Re: LAST CHANCE TO FIX STUFF

Fri, 24 Jul 2015 21:53:23 -0700

Oops!...  forgot to attach scene, but it's way beyond list size limit, so here is the the link from the Si-Comm post
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39280733/mFlow.scn

and to the post itself..
Shallow water simulation coupled with lagoa multiphysics

Cheers!

On 07/25/15 0:33, Jason S wrote:
I was about to post this scene from RRay.de, from the SI-Community resource dump, from Gustavo Eggert Boehs
but only to find out when narrowing down what made it crash, that it was the 'reinterpret' node in a compound.

It doesn't necessarily crash on it's own, but it's in combination with other things, (in this case seems to be when getting and setting wheight maps)

So here is the scene anyway if a repro scene that's sure to make it crash can help.

Cheers


On 07/21/15 13:25, Rob Chapman wrote:
Hi Paul,

nice one, sorry for delay in response

was there a repro scene, I think Matt provided where it was demonstrated not working? I just tried a simple setup here and it works just fine in 2015 R2 which I think is the latest version that comes with 2016 Suite
here is a link 



best

Rob






On 20 July 2015 at 21:47, <p...@bustykelp.com> wrote:
Ok so I have very good reason to believe we will get an SP2 for Softimage and the Reinterpret location to new Geometry Node will be fixed.

"As mentioned, your issue has been reported to our engineering department.

Here is the logged issue with Development:

BSPR-18973 The 'reinterpret Location to new Geometry' ICE node does not work properly


No eta is determined for a fix date yet although I was told that they will look into integrating the fix on the next SP release."


SO... this will be the last fix we get in all likelihood.
Time is running out. The reinterpret node was the only thing thats stopping me using 2015, so I'm delighted, but if there is anything else you guys really want fixing in 2015 then lets assemble a list and post it to them. ( complete with examples etc). I'm in direct communication with AD now so I can hopefully prompt them to give the list proper attention.
 
 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: Fuzz trouble
 
Its the compounds that allow hair pointclouds to deform along with animated geometry, and it does use the reinterpret node. Unfortunately its something we used a lot!
 
If you try opening this model in 2014 it should be fine, open in 2015 and instant lock up:
 
 
 
 
On 14 July 2015 at 09:17, <p...@bustykelp.com> wrote:
Do you know which ones? It may be that they are using the ‘reinterpret’ node too. It would be good to collate any other 2015 issues for a final fix push to AD.
 
As to why some people on here are trying to influence me to not bother. It seems a very odd and defeatist thing to do and its not going to work.
 
Its the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.
 
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: Fuzz trouble
 
It also broke a few key compounds kristinka uses. I might be able to dig up an old scene if it will help. This stopped us moving to 2015 from 2014sp2.
 
 
 
On 14 July 2015 at 00:55, Busty kelp <p...@bustykelp.com> wrote:
And AD asked me tonight for a sample scene to test.

Sent from my iPad

> On 13 Jul 2015, at 21:38, Matt Lind <speye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You overlook the fact you need to be on Softimage 2015 to get support. They're not going to touch 2013.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:07:36 +0100
> From: <p...@bustykelp.com>
> Subject: Re: Fuzz trouble
> To: <softimage@listproc.autodesk.com>
>
> Well so far its taken me around half an hour of my time.
> In my book, a 1% chance is better than a 0% chance. I'm fully expecting them
> to do nothing.
> I have a face to face meeting with AD soon, not about this issue but in
> which I will flag this again.
> In the very least, I have a catalogued situation of me trying to get this
> fixed so I can work with the latest version and AD doing nothing about it.
> I can refer to this in the future if necessary.
>
> I don't use 2015 I use 2013, which is fine for me, so i have nothing to
> lose. Thanks for your concern about my welfare though.
>
>
>



 
--


 
--



Reply via email to