Seriously - this is one of my biggest feature requests ever since I found out it is not possible.
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:29:46 -0500 > Von: Alan Fregtman <[email protected]> > An: XSI Mailing List <[email protected]> > 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. 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
