textcoding will cost money to our clients: it's time consuming, and not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial. the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches, is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic workflow: - i really mean by this that, so much time and energy you spend in controling your workflow with textcoding, the less time you can possibly have to think about the image workflow and plasticity. this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual repetitions back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but your artistic attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs. i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a different angle. as an artist this seems so evident though.. 2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler <[email protected]>: > I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow > control is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph. > > Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D > > Happy weekend. > Andy > > On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now? > > > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. >
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
