I´d like to download, Jonathan Moore, where do I get the link to check them out and give feedback? Thanks.
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/13/17 23:24, Jonathan Moore wrote: > > The bit that's most odd to me is using HScript style $ in VEX. Is > that VEX code that you've copy pasted from somewhere else? > > Actually, it was a Maya particle expression for making confetti, but I can > see how you might have mistaken it for Houdini code. > (processing P's N's and V's in math op strings assigned to variables) > > > On 04/15/17 7:07, Tim Bolland wrote: > > I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par > with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. > > Agreed, yet quite specifically for FX using factory high level nodes. > > The reality is some of the assets you can make with Houdini, with very > minimal scripting, can be far more complex and superior than what you can > make with other applications. In fact, depending on the asset I would say > making it in Maya would involve far more scripting and technical know how > than the Houdini workflow. > > Actually Houdini, using the same example, that very short (but not super > easily authorable) confetti snippet, would be more or less the same > formula. > > I just don't see 3D as a single software process anymore. > > Of course not, that was (is) an XSI thing. > > I'll use the best software to get the best results out, what ever that is. > > Excluding the one that "does it all" ? (or to a quite large extent most > of it all?) > > While it can of course be beneficial to export / import to/from apps to do > specific things > I think we can all agree that the least amount of roundtrips necessary, > the better. > (I've seen some pipelines that are absolutely horrendous in the amounts of > exports/imports) > > > The problem I think with either Houdini or Maya, > is that the only way to do even a bit more than somewhat basic things, is > -through- that complication. > > Also the reason I'd like to push for more visual approaches, is that if > anything, > Houdini has seemed to be getting -more- complicated, as opposed to less. > > Old vs. New Point SOP | SideFX <https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/48493/> > (hole thread is interesting) > itriix:: > @P.x, @P.y, @P.z is how you would access the different components of > the Position. Or @N.x, @N.y, @N.z for Normals. > > If the default is now: > Set Constant Value to: 0, 1, 0 > Set VEXpression to: self + value * sin(radians(@ptnum)) > > That's a lot of additional work - and possible “human error”, just to > get a sine wave. > > It's beginning to feel much more verbose. It also doesn't have any > visual clues as to how you might want to reference a particular attribute > (such as position). > While, yes, you see Position(P) in the drop-down menu, it doesn't > visually show it being used like: @P.x, @P.y. @P.z > > > In this case, it wasn't for the sake of more flexibility (or not mostly), > but for more performance, or for -multithreading- specifically. > > Which can of course be very good reason to change things, > but it's where we can see that approachability could have had much more > relative priority. > > > Hscript to Vex, might be compared to what Javascript is to C++ or rather > -> C (also for more flexibility no doubt). > > should i avoid hscript and copy stamp? > <https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/48941/> (hole thread is interesting) > > Artye :: > When you are learning, hscript and copy stamps are nicer. > > mestela :: > For those cases the new for loops are the way forward, which I agree > are tricky for new users to get their heads around (and most experienced > users too for that matter). > > But its not just for 'learning', it's also for every day when making, or > trying to understand what others did for different setups, > or how fast we can understand what we ourselves may have done not so long > ago. > > Vex (or blank wrangle nodes with a text box in which you define what the > node is/does), > also replaces a bunch of nodes that although basic, had some sort of UI. > > To the point of 'nodes' becoming little more than either separate or > merged script containers? > (often favoring vex over vops, simply because vops quickly becomes big, > messy, with required separations or ins and outs.) > > > Also because there doesn't seem to be THAT much things to address to make > subnets more easily manageable/distributable. > enough for them to actually be used around. > > And also because :: > << Why isn't it working?! Is a comma missing? are all brackets > balanced? > wrong syntax? (specially when shuffling between vex, expressions, hscript > and python) > ... or a typo? > or is it a wrong "connection". (textually represented 'connections') > > ARRGH! Deadline! >> > > Then scruitnizing docs, asking questions on forums about things that would > otherwise simply be non-issues.. > *"I have created the set up and created the ID and AGE attributes but cant > figure out the death over time part."* > https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/49220/ > here with a response pointing to snippets. > > and leading to things like this:: > Frustration Threshold <https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/45003/> > > > > *ICE Confetti* > > > In this (very) particular case, a Vop net would probably not need be much > more elaborate, because it's mostly doing basic math on common attributes. > > But in many if not most other cases, not having easily accessible > encapsulated functions (including tiny ones encapsulating 2 or 3 ops) > could indeed make doing things from scratch with nodes quickly become > nightmares (with -lots- of nodes across a couple vop nets), > > Then making it indeed (borderline) questionable if using nodes is more > straight-forward or not (then becoming a "yes & no"), > thus probably contributing to often favoring the much less visual and > difficult to author or decipher, but also then much more lean Vex, over > bulky Vops. > > Now wouldn't the best of both worlds be awesome? > > > No one is arguing removing coding aspects, some people live in code, and > that environment is obviously what suits that type best. > Yet for "the artist type", to a large extent do you -need- to live and > breethe it, > or in other words -- dedicate yourself to it, to become relatively fluent > to a functional degree, or even remotely swift. > > Thus taking away from other possible artistic endeavors (if that's your > thing)... > > Of course ideally we should strive at both, and we generally do to some > extent because we -have to-, at least to -some- extent, > but it's not for nothing that people are often mostly EITHER very > technical, OR very artistically inclined, > because we're talking about entire fields in themselves that can take > years to become refined. > > Because time flies super-fast, and life is super-short, and we have to > make choices, because we can't -do- everything... or SOME can but it's > very-very rare. > > And if software can bridge that gap, allowing the more artistically > inclined to do things that can otherwise easily involve literally -years- > of study and practice... well you get the point... > > Which was/is the point of ICE, which could totally be a similar direction > Houdini COULD be taking, is what I'm (and a number of us I think) are > saying. > > Thanks, > -J > > > > On 04/13/17 23:24, Jonathan Moore wrote: > > The bit that’s most odd to me is using HScript style $ in VEX. Is that > VEX code that you’ve copy pasted from somewhere else? > > I most admit one of the things I like about VEX is that I find it very > readable. Especially for anything involving loops and flow control. Nodes > are horrendous for that type of workflow. > > And I’m just remembering the horror of inputing expressions in ICE one > node at a time! ;) > > On 14 Apr 2017, at 02:18, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > I also don't mind the posts, apart from the hope of some entirely new > equally flexible as unfriendly DCC, > to me Houdini represents the best hope for later. > (later-later... for when SI would not run, or or for when Houdini would > significantly revamp VOP, while hoping and pushing for the latter ) > > maya is just too painful for a lot of things... > > Indeed, it can also be a mouthful for a variety of things, notably for > particles ... > > Can anyone determine what the following describes just by looking at it? > > vector $n=unit(particleShape1.normal); > vector $p=particleShape1.position; > $n=rot($n,dnoise(0.5*$p),noise(0.5*$p+100)); > particleShape1.normal=$n; > vector $v=particleShape1.velocity; > vector $u=unit($v); > float $m=mag($v); > vector $vn=dot($u,$n)*$n; > vector $vt=$u-$vn; > float $bias=0.25; > float $conserve=0.96; > particleShape1.velocity=$conserve*$m*unit($vn*$bias+$vt); > > If we were looking at high-level nodes made of other nodes, made of other > nodes... for describing the same effect, > we could, simply by looking at the node graph. > > Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now? > Just a thought. > > > > On 04/13/17 5:06, Juan Brockhaus wrote: > > all cool. > keep on posting.. no time to look properly at the moment... but I > bookmark the posts since planning to go houdini. maya is just too painful > for a lot of things... > ;-) > thanks so much. > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Gerbrand Nel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> keep em coming!! >> I personally have been waiting for good character tutorials for more >> than 2 years now. >> The vex one will stay on ICE for now.(see what I did there) >> I'm much more comfortable making pictures with pictures, rather than >> pictures with words. >> vops will have to do :) >> G >> On 2017/04/12 5:39 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote: >> > I’ve noticed on both occasions that they’ve received around 100 >> downloads but having had no feedback I’m unsure as to whether I’m >> simply spamming the XSI list or whether they have any value to those of you >> that have made the move over to Houdini (or are still considering Houdini >> as a future option. >> > >> > I obviously don’t want to spam the list so it would be good to know >> if anybody finds the Houdini ‘hint’s & tips’ useful. >> > ------ >> > 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. >> > > > > ------ > 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. > > > > > ------ > 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. > -- Portfolio 2013 <http://be.net/3dcinetv> Cinema & TV production Video Reel <https://vimeo.com/3dcinetv/reel2012>
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
