Producers never will realize that spending a little extra up front will save them a TON later. I've got a client I've worked with for 6 years & I've tried to convince them of various ideas I've got on streamlining things. In 6 years, they've never even considered it once.
Sadly deadlines are almost always so tight there's no time to do any R&D either, so everything ends up as a one-off project that never gets revisited. -Paul On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Andy Moorer <[email protected]> wrote: > It sounds reasonable to me, if a bit old-school. But there's nothing wrong > with old-school! > > A more procedural approach might be to animate the connectors, perhaps as > a particle system, and then to extrude strand trails behind them as the > cords. The nice thing about this kind of approach is that it's scalable, if > you might need to increase the number of cables to some ludicrous number > it's easy, same goes for making changes to the connector models and the > like. You can also set things up to maintain a relationship between the > product and the strands in the event the product must move etc... if the > requirements change you have room to extend the behavior without having to > scrap your whole approach. > > How much effort you put into doing that kind of setup would depend I > suppose on your gut-take on whether you will see a lot of client changes or > whether you anticipate more jobs with this gag in the future, and of course > how much time you're allowed. Too often we have to just do whatever seems > fastest at the moment.... :/ I wonder if producers realize how often > pushing for things to be done super fast keeps artists from that little > change that makes things cross over from ok to spectacular... >
