> On May 14, 2018, at 1:01 AM, Matt Lind <speye...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Houdini doesn't have good tools for dealing with the macro view of a scene > for the generalist. When you open a scene you're not familiar with, or one > you haven't opened in a very long time, you want to get a general overview of > it's structure in a few seconds. That is the purpose of mentioning the > schematic view as it provides that overview at a glance. > I think it does… Using Subnetworks, allows you to keep the top level very simple, just like collapsed nodes in the schematic. Tools like network boxes allow for documentation right there, same as icetrees. Color coding nodes can group them in a visual way. These all aid to reduce complexity and provide overview. > Does it tell you everything? No, of course not, but it doesn't have to > either. It does tell you the links between nodes such as who is constrained > to whom, where the envelopes reside, which nodes have shapes/lattices/etc. > and very importantly – hierarchical relationships to understand how rigs are > put together. > Again, this is fine for people who are proficient at those tasks. You make it sound so simple, yet understanding someone else's rig is never done in a matter of seconds. Not to other riggers, and especially to generalists. I would agree, that there’s more help in Soft finding the details, but not in a first glance overview.
> Again, we're talking about the big picture. Explorer??? that’s for > micro-level work when you want the dirty details on an object. It's not good > for the broader picture as you have to spending a lot of time clicking on > nested node after node until you find what you're looking for, and even then > there's often a lot more information displayed than you need leading to > excessive noise. That's exactly the same problem with ICE compounds as > digging into nested compound after nested compound you begin to lose sight > over the bigger picture you're trying to grasp. This isn't a discussion about > which is more powerful, it's about presenting information that is better > suited for high level working for the non-technical user. > And where exactly do we draw the line between ‘technical’ and 'non-technial’ users? At the macro level shouldn’t it benefit both? I guess I’m failing in grasping the broad term of generalist. I strongly believe, all of our staff would fail so hard if they had to use Max or Maya tomorrow coming from Soft. > As for networks and subnetworks. Great, you have a system. Most people do > not, or if they do, it will not be the same system as yours. THAT is the > point. There is no consistent or uniform way of having information presented > to you to get the high level picture of what's going on in the scene. There > needs to be some base level of communicating to the user where things are > placed, how they relate to each other, and so on, and not require the user to > dig, dig, dig, dig, to get oriented to find ‘basic’ information. > Are you still refering to the schematic? Because I’d generally describe them just as messy, unorganized ;) > Someone can easily build a forest and hide 50,000 trees and other > geographical features inside of a single network or subnetwork which appears > as a single node in the network view, and even build it recursively. That is > not informative. This is where Houdini needs to improve. In contrast, > although it can be done, it's pretty difficult to hide those details in > Softimage's Schematic view. You open the scene, BAM! you see the complexity > right away. > :) Honestly? It’s just as easy to shoot someone else in the foot with said scenario in softimage (nesting point clouds, instancing groups) In the end you’re dealing with complexity and I fail to see how the schematic helps to decipher that in seconds. > I'm not suggesting Houdini be rebuilt from the ground up. I'm highlighting > sticking points between it's current state and why more generalists don't > adopt it. When you get into a larger production pipeline, as much as you need > the low level power Houdini provides with assets and such, there is just as > much need at the opposite end of the spectrum with getting users into the > pipeline to do work. Many of whom are not thoroughly trained and need to > learn on the fly, and probably won't have a great deal of interest learning > all the ins and outs beyond the bare necessities to get their job done to > satisfaction. As production scales up, the quality of your users tends to > drop because you have the matter of filling seats to crank out work by a > specific deadline, and each seat has a salary cap. Therefore, whatever > pipeline you have, it must accommodate these less than ideal users. Many > generalists struggle with learning and/or forming good habits even when given > good instruction as you're forcing non-technical people into a technical > environment. It's alien to them in a migraine headache creating type of way > because an artist is generally right-brained while technical users are > generally left-brained. A schematic view is right-brained approach. > Explorer/networks is a left-brained approach. While Houdini has a functional > equivalent of a schematic view in the network view, it doesn't provide the > same information the generalist seeks because it requires additional > attention to detail to dissect the graphs in a more left-brained approach. > Houdini needs more right-brained tools and interfaces to accommodate the > generalist. >
------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
