very > clear winner. > > apologies for the noise! > > > best > > Rob > > > On 11 January 2013 13:20, Nuno Conceicao <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 doing things, in >> any case after i got rid of the excess nulls, i only got 2-3 fps while on >> the contrained to cluster nulls i got 4+ FPS. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Rob Chapman <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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 Alan's Python script.. definitely not! maybe its written in >>> VBscript or...? :) >>> >>> I guess the serious rigger constrainers are best to stick with Python >>> scripted solutions for now. >>> >>> Also couldnt understand how it took so long as the example I made with >>> few hundred wasnt that tedious to wait, so testing it out on a grid quick >>> with 2400 nulls , the progress bar is already past 1/4 way though and its >>> only been 5 minutes... oh wait screens frozen and gone white - will let you >>> know final time if it finishes, just going for lunch! :D >>> >>> its obviously not multithreaded as only 1 core out of 24 is in use for >>> this procedure - what a waste! >>> >>> cheers >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 11 January 2013 12:47, Nuno Conceicao <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> took nearly 2 hours to apply the transform to all the nulls, after, to >>>> tes >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
