Hmm.. Well I did preface it with, "OK the hair stuff was nice". I rather like doing hair so, meh.
It's the other stuff... Wow, laying out trees with weightmaps. *YAWN*. The acquisition of soft by AD hasn't been so great for us, so when I see that kind of demo it makes me a little batty. My nerd rage... rages. Eric Freelance 3D and VFX animator http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected]> wrote: > 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!
