Just to clarify… Hierarchies are fully represented in the Tree View, the content of an object too but of course it is impossible to draw in a hierarchical way something that is parallel.
For example, in XSI you have an object (that would be your Houdini Object) and the operator stack in a linear fashion (which is your SOPs -with regards to geoemtry- and in Houdini is non-linear so you can’t see it the same way). Nevertheless you can still see all those SOPs nodes arranged in there. BUT When you are in your OBJ and you plug one object to another you are NOT building a hierarchy, you are just passing data from one node to another, the behaviour in many cases is exactly like a hierarchy, but remember you are just passing data. That is the reason you don’t see it graphed in the Tree View. Try this 1) Create an torus 2) create a subnetrowk 3) create another one 4) create another one And now have a look at the TreeView… that IS a hierarchy. Now try this 1) create a new torus 2) create a null 3) plug the null to the torus so the null affects the SRT data on the torus Check and you will see that IS NOT a hierarchy although it behaves like one. I hope that helps jb > On 19 Oct 2017, at 19:54, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] > <j.ponthi...@nasa.gov> wrote: > > Olivier, > > Yes, that’s what I was looking for. Though it really isn’t Tree View but > rather Network View in List Mode . Apparently its not possible to make Tree > View behave the way I was expecting it to. But I guess there is a greater > advantage to having Tree View and Network View in use simultaneously as long > as you understand that Tree View is neither procedural nor spatial in its > representation. > > This is useful, and it confirms my initial perception of Tree View. It also > confirms that reconciling the multiple contexts that Network View apparently > governs, procedural vs spatial for example, is going to take a bit more > effort than I originally anticipated. > > > Thanks > > Joey > > <> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Olivier Jeannel > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:25 PM > To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=HeGph8Xh5ttXXXkUA1HeWYPBLG2Qmno5epbEQVMdgfg&s=HSr8sPtL0vRAqzlfGZqIuieD_U92SvH8KA-P1XezYi8&e= > <softimage@listproc.autodesk.com> > Subject: Re: Houdini hierarchical organization > > Not sure I understand you well Jopseph, but here a little tutorial with som > "gem" about the tree view > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=HeGph8Xh5ttXXXkUA1HeWYPBLG2Qmno5epbEQVMdgfg&s=ymGBWPPB_nbC0fht_ceN-grCES3UXgZOth8qG1QlLmE&e= > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773&d=DwMFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=OKef69kBqPJXx68i4heEfHR30NI_NUub2sbaNk2wwws&s=LxaiEbXJ3vm44MM6t9mv5vJ_ShpJjcEj5uTiecLtIkM&e=> > Apologies if I'm way out of topic. > > 2017-10-19 20:08 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore <jonathan.moo...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonathan.moo...@gmail.com>>: > Apologies for the rushed response as I'm heading out for an event. However, > the tree view in Houdini is best viewed simply as an alternative data > visualisation (best utilised a-z filtering). It's not an organisational view > or a place where you manipulate data. Transform hierarchies should be created > in the Network Editor and you can quickly traverse nesting structures via the > tree view. > > In simple terms the Network Editor is where all major scene manipulations > take place and the Tree View is provided to aid navigation in complex node > structures. > > At least that's the way I've always worked in Houdini. ;) > > jm > > On 19 October 2017 at 16:47, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] > <j.ponthi...@nasa.gov <mailto:j.ponthi...@nasa.gov>> wrote: > 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 softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > <mailto:softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com> with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, and reply to confirm. > > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > <mailto:softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com> with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, and reply to confirm. > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with > "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
