Hmm, every single time you work on a TVC or Episodical where characters have hair? When you do DigiDoubles? Whenever you start a movie? The moment you have furry creatures?
I don't know, practically EVERYTHING I worked on in the last 10 years except for LEGO required abundant styling of hair, feathers, scales, spikes... It was actually a considerable investment of time before some tools got revamped. Before grooming tools came for our propietary hair system, at its inception, it was procedural and the digidoubles for Sucker Punch required about five times as long as it would have taken with styling tools. The fact you don't need it doesn't mean there isn't a large number of clients that actually do, day in and day our, on every multi-year production. On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Eric Lampi <[email protected]> wrote: > This just came across my feed on Facebook. It's so damned annoying to > see them make a huge deal out of this kind of pedestrian crap. OK the > hair stuff was nice, but is anyone really that impressed with a hair > styling tool? Exactly how often do you say to yourself "Oh no!! How am > I ever going to style the hair on these ALL of these characters!!??" > > > Eric > > Freelance 3D and VFX animator > > http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Greg Punchatz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It was more than that... It was the speed and interaction time. For > example the interaction time when simply changing tree counts or sizes.. > And when he painted a wight map it was beyond stupid slow. If its a view > port 2.0 issue .. Maybe he should turn it off... It's sad > > > > The hair demo and some of the work flow / UI looked great.. Then the > needless expressions and dog slow tree scene made me forget about the good > parts. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Greg Punchatz <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> I thought the hair stuff looked very very nice... but the tree demo was > >>> simply sad. It SEEMED much slower than ICE for only a few low poly > trees, > >>> and like you said I would expect it to very fast and scalable. The > video > >>> makes it seem like just the opposite. It seems with Arnold standins I > can > >>> handle much larger data sets in ISC...based on the demo video. > >> > >> You mean it's slow orbiting and panning the viewport? XGen is not > >> doing anything afaik during these operation. the slowness must be a > >> combination of all the shadows and effects of the viewport 2.0 setup > >> he's using combined with the camtesia capture > >> > >>> Is there a way to get this data into soft? I could see using the hair > tools > >>> as my first step into the dark side ;). Could I write out Arnold .ass > files? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> G > >> > > > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
