Hello folks, I figured people using Houdini on this list would understand the context of this question better, coming from a Softimage background, rather than an exclusive Houdini background. I've been trying to learn Houdini the past several months and I've suddenly realized something that has me questioning some things that may very well be misconceptions on my part, about the interface.
To get right to it, is there a way to make Tree View represent object hierarchical parenting relative transform relationship? I've discovered that I can create transform relationships just fine in Network View, but that it has also taken some effort to realize what happens in Network::Scene is both similar and dissimilar to what happens in Network::Geometry and neither is exactly reflected the same way in Tree View. A big part of the dissimilarities that I'm starting realize differ on how, and when, a network produces transform relationships versus when it permits procedural editing of object data. It seems that Tree View only depicts a kind of "container view" context. Or rather, what is "inside" something else as opposed to what is the parented relationship by transform or articulation context. Tree View is great for finding and selecting something but more or less seems ineffective in setting up a hierarchy of objects affected by transformation relationships. I'm finding the only place I can do that is in Network View, and that the nature of this changes in context somewhat depending upon Network View's active object context, whether its Scene or Geometry for example. Which gets me to my next question, what and where is the proper way in Houdini to set up hierarchical relationships of transform context? (Parenting for articulation purposes) I find I can use nulls or geometry in Network::Scene to do this but then I have to use transforms in Network::Geometry to do the same thing. But transforms in Network::Geometry also permit instancing of the geometry as well as transform relationships and the entire behavior of the network in Geometry seems to permit a higher degree of proceduralism than does the one at Network::Scene level. While none of this is necessarily problematic, it more fundamentally raises the question of "what is best practice?". Should Geometry nodes be limited to only creating static objects and hierarchical articulations established only at Scene level? If so, what nodes are best used for transform hierarchies? Or is reasonable to arrange structures in Geometry nodes that permit transform articulations? The concern here is, of course, would such structures end up inadvertently duplicating or instancing geometry where I think I am setting up transform articulations instead? And am I left with the ability to create transform articulation hierarchies only in Network View and unable to create articulation hierarchies in Tree View? All thoughts or suggestions in this regard would be very welcome. -- Joey Ponthieux __________________________________________________ Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not represent the opinions of NASA or any other party.
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
