The more I think about these naming decisions, the more I think Softimage did many, many things right. If I want to edit my animation I use an 'Animation Editor". If I want to have my renderings look good, I use a 'Render Tree'. I'm happy we have no 'hyper-nurbs' or a 'interactive mental-mill editor'. ;) Thank you Softimage!
sven -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sven Constable Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Maya thinks they're clever....and that's the problem Thinking about trees and graphs and editors and monkeys and cheese: Isn't a graph actually what we are calling the FCurve Editor? It should have been called "Animation Graph Editor" and a RenderTree/Shader Graph is actually more a "Shader Layout" Editor because it displays no graph at all... So its more a tree (rotated) than a graph. lol sven -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Thivierge Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 8:20 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Maya thinks they're clever....and that's the problem I think some things need to be named so they don't have an implicit complexity to it. Graph I find has more complexity to it than Tree. And when you look at it (you know, head rotated 90 degrees) it does look like a tree. Eric T. On 2/17/2015 1:45 PM, Grahame Fuller wrote: > Technically, it’s not a tree. It’s a graph. In fact, it’s directed and > acyclic. > > gray
