No, I got that, its just seems a very subtle difference rather than an earth shattering one that is all. And I had mentioned in an interim email that the original youtube link kicked in after the question the first time that I viewed it.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <[email protected]> wrote: > just to clarify for people who didn't watch the video, he was answering a > question from the audience at the end of a 25 min presentation, this was > not the presentation. How Bifrost is similar or different to ice is > something a lot of us want to know. > > I don't think you understood the difference, btw. The compilation is an > implementation difference, but how the graph works is also different. The > scene data flows through Bifrost nodes and modified immediately; in ICE the > computation only happens at the set data and the connections are just > logical links, so you can't really view the data of a graph in the middle > without rewiring something to a set data. It's more difficult to understand > and debug a graph because of this. > On Aug 15, 2014 2:09 PM, "Eric Turman" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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=- >> > -- -=T=-
