That is a reasonable statement, Luc-Eric. However, given the proper resources such libraries could have been generated for Softimage. Moving forward though, a large amount of presets for Bifrost would be a good thing for Maya users.
I have to agree with Simon too in that the way the Bifrost data flow was presented felt more like it was and underlying "Bifrost compiles rather than traverses to reduce overhead" as opposed to "this is easier and more intuitive to use." When you deal with nodes, you still have to know your math and logic or you won't be able to do anything worthwhile with it regardless if it is ICE, Utility nodes, Bifrost, or Houdini. I do believe it would have been a better, more professional presentation if he focused on what Bifrost can do as opposed to taking the time to compare it to ICE. -=Eric On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the "hard" comment relates to wanting to have more built-in > functionality in Bifrost, and workflows in the viewport and outside > the node editor. This is a counter point to the artists who are not > really interested in just getting a library of hundreds of nodes to > connect and figure out. They want to be able to open the box and fix > whatever is there, which bifrost will allow, but it should already do > a lot, and do it well, outside of the box. You should not have to > program to do common/simple things. > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sebastian Kowalski <[email protected]> > wrote: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DucKeXM_gHM&feature=youtu.be&t=26m > > > > > > > -- -=T=-
