The reason to do it post-emittion is because then you know that whatever's left will be doing the same thing (presuming you're not doing any neighbour lookups or anything) that it did before, but there'll just be less of them. It's the path of least resistance when a client's looked at something and says 'I like it... just fewer'.
On 11 April 2013 04:31, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected]>wrote: > I'm aware of plenty cases where one might need to, especially post-facto > stuff where you just can't go back upstream (caches, things produced as > manually operated chains for hacks, LODding something, bracketing something > and so on). > > In this case I was more proposing it's worth looking at that. 90% of the > stuff that starts simply emitted can usually be halved more cheaply, and > interacted with in more complexity producing better results, by reduing the > emission rule hits and then a straight forward tweaking of any frequency > based on the ID (if you have any). > > More of a food for thought than anything, I guess. Maybe should have not > been formulated as a question. > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andy Moorer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Sometimes when the opportunity presents itself (such as a weekend >> available to cache on a local machine) I like to save out the maximum >> density I can in a given timeframe simply because its easier to remove data >> than to not have it at all or build up density by interpolating between >> particles or the like. >> >> In regards to simple workflows... I have a couple of easy-to-build >> compounds I keep handy (though its just as easy to build them as you go) >> one which assigns particles a random number between 1-100, another which >> tests for that value against a defined threshold for deletion or whatever. >> It makes it very quick to be able to build structures which act on a >> certain percentage of particles or to modulate other values with that >> number. >> >> By always using the same compound/logic I free myself from having to give >> it any particular attention or thought, I just drop the compounds in and >> know what I'm going to get. Simple but useful, and since it is (for better >> or worse) my own logic instead of one of the factory compounds I know what >> is happening under the hood and don't have to worry about unexpected >> results, pre-set contexts, or other caveats. >> >> Same goes for a number of other simple tools - the most useful being one >> which returns a uniformly random vector of a defined magnitude. The factory >> "randomize by cone" compounds irritate me. :) >> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! >
