Sorry for the off-topic rant -
Why is it that the Maya UI design always gives you the eye-bleed? (Not
talking about the logic, which is another sad story, but the graphics -
icons, colors...).
This is not only a matter of personal taste. It's about perception
psychology - not getting overloaded with a hundred little eye-catchers.
Unnecessary borders, icons that scale blurry, text too tiny...
Relying on icons instead of text at all !!
Icons are ok, but they have to be very simple to make sense, and you
won't find a good one for each of the 10000 features.
And why do you guys always choose the most toxic and contrasting colors
you can find for your UI elements?
Don't you have a dedicated UI designer in you team, that is worth his money?
Get inspired by swiss typography... the art of presenting information to
the beholder in the most appealing and catchy way.
Heck, we are working in the field of visual arts here, for chrissake!
You did a UI re-design during the Qt transition already. Nothing much
has improved. Has nobody ever talked to you about this?
Softimage has a much more calm and appealing look to it, for example.
Mostly, at least. There's much that could be improved, too.
Just came across clara.io... Ok, it is much much simpler feature-wise,
but you get the point. Very reduced and clean.
http://discuss.exocortex.com/t/clara-io-tutorial-basic-polygon-modelling/248/2
Even Microsoft learned it's lessons and took out the UI clutter,
radically. Too much in some places, maybe, but it's a good trend.
Get the point? We spend hours and hours in front of UIs - they DO
matter. A lot, actually.
What were we talking about? Bifrost... allright.
Am 12.09.2013 09:13, schrieb Graham Bell:
Yep, I would go with that.
The Maya's Node Editor is actually very good, but still in many ways a work in
progress. It has come on leaps and bounds since it was first implemented into
Maya 2013, but it's not quite a direct replacement for the HG/HS just yet. I
initially started using the NE has a Connection Editor replacement, but more
recently I've been starting to use it more like a Soft Rendertree. It can be a
tad fiddley at times and there are some things (which I'm hoping for) that it
can't do compared to Softs views, but it can also do some things that Soft's
views can't.
If there comes a time when HG and HS are retired, I don't think people will
mourn the loss *that* much.
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Raffaele Fragapane
Sent: 12 September 2013 01:08
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Article on Bifrost
Actually I'll have to, respectfully, disagree with that.
Shape and transform node handling is fine as is (given the premise you're OK
with how Maya handles it).
Given it's possible and rational for a shape to have N parent transforms, and
for a transform to have N shapes, exclusive ui binding would make it awfully
confusing.
You also, most of the time don't care about their coupling enough, or you care
so much about it it's painfully obvious, that you need to see them connected in
my experience.
It's also the fine distinction between DAG representation, which HG does better
(or the outliner, which is getting better but is still a long shot from SI's
superb explorer), and the DG you care about in the NE.
The NE currently replaces the HS more so than the HG. When the NE will receive
a second mode (ala HG DAG vs DG modes) then I will agree with you, and the HG
should be retired as well.
In its current incarnation I think things are "fine" in those regards, or at
least clear enough if you know how Maya works.
That they DO get messy, well, that I don't disagree with. Maya is still one of
the absolute easiest apps to make a complete and absolute multidirectional
clusterf*** of the scene in.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Nick Angus
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Simple things like putting the shape node inside the transform node (a la
Houdini) would be a help, the fact the transform and shape node of an object
don't even have a visible connection is downright bizarre!
Simple exercise, make a poly sphere, open the node editor, duplicate sphere n
times. It gets very messy very fast, plus all the stuff Raf pointed out and
then some...
N
________________________________
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
on behalf of Raffaele Fragapane
[[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: 12 September 2013 09:31
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Article on Bifrost
It still looks absolute arse Luc-Eric, even if a lot less so than it did
before, and it generally handles arsedly too :p
The only thing it has in common with ICE (looks wise) is it has coloured
circles for ports, but handling population, context, connections, port
expansion and so on is still bad, it still doesn't edge scroll, text kerns
horribly, the distance/readability ratio and the ridiculous zooming don't work,
and dynamic attributes and aggregate ports handle like a cow on a frozen lake.
It's leaps and bounds better than HS + CE though and I'm looking forward to it
looking and handling better again soon :) It also has some nifty things missing
in ICE.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
which version of Maya? it looks a lot like ICE in a dark theme in 2014
Le 2013-09-11 18:53, "Octavian Ureche"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
For me the problem is not in what it does. (which is everything that the
hypergraph/hypershade did and more).
When i first heard they were going to create a node editor i said
hallelujah...because everyone got fed up using the connection editor for
linking stuff.
But whenever i stare at it (which is almost daily), it just screams ugly to me.
Which is not something that i get with ice or vex for that matter. But it might
just be my perception.
I am completely aware of what it is and what it does, and i've been using it
since it was introduced...i just never felt so at ease with it as i feel with
ice.
Like having a really powerful yet ugly looking car. I know it's meant to be
used by td's and all that, and it doesn't need to look in any way.
But when i look at ice, i see something that is both functional and easy on the
eyes. Really well thought out visually.
That's not something i can say about the current node editor. But i completely
understand that for some it might not matter.
Octavian
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:59 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hey,
I'm just doing the advanced rigging course here at anomalia (all in maya) and
have learned how great the node editor is. If you want to make connections
between objects it's (like you said eric) for the entire scene. So you can
build all kind of expressions who live in the scene but not in an
ice-operator on an object.
Especially for all kind of rigging targets, is really cool to use this editor
in place of the outdated SI expression editor or ICE-Kinematics, where you
never now what drives what. I would love to see something similar in SI.
Andreas
Eric Thivierge <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> hat am
11. September 2013 um 19:24 geschrieben:
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?
--
Octavian Ureche
+40 732 774 313<tel:%2B40%20732%20774%20313> (GMT+2)
Animation & Visual Effects
www.okto.ro<http://www.okto.ro>
--
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and
let them flee like the dogs they are!
--
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and
let them flee like the dogs they are!
