Re: Test 2

Apparently the yahoo mails are the ones affected, David Riviera mail is also from Yahoo. On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Mirko Jankovic wrote: > yep stil in spam > > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Adam Seeley > wrote: > >> >> Still Spammy? >> >> Adam. >> _ >> >> Yoyo D

Re: Test 2

yep stil in spam On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Adam Seeley wrote: > > Still Spammy? > > Adam. > _ > > Yoyo Digital Ltd. > *UK +44 (0) *7956 976 245 > http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamseeleyuk > https://vimeo.com/adamseeley > >

Test 2

Still Spammy?   Adam. _ Yoyo Digital Ltd. UK +44 (0) 7956 976 245 http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamseeleyuk https://vimeo.com/adamseeley

Re: test

e Mailing List >Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 16:36 >Subject: Re: test > > > >Adam >Also your "mesh paint draft question" mail also filed as spam. > >Cheers > > > >

Re: test

Adam Also your "mesh paint draft question" mail also filed as spam. Cheers

Re: test

o: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" >Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 16:16 >Subject: Re: test > > > >yep you've gone SPAM > > > >On 18 June 2014 15:53, Oscar Juarez wrote: > >Adam, your mail was marked as spam by gmail for some reason >> >> >> >>On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Mootz wrote: >> >>yep >>> >> > > >

Re: test

yep you've gone SPAM On 18 June 2014 15:53, Oscar Juarez wrote: > Adam, your mail was marked as spam by gmail for some reason > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Mootz wrote: > >> yep >> > >

Re: test

Juarez >To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com" >Sent: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, 15:53 >Subject: Re: test > > > >Adam, your mail was marked as spam by gmail for some reason > > > > > > >On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Mootz wrote: > >yep >> > > >

Re: test

Adam, your mail was marked as spam by gmail for some reason On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Eric Mootz wrote: > yep >

Re: test

yep

test

 ! _ Yoyo Digital Ltd. UK +44 (0) 7956 976 245 http://www.linkedin.com/in/adamseeleyuk https://vimeo.com/adamseeley

Re: test

Test successful. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Francisco Criado wrote: >

Re: test

Yo ! On 9 April 2014 11:52, Francisco Criado wrote: >

test

Re: test

Mario Reitbauer wrote: > still recieving it twice... > damn > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 03:53:49 +0400, Nika Ragua > wrote: >> >> test received )) yo >> >> 2014-02-17 3:49 GMT+04:00 Mario Reitbauer : >> >> sry, short test if im still subscribed twice >> >> >> >> Links: >> -- >> [1] mailto:cont...@marioreitbauer.at > >

Re: test

still recieving it twice... damn On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 03:53:49 +0400, Nika Ragua wrote: test received )) yo 2014-02-17 3:49 GMT+04:00 Mario Reitbauer : sry, short test if im still subscribed twice Links: -- [1] mailto:cont...@marioreitbauer.at

Re: test

test received )) yo 2014-02-17 3:49 GMT+04:00 Mario Reitbauer : > sry, short test if im still subscribed twice >

Re: test

. On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:49:57 +0100, Mario Reitbauer wrote: sry, short test if im still subscribed twice

test

sry, short test if im still subscribed twice

test

sorry for the noise...checking to see if mail getting to the list.

Re: test

test recieved 2013/10/8 Daniel Kim > test > > > -- > To unsubscribe: mail softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with subject > "unsubscribe" and reply to the confirmation email. > -- To u

test

test -- To unsubscribe: mail softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with subject "unsubscribe" and reply to the confirmation email.

Re: test

you fail On 2013/08/12 04:56 PM, Alan Fregtman wrote: Oh no, a surprise test?! But I didn't study! No fair... On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Gerbrand Nel <mailto:nagv...@gmail.com>> wrote: testing

Re: test

Oh no, a surprise test?! But I didn't study! No fair... On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Gerbrand Nel wrote: > testing >

test

testing

Re: blend of speed using test inside null

glad you got it working! States are handy to keep your ice tree optimized, and will make it much easier to debug in the future. It will obviously depends how much you are going to build on top, if it's a simple tree then your are done. When emitting a LOT of particles it is sensible to create als

Re: blend of speed using test inside null

No need for states or linear interpolate - just used age percentage through an fcurve node to drive the new speed directly - if only the fcurve editor for these parameters was nicer to use! *-- * *Jonny Grew Ltd * *www.Jonnygrew.com* *http://vimeo.com/jonnygrew/showreel2013*

Re: blend of speed using test inside null

Safe. Cheers Cristo. Was looking at linear interpolate but didn't even think about states. Will give it a go. Fancy a lemonade tomorrow lunch? Coach & horses, gt Marlborough. Jonny Grew Ltd www.Jonnygrew.com 07855 212722 Jonny Grew Limited is registered in England and Wales. Company number:07735

Re: blend of speed using test inside null

Hi Jonny, What you probably want to do is use states, so trigger state 1 if particle is inside the null. Then, on state 1 you could use a Linear interpolate using the particle age or age percentage. Safe? C On 17 July 2013 17:13, Jonny Grew wrote: > Hello! > > I'm trying to control a blend

blend of speed using test inside null

Hello! I'm trying to control a blend of speed when using flow along curve. I'm using the 'set new speed' and then testing inside null to alter the speed of the particles - but is there a way of having the speed animate between the two speeds rather than being a black and white 'if' but rather ble

Re: Test

Lo On 7/9/2013 5:59 PM, Paulo César Duarte wrote: Hi 2013/7/4 Simon Reeves > Hello Simon Reeves VFX Artist London, UK On 5 Jul 2013, at 00:29, Andreas Bystrom mailto:andreas.byst...@gmail.com>> wrote: use gmail instead On Fri

Re: Test

Hi 2013/7/4 Simon Reeves > Hello > > Simon Reeves > VFX Artist > London, UK > > On 5 Jul 2013, at 00:29, Andreas Bystrom > wrote: > > use gmail instead > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Emilio Hernandez wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> >> 2013/7/4 Sebastien Sterling >> >>> Hello ! >>> >>> >>> On 4

Re: Test

Hello Simon Reeves VFX Artist London, UK On 5 Jul 2013, at 00:29, Andreas Bystrom wrote: use gmail instead On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Emilio Hernandez wrote: > Hello! > > > 2013/7/4 Sebastien Sterling > >> Hello ! >> >> >> On 4 July 2013 19:59, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: >> >>> M

Re: Test

use gmail instead On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Emilio Hernandez wrote: > Hello! > > > 2013/7/4 Sebastien Sterling > >> Hello ! >> >> >> On 4 July 2013 19:59, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: >> >>> Mailbox lag. Sorry for the noise. Carry on >>> >>> On 04/07/2013, at 16.22, Mats Bertil Tegner

Re: Test

Hello! 2013/7/4 Sebastien Sterling > Hello ! > > > On 4 July 2013 19:59, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > >> Mailbox lag. Sorry for the noise. Carry on >> >> On 04/07/2013, at 16.22, Mats Bertil Tegner >> wrote: >> >> > Pingo van der Brinkloev skrev 2013-07-04 14:40: >> >> anybody? >> >> >> >

Re: Test

Hello ! On 4 July 2013 19:59, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > Mailbox lag. Sorry for the noise. Carry on > > On 04/07/2013, at 16.22, Mats Bertil Tegner > wrote: > > > Pingo van der Brinkloev skrev 2013-07-04 14:40: > >> anybody? > >> > > Yes effendi? > > >

Re: Test

Mailbox lag. Sorry for the noise. Carry on On 04/07/2013, at 16.22, Mats Bertil Tegner wrote: > Pingo van der Brinkloev skrev 2013-07-04 14:40: >> anybody? >> > Yes effendi?

Re: Test

Pingo van der Brinkloev skrev 2013-07-04 14:40: anybody? Yes effendi?

Re: Test

Yes, I'm working... Martin On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:15 PM, patrick nethercoat < patr...@brandtanim.co.uk> wrote: > yar. > > > On 4 July 2013 13:40, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > >> anybody? >> > >

Re: Test

pong :) On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > anybody? >

Re: Test

yar. On 4 July 2013 13:40, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > anybody? >

Re: Test

yeah... -M -- Martin Chatterjee [ Freelance Technical Director ] [ http://www.chatterjee.de ] [ https://vimeo.com/chatterjee ] On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Pingo van der Brinkloev wrote: > anybody? >

Test

anybody?

test

working?

Re: Test for Inverted UV's

gt; raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Was about to ask for the same. For those of us who don't know max >>>> inverted UVs and a stitching where it wouldn't be blatantly obvious don't >>>> make a lot of sense in the sam

Re: Test for Inverted UV's

;> Was about to ask for the same. For those of us who don't know max >>> inverted UVs and a stitching where it wouldn't be blatantly obvious don't >>> make a lot of sense in the same sentence :) >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Matt Lind wrote: >>

Re: Test for Inverted UV's

>>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ >>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Enrique Caballero >>> [enriquecaball...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:58 AM >>> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>>

Re: Test for Inverted UV's

Of Enrique Caballero [ >> enriquecaball...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:58 AM >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> *Subject:* Test for Inverted UV's >> >> Hey guys, >> I'm passing forward a question from o

Re: Test for Inverted UV's

define inverted uv > > -- > *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ > softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Enrique Caballero [ > enriquecaball...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:58 AM > *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > *Subject:* Te

RE: Test for Inverted UV's

define inverted uv From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Enrique Caballero [enriquecaball...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 6:58 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Test for

Test for Inverted UV's

Hey guys, I'm passing forward a question from one of our new artists here that stumped me. Is there a quick way to check for inverted UV's in softimage. 3dsmax apparently has one built in. Basically sometimes the uv's get stitched together inverted and they are having a hard time detecting thes

Re: Test inside geometry failing

Cool! I always wanted to add the ray intersect test to make this thing more robust, but have long since run out of energy... Ciaran On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Eric Thivierge wrote: > Thanks guys, > > Ciaran, your addon actually works exceptionally well in my case. The > sl

Re: Test inside geometry failing

e ray intersect technique is problematic in ICE, since the raycast node only returns the first intersection. You'd have to manually shoot subsequent rays after every hit. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Raffaele Fragapane mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com>> wrote: You could wr

Re: Test inside geometry failing

> You could write/wire the test yourself. > Point inside hull is fairly trivial outside of fringe cases, shoot a ray > in any direction, if it intersects an odd number of times, it's outside, > even, it's inside. > You might want multiple rays and take the median of the resul

Re: Test inside geometry failing

ARGHH, as usual, no proof reading is as good as the one done after sending. Even = outside Odd = inside. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > You could write/wire the test yourself. > Point inside hull is fairly trivial outsi

Re: Test inside geometry failing

You could write/wire the test yourself. Point inside hull is fairly trivial outside of fringe cases, shoot a ray in any direction, if it intersects an odd number of times, it's outside, even, it's inside. You might want multiple rays and take the median of the result, or work conserva

Re: Test inside geometry failing

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Steven Caron wrote: > maybe instead of just doing it in houdini he could use SDFs? > > http://blog.blackredking.org/?p=47 > Yeah, that'll also fail on complex shapes... Often, subdividing the geometry will fix the problem.

Re: Test inside geometry failing

maybe instead of just doing it in houdini he could use SDFs? http://blog.blackredking.org/?p=47 On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Peter Agg wrote: > Yeah, that's my only suggestion really - I've had quite a few problems > before where I had very dense particles being culled by complex geo and o

Re: Test inside geometry failing

Yeah, that's my only suggestion really - I've had quite a few problems before where I had very dense particles being culled by complex geo and on random frames you'd get very distinct cubes where the volume calculations have freaked out. Never found a particularly useful workaround, I'm afraid. Si

Re: Test inside geometry failing

Not necessarily cubes. If I run a smooth op on the geo it fixes much of it (although this is not a solution for me) so it's got to be the internal methods not liking something about the geometry. Eric Thivierge === Character TD / RnD Hybride Technologies On 07/05/2013 3:26 PM, Pete

Re: Test inside geometry failing

Is this the thing where you get giant cubes of bad volume data, or something else? On 7 May 2013 19:54, Eric Thivierge wrote: > Anyone notice how many times this just doesn't work correctly? Even > toggling the Closed volume inside often doesn't give the correct results as > well... > > I have

Test inside geometry failing

Anyone notice how many times this just doesn't work correctly? Even toggling the Closed volume inside often doesn't give the correct results as well... I have a voxel setup with particles and testing inside a geometry to keep the ones that are within, works, however there are many points stil

Re: sorry - test

roger roger On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Maxime Philippon < mphilippon.mailingl...@gmail.com> wrote: > test succeeded! :) > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Sandy Sutherland < > sandy.mailli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> testing - just join

Re: sorry - test

test succeeded! :) On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Sandy Sutherland wrote: > testing - just joined the list with this email! > > S. > -- Max

sorry - test

testing - just joined the list with this email! S.

test

Re: KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

yes, its aggressive. other renderers have traditional materials applied to surfaces, and if these materials use the attribute shader nodes the ICE data should get pulled. maybe instead of that massive "Shader Options" tab, you could provide actual shaders or a shader compound which you apply to the

Re: KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

Christmass in april :) Le 22/03/2013 15:33, Cristobal Infante a écrit : Besides all that, your plugin looks great man!!! Never used krakatoa myself, but I've seen what it can do. How does it compare to exocortex's fury? On 22 March 2013 14:21, Rob Chapman > wr

Re: KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

Besides all that, your plugin looks great man!!! Never used krakatoa myself, but I've seen what it can do. How does it compare to exocortex's fury? On 22 March 2013 14:21, Rob Chapman wrote: > you can add the attribute as a custom attribute display >Property> > attribute display (even switch

Re: KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

you can add the attribute as a custom attribute display >Property> attribute display (even switch off viewing of this data in viewport) but this will always keep your attributes intact. pain in the ass , but is the only way currently a gaurantee. On 22 March 2013 15:08, James Vecore wrote: > Her

Re: KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:08 AM, James Vecore wrote: > This seems a tad overly aggressive. Welcome to our nightmare. Eric Thivierge http://www.ethivierge.com

KrakatoaSR Softimage Integration Test

Here is a video of a plugin I started working on for Softimage. I'm integrating KrakatoaSR as a renderer into Softimage: https://vimeo.com/62377510 Please excuse the programmer art. I don't actually know how to make anything look good with Krakatoa yet. Features So Far: -

RE: test

...pinging From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Scott Lange Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 12:33 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: test yeasting

test

yeasting

RE: test

2 Mar 2013 17:44:22 +0100 Subject: Re: test From: leonardkoch...@gmail.com To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Nope, not working.Miraculously followed you on tumblr though. On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM, lord hackney wrote: just testing my new

Re: test

Nope, not working. Miraculously followed you on tumblr though. On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 5:42 PM, lord hackney wrote: > just testing my new email > > ... > http://www.flickr.com/photos/lord_hackney/ > http://spylon.tumblr.com/

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

n also throw in some basic trig, but since this seems to be a vector outside range scenario, I imagine you will want the cone to be of infinite height. If you want it to be an "in potential reach" test, then it's not a cone anymore, as the base isn't flat but rather a section of

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

wrote: >>>> >>>> I did not get time go through Miquel's scene but here is way :- >>>> >>>> Refer to this diagram: >>>> >>>> >>>> * >>>> Part I (Finding whether the point is inside cone)* >>>

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

e is way :- >>> >>> Refer to this diagram: >>> >>> >>> * >>> Part I (Finding whether the point is inside cone)* >>> This would be a better solution (found on web but the math seems right): >>> >>> S1 - Vector for o

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

r for one side of the cone = Vector p1 - vector p2 > S2 - Vector for the second side of the cone = Vector p1 - vector p4 > p3 - Point Vector to test > > Take the vector S2-S1 and the vector p3-S1. Normalize them both to unit > length. Take their dot product. If this number is greater

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

S2 - Vector for the second side of the cone = Vector p1 - vector p4 p3 - Point Vector to test Take the vector S2-S1 and the vector p3-S1. Normalize them both to unit length. Take their dot product. If this number is greater than or equal to the **cosi

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

S1 - Vector for one side of the cone  = Vector p1 - vector p2 S2 - Vector for the second side of the cone = Vector p1 - vector p4 p3 - Point Vector to test Take the vector S2-S1 and the vector p3-S1. Normalize them both to unit length. Take their dot produc

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

te: > Do you have a ICE Scene setup ? You are wanting to test a point > (represented as a pos vector) in a cone whose two inclined lines are > defined by a vector, right ? > > On 18/02/2013 10:45 AM, Miquel Campos wrote: > > Hello, > > I struggling to found a method

Re: ICE test vector inside cone

Do you have a ICE Scene setup ? You are wanting to test a point (represented as a pos vector) in a cone whose two inclined lines are defined by a vector, right ? On 18/02/2013 10:45 AM, Miquel Campos wrote: Hello

Re: test

Thank you Mr. Chris and Mr. Dan. :) On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Dan Yargici wrote: > Well I never! Good day sir! > On 8 Oct 2012 13:27, "Keith Fallon" wrote: > >> >>

Re: test

Welcome Keith Chris On 8 Oct, 2012, at 7:36 PM, "Keith Fallon" wrote: > <>

Re: unscientific rendering test

;Young mailto:digim...@digimata.com>> wrote: For anyone interested Rough numbers in a rendering test with different CPUs XSI /Mental Ray Dual CPU AMD 6272 32 cores 32 gb ram 3:50 minutes Intel i7 3930 6 cores/ 12 threads overclock 4.2 ghz 32 gb ram 4: 42 mi

Re: unscientific rendering test

Out of curiosity, have you tried you're i7 (6 cores) without overclock? Does overclock really helps to speed up render times? On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Leoung O'Young wrote: > For anyone interested > > Rough numbers in a rendering test with different CPUs > >

unscientific rendering test

For anyone interested Rough numbers in a rendering test with different CPUs XSI /Mental Ray Dual CPU AMD 6272 32 cores 32 gb ram 3:50 minutes Intel i7 3930 6 cores/ 12 threads overclock 4.2 ghz 32 gb ram 4: 42 minutes Intel i7 3770 4 cores/8 threads 12gb ram 7:21 minutes Intel i7 2600 4

Re: test

nope... nothing Rob \/-\/\/ On 4-8-2012 12:15, Christian wrote: - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5175 - Release Date: 08/03/12

test

Re: test

Fine signal so far :) On 7/18/2012 3:02 PM, Daniel Brassard wrote: Sorry for the noise!

test

Sorry for the noise!

Re: Test...

Ow! My neck! On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:40:39 -0700, Bradley Gabe wrote: ˙noʎ ʞuɐɥʇ 'ʍou ǝɹǝɥ ǝuıɟ ןןɐ ǝɹ,ǝʍ ˙ǝuıɟ ǝɹ,ǝʍ ˙ʍou ʇɥbıɹ ןןɐ ʎןʇɔǝɟɹǝd s,buıɥʇʎɹǝʌǝ ˙˙˙ɥn ʇnq 'uoıʇɔunɟןɐɯ suodɐǝʍ ʇɥbıןs ɐ pɐɥ ǝʍ 'ɥn On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Dan Yargici wrote: Hello?

Re: Test...

˙noʎ ʞuɐɥʇ 'ʍou ǝɹǝɥ ǝuıɟ ןןɐ ǝɹ,ǝʍ ˙ǝuıɟ ǝɹ,ǝʍ ˙ʍou ʇɥbıɹ ןןɐ ʎןʇɔǝɟɹǝd s,buıɥʇʎɹǝʌǝ ˙˙˙ɥn ʇnq 'uoıʇɔunɟןɐɯ suodɐǝʍ ʇɥbıןs ɐ pɐɥ ǝʍ 'ɥn On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Dan Yargici wrote: > Hello?

test

NYC Free Entertainment Creation Suites Test Drive

Hey Guys, Great Eastern Technology is sponsoring another event next week at the NY Autodesk Office. The presenter is a Maya guy but it looks like he will be going over a CrowdFX/Motionbuilder workflow. http://greateasterntech.com/events-a-news/61-nyc-free-entertainment-creation-suites-test

Re: Test

That's a good Beastie Boys song. "check-check-check-che-check it out, wha-wha-wha-what-what's it all about, ..." http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beastieboys/chcheckitout.html :p On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Scott Lange wrote: > check ...check...check > > ** ** > > *Scott Lange*** >

Test

check ...check...check Scott Lange

Re: Test

7;changing things all the time'. Thanks Rob On 30 May 2012 19:32, Stephen Blair wrote: My turn to test. From: Ajit Menon Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:49 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Test Testing a test... ? please don't blow my computer :) On Tue, May

<    1   2   3   >