> That graph is perfectly sensible to anybody with a rudimentary understanding > of graphs
I thought I did until I saw that. To quote (the infallible) Wikipedia: "In mathematics and computer science, a directed acyclic graph, is a directed graph with no directed cycles. That is, it is formed by a collection of vertices and directed edges, each edge connecting one vertex to another, such that there is no way to start at some vertex v and follow a sequence of edges that eventually loops back to v again." That's why looking at that image throws me because it looks like there's a feedback loop which goes against the principle of what a DAG is. So I guess it's not a DAG then. I don't mind if it's necessary in the implementation, as I can understand that for things like IK you often need to have some sort of feedback. I object more from a user experience/workflow point of view, because once you say to a user that you're allowed to do that, then it obfuscates the logical flow of data being pushed through the system. At that point, how do you debug it if there's a problem when you don't know if A is evaluated before B or if it's the other way around? I'm sure there must be a rational explanation, because it obviously works and it makes sense to you. You've just got to understand that to someone who comes from almost any other node based package, that looks like an abomination ;) A On 03 February 2015 at 14:34 Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > As much as I'm ready to slam their skinning and mesh/stack handling (lack > thereof) any day of the year, their scene graph is actually quite good. > That graph is perfectly sensible to anybody with a rudimentary understanding > of graphs, and in general the graph offers a pretty good representation of > what is going on, and is not bad at all in terms of handling, name spaces, and > in what you can do with custom nodes. It's a respectable balance between the > actual operations under the hood (which if you were to draw 1:1 are hard to > make sense of for a non-programmer) and a human readable graph. > > > Constraints in Maya may seem overwhelming and tricky, and they are certainly > slow, but they are a lot more powerful than Soft's have ever been, and > certainly more manageable (non renameable, non re-orderable, overlapping non > normalized stacks per object in Soft). What Maya lacks, which everybody writes > internally if they have the resources, are some simpler transform hooks, > something not too distant from what you could do with ICE on transforms, but > considerably more intuitive and performant than Constraint nodes, something > not really possible in Soft (where graphs and operators tend to live in a > scene item sized pen). > > @Jordi: I routinely rig almost exclusively through the node editor and even > with thousands of nodes in a rig (which is the average for us) have no issues > tracking the operations. The NE itself is getting better, though it needs a > lot more to be truly smooth, but it has the potential to get there if they > don't suddenly stop working on it. > I have my ideas about what doesn't work and what is needed, but there's a > degree of overlap with things that have been shown in private demos and betas, > so I can't expand on that any further, apologies in advance for that. > > The ONE thing I've always missed in Soft of Maya, literally the only one, had > always been the scene graph and its handling, and while with the HG/HS mix it > was powerful but absolutely F'ing impossible to handle, the NE does a > respectable job of presenting it, a semi-decent one for authoring, and has the > potential to get better. > > > Fair's fair ;) > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:31 PM, a...@andynicholas.com > <mailto:a...@andynicholas.com> <a...@andynicholas.com > <mailto:a...@andynicholas.com> > wrote: > > > Oh god. I nearly threw up in my mouth looking at that ;) How would > > > anyone ever > > know that hooking those nodes up like that would be a permissible > > operation? > > > > > > I'm sure this must make sense to someone, and I'd bet that there's some > > genius > > programming going on to make that work. But to me, that picture > > epitomises > > everything that is wrong with Maya. > > > > A > > > > > > > > > > On 02 February 2015 at 21:17 Mario Reitbauer <cont...@marioreitbauer.at > > <mailto:cont...@marioreitbauer.at> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hey guys > > > Could someone explain me this ;) > > > I just can't wrap my head around why, what, when is > > > executed/calculated. > > > And what is driving what. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and > let them flee like the dogs they are! > >
