The Hypershade always allowed for that much, as did the hypergraph really, but everybody used the hypershade anyway because it sucked a few square inches less equine balls than the HG did.
The NE hardly adds anything in terms of exposure or functionality, but it was a big step forward in convenience as it monkeys ICE ports a bit and frequently spares you from having to use the connection editor, which is notoriously about as pleasant as getting a cardiac exam through proctological means. None of that has much to do with ICE, really, which is strongly operator focused in both its boundaries and available nodes, whereas the node editor offers a view on the DG at a scene level which is entirely missing in ICE, but is utterly useless at anything outside that (where you fall squarely into writing a node territory). Bifrost seems to be going for a more strict boundaries op eval engine kind of thing, so closer to ICE than to the NE in intents. And while it comes from Naiad, it's not intended to be a volumes and particle simulator and nothing else. Naiad was originally not intended to be just that to begin with, it just happens that due to past work they have some excellent solvers that would be stupid not to use as a spring board. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Eric Thivierge <[email protected]>wrote: > I think it's an incorrect observation as the Node Editor (different than > Hypershade and the Hypergraph) allows you to pull in a lot if not all of > the nodes in the scene. Grab a polygon cube and plug it's Y value into this > other shader type stuff. It's a node editor for the entire scene not just > operators. Much more than ICE is now. > > > On September-11-13 12:23:46 PM, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES] > wrote: > Or is that an incorrect observation? > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
