NURBS improvements petition
Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurbs ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you!
Re: NURBS improvements petition
Hi Eugen Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;( Kind regards Angus On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurb s ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you! table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
Re: NURBS improvements petition
That depends on how many people utter their interest in this. Hope you see the dependancy-cycle... Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson: Hi Eugen Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;( Kind regards Angus On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nurb s ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you! table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
Re: NURBS improvements petition
Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the bottom line its just not relevant. On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: That depends on how many people utter their interest in this. Hope you see the dependancy-cycle... Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson: Hi Eugen Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;( Kind regards Angus On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu rb s ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you! table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
Re: NURBS improvements petition
Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and probably everybody else) how many users actually want this. I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only fool... ; ) But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I need this? If yes, sign it. No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation. By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs would get fixed. Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson: Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the bottom line its just not relevant. On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: That depends on how many people utter their interest in this. Hope you see the dependancy-cycle... Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson: Hi Eugen Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;( Kind regards Angus On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu rb s ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you! table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to
Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris
Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris
RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
Looking at installing 2014 on Linux Mint sometime early next month so this conversation has been really worthwhile. Kind regards From: Raffaele Fragapane [raffsxsil...@googlemail.com] Sent: 29 July 2013 01:40 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.demailto:c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
PyQt4 installing and environment path.
I did retry to install the PyQt4 on Softimage 2014 SP2, Win8 x64, PyQt py2.7 x64. and without (pywin32) and i got some error as below.. # ImportError: No module named sip # - [line 2 in X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons\PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\pyqt_example.py] # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last): # File Script Block 2, line 1, in module # from PyQt4.QtCore import Qt # ImportError: No module named PyQt4.QtCore # - [line 1 in X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons\PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\qtevents.py] But, I solved it. just added PYTHONPATH into EnvironPath as below. PYTHONPATH = C:\KrakatoaSR_Python\windows;C:\Python27\Lib\site-packages; It is working well.. is it good way to solve?? any idea? Thanks Kang -- *Byungchul Kang* | MBC CG TEAM [http://imbc.com] http://cgndev.com
RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
Good luck! ...this is going to be mayhem! Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za hat am 29. Juli 2013 um 13:48 geschrieben: Looking at installing 2014 on Linux Mint sometime early next month so this conversation has been really worthwhile. Kind regards - From: Raffaele Fragapane [raffsxsil...@googlemail.com] Sent: 29 July 2013 01:40 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.de mailto:c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
I doubt you stand much of a chance to be honest, especially post Nadia. Soft has always been between impossible and unreliable on Debian/'ntu and all derivates. Let us know how it goes though if you try. Mint is my current toy Linux and probably my next serious installation On 29 Jul 2013 21:48, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote: Looking at installing 2014 on Linux Mint sometime early next month so this conversation has been really worthwhile. Kind regards -- *From:* Raffaele Fragapane [raffsxsil...@googlemail.com] *Sent:* 29 July 2013 01:40 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
Mint is my current toy Linux and probably my next serious installation Getting OT here, but may I ask why Mint? I'm just curious, and because I sort of have to stick with Fedora (because of SI) I didn't try anything else for some time now. Before that I liked Sabayon pretty much. I didn't really like the Debian distros (probably just because I wasn't used to it). On 29 Jul 2013 21:48, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.za mailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote: Looking at installing 2014 on Linux Mint sometime early next month so this conversation has been really worthwhile. Kind regards - From: Raffaele Fragapane [raffsxsil...@googlemail.com mailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com ] Sent: 29 July 2013 01:40 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.de mailto:c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.
Re: NURBS improvements petition
Signed, And i sincerely hope that something comes out of this. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Of course! The point is, it seems to be unclear to the management (and probably everybody else) how many users actually want this. I heard quite a few complaints about this, so I might not even the only fool... ; ) But it can only work if everbody thinks simply for himself - could I need this? If yes, sign it. No probability scenarios should be put into that simple calculation. By the way: I would see it as a success if at least a handful of bugs would get fixed. Am 29.07.2013 11:45, schrieb Angus Davidson: Oh I do. I do wish you the best of luck ;) Just never had a commercial company ever take a petition seriously. If it doesn't seriously affect the bottom line its just not relevant. On 2013/07/29 11:34 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: That depends on how many people utter their interest in this. Hope you see the dependancy-cycle... Am 29.07.2013 11:25, schrieb Angus Davidson: Hi Eugen Whilst I respect your enthusiasm I unfortunately suspect I will get my Mac Softimage version before any upgrade to the nurbs tools happen. ;( Kind regards Angus On 2013/07/29 11:18 AM, Eugen Sares sof...@mail.sprit.org wrote: Dear respected members of this community, since I am confident that progress on NURBS tools and SDK would be beneficial for a relevant part of the Softimage userbase, and it seems to be useless to just ask in the beta, I'm starting this petition: http://www.change.org/**petitions/autodesk-softimage-** management-improve-nuhttp://www.change.org/petitions/autodesk-softimage-management-improve-nu rb s ... for which I kindly ask support from anybody that sees an advantage in this! Thanks a lot!! Best regards, Eugen Here's the text I put on that change.org page: Working with NURBS is still awkward due to a number of bugs and restrictions in Softimage and it's SDK. Since NURBS are and will continue to be a viable geometry type useful for many worflows, they should be subject to an upgrade, which last happened in version 5.0, about 8 years ago! Improvement list, sorted by importance: - fix NURBS related bugs as has been reported in the beta, - support subcurves and subsurfaces in SDK and existing tools - as consistently as polygon islands, - improve the operator SDK, to allow seamless integration of custom tools, including NURBS, - add support for NURBS in ICE Modeling, - add new NURBS tools (once a fully capable SDK is provided, this can be done by 3rd parties also), - ideally, introduce T-Spline technology (owned by Autodesk). Affected areas: - curve to polygon modeling, like 3D text, logos, mechanical parts, floorplans, cross-sections, spline cages,... - ICE based procedural modeling and rigging approaches for more complex animations and visualizations, - better import/editing/modeling of technical geometry like cars, design objects,... To Cory Mogk - Why NURBS should be improved: First, Softimage users should not be forced to switch to other applications just for basic curve/surface modeling. Curves in particular, as they represent 2D-geometry, will always be fundamental in 3D graphics. Second, ICE support for NURBS would lay the foundation for new procedural modeling/rigging workflows that would make Softimage competitive in that field. Understandably, the Softimage developers are under time and monetarian restictions, so only high priority features get realized, mostly introcuded by bigger studios, and often behind 'closed doors'. Yet those studios rarely request any NURBS features. The reason might not even be that better NURBS would be useless to them, but because they mostly can choose from a wider variety of tools, and often stick to internal proven workflows. Yet the other huge part of the userbase, small studios/freelancers, would profit directly from better NURBS, but easily go unnoticed. Polygon modeling based on curves is an important and reasonable complement to the already good modeling tools in Softimage, but is still unnecessarily complicated and restricted, and this petition is meant to show that the interest is there. So please improve NURBS again and thus boost Softimage's usability in that area a great deal! Thank you! table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;**font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus
RE: Future of Naiad
LOL -Original Message- From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lampi Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 10:56 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Future of Naiad No PR department has, in history, ever been able to prevent a cluster of twats from speculating wildly and working themselves into nerd-rage. If one was ever invented it would have to be either an armed force with right to extreme prejudice in applying force, or an act of God, or possibly both. This belongs on a plaque somewhere. Eric Freelance 3D and VFX animator http://vimeopro.com/user7979713/3d-work On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Raffaele Fragapane raffsxsil...@googlemail.com wrote: No PR department has, in history, ever been able to prevent a cluster of twats from speculating wildly and working themselves into nerd-rage. If one was ever invented it would have to be either an armed force with right to extreme prejudice in applying force, or an act of God, or possibly both. Mind, AD is often cryptic and confused in comm beyond what the usual within the quarter corporate rule would excuse, that we can all agree on, but no matter the amount of information that gets rolled out, people will always speculate and work things into re-inforcing whatever scenario they want to believe. On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Steven Caron car...@gmail.com wrote: they, you, need a better PR department. it is simple, don't give us reason to speculate so wildly. *written with my thumbs On Jul 24, 2013, at 5:00 PM, Graham Bell graham.b...@autodesk.com wrote: I'm saying nothing more, though if anyone wants to pvt me, then feel free. -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top?
To be honest there is very little technical reason. Linux Mint is one of those distributions that feels right. I like how they are doing things. I use it at both work and home and its rare for me to feel so comfortable with a linux distribution. From: Thomas Volkmann [li...@thomasvolkmann.com] Sent: 29 July 2013 02:53 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: RE: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? Mint is my current toy Linux and probably my next serious installation Getting OT here, but may I ask why Mint? I'm just curious, and because I sort of have to stick with Fedora (because of SI) I didn't try anything else for some time now. Before that I liked Sabayon pretty much. I didn't really like the Debian distros (probably just because I wasn't used to it). On 29 Jul 2013 21:48, Angus Davidson angus.david...@wits.ac.zamailto:angus.david...@wits.ac.za wrote: Looking at installing 2014 on Linux Mint sometime early next month so this conversation has been really worthwhile. Kind regards From: Raffaele Fragapane [raffsxsil...@googlemail.commailto:raffsxsil...@googlemail.com] Sent: 29 July 2013 01:40 PM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.commailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is always-on-top? It's not quite as simple as linking dynamically vs statically. The fact soft is still tied to a GCC fixed by mainwin (or was last I checked) isn't exactly helping matters either. That said shell requirements are a non issue honestly, the issues are others and on a completely different scale. It's not all roses for some other software either, but yeah soft tends to be the pickier of the lot On 29 Jul 2013 20:19, Christoph Muetze c...@glarestudios.demailto:c...@glarestudios.de wrote: On 07/27/2013 12:04 PM, Chris Chia wrote: It's not because it is fragile in Linux but there are so many flavours of Linux and the system lib versions differ in these flavours. that is true.. and yet just an excuse. so many other developers manage it quite well to redistribute their software properly - developers who know how to do dynamic and/or static linking so that the programs won't break outside of exactly defined lab conditions. and while we are at it, i don't get why Softimage users after over 10 years and who knows how many paid upgrades still have to jump through so many hoops just for installation and starting. Whats the deal will all the sourcing and tcsh-using? And why do we have to use a console to start Softimage as a default at all? not sure about you, but i really don't need that cozy 90s SGI-feeling anymore... Also the fixation on certain graphics cards and drivers is beyond my grasp. It's not as if Softimage is doing anything special here... :/ Chris This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. table width=100% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 style=width:100%; tr td align=left style=text-align:justify;font face=arial,sans-serif size=1 color=#99span style=font-size:11px;This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary. /span/font/td /tr /table
Re: PyQt4 installing and environment path.
the pyqt installer should have done this for you. that is the only way python can import a module, ie. python looks through the paths to find your module. *written with my thumbs On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Byungchul Kang k...@cgndev.com wrote: I did retry to install the PyQt4 on Softimage 2014 SP2, Win8 x64, PyQt py2.7 x64. and without (pywin32) and i got some error as below.. # ImportError: No module named sip # - [line 2 in X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons \PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\pyqt_example.py] # ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last): # File Script Block 2, line 1, in module # from PyQt4.QtCore import Qt # ImportError: No module named PyQt4.QtCore # - [line 1 in X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons \PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\qtevents.py] But, I solved it. just added PYTHONPATH into EnvironPath as below. PYTHONPATH = C:\KrakatoaSR_Python\windows;C:\Python27\Lib\site- packages; It is working well.. is it good way to solve?? any idea? Thanks Kang -- Byungchul Kang | MBC CG TEAM [http://imbc.com] http://cgndev.com
Re: How to set the default for a color parameter in a shaderdef?
I found the way in jscript after reading thishttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/xsi_list/color$20parameter$20script/xsi_list/dUrC8i2mpb4/C_gQLRfzpicJ var paramDef = params.AddParamDef(scattering_color, siShaderDataTypeColor3, paramOptions); var subParamDef = paramDef.SubParamDefs; subParamDef.GetParamDefByName(red).DefaultValue = 0.2; subParamDef.GetParamDefByName(green).DefaultValue = 0.4; subParamDef.GetParamDefByName(blue).DefaultValue = 0.6; On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Vincent Ullmann vincent.ullm...@googlemail.com wrote: Is this in python? == True Am 26.07.2013 20:35, schrieb Stefano Jannuzzo: Thanks Vincent, Vladimir. Is this in python? It still doesn't work in jscript. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Vladimir Jankijevic vladi...@elefantstudios.ch wrote: like this: paramOptions.SetDefaultValue( [0.5, 0.3, 0.2] ) On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stefano Jannuzzo stefano.jannu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi folks. In a shaderdef define function, I can create a color param and set its default value to a mid gray by paramOptions = XSIFactory.CreateShaderParamDefOptions(); paramOptions.SetDefaultValue(0.5); params.AddParamDef(color, siShaderDataTypeColor3, paramOptions); Any idea how to set each channel independently? Thanks. Stefano
Re: PyQt4 installing and environment path.
The pyqt installer should not set the python path automatically in win8.
Thanks.
Kang
2013년 7월 29일 월요일에 Steven Caron님이 작성:
the pyqt installer should have done this for you. that is the only way
python can import a module, ie. python looks through the paths to find your
module.
*written with my thumbs
On Jul 29, 2013, at 8:07 AM, Byungchul Kang
k...@cgndev.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'k...@cgndev.com');
wrote:
I did retry to install the PyQt4 on Softimage 2014 SP2, Win8 x64, PyQt
py2.7 x64. and without (pywin32)
and i got some error as below..
# ImportError: No module named sip
# - [line 2 in
X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons\PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\pyqt_example.py]
# ERROR : Traceback (most recent call last):
# File Script Block 2, line 1, in module
# from PyQt4.QtCore import Qt
# ImportError: No module named PyQt4.QtCore
# - [line 1 in
X:\Softimage_PlugIn_WorkGroup\for2014_Plug_In\Addons\PyQtForSoftimage\Application\Plugins\qtevents.py]
But, I solved it. just added PYTHONPATH into EnvironPath as below.
PYTHONPATH = C:\KrakatoaSR_Python\windows;C:\Python27\Lib\site-packages;
It is working well..
is it good way to solve?? any idea?
Thanks
Kang
--
*Byungchul Kang* | MBC CG TEAM [ http://imbc.comhttp://imbc.com]
http://cgndev.comhttp://cgndev.com
--
Gmail 모바일에서 보낸 메일
Re: PyQt4 installing and environment path.
sorry, i misread. i thought you meant the 'PATH' environment variable. i do not have any experience with win8 so i don't know how the installers behave. did you switch to system python? filepreferencesscripting... uncheck use python installed with softimage On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Byungchul Kang k...@cgndev.com wrote: The pyqt installer should not set the python path automatically in win8. Thanks.
RE: Environment sphere issues
The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the
equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out the
nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of the
distortion. You can use Pano2vr http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for
the conversion. After convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the
Polar method mentioned before.
Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would share
this.
Nicholas Breslow
From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
[mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM
To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues
Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment for
a seamless space experience.
Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job
rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have to
drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That plugin you
linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe ill find a use
for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your images and not mine.
Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening visually near the bottom
and top of the image.
On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson
magic...@bellsouth.netmailto:magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched
panoramic photos, using Blender.
very clever:
http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs
illus...@mip.netmailto:illus...@mip.net wrote:
Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind of
smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I wonder
what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas?
Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was going
to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying to solve
this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates?
I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if I
could get any image to show up on the sphere.
Thanks again,
Nancy
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson
magic...@bellsouth.netmailto:magic...@bellsouth.net wrote:
If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical mapping
corrector:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/
No 64 bit support, I believe.
here is the install and use docs:
Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising
Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08.
INSTALLATION:
Simply unzip spheremap.zip and copy spheremap.8bf to your
\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\ folder, or whichever plugin folder your host program
uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and select the
plugin.
DESCRIPTION:
This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping.
When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional spherical
mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles where the
texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a plane and a
sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of distortion. However, by
properly distorting the texture map, it is possible to minimize and even
compensate for the polar distortion.
Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to this
plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/.
Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use. (Nearest
Neighbor being fastest, Bicubic being best.
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Nancy Jacobs
illus...@mip.netmailto:illus...@mip.net wrote:
Greetings,
I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to light
the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to the
render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of the
sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a background which
I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle. It seems this worked in
renders at one point years ago in another software. Perhaps even XSII don't
recall.
I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an environment
(using the HDRI), and 'Spherical Mapping' (using the beauty image), in the Pass
Shaders. But I'm getting very strange results, so not sure if this is the way
to go. Also, it's difficult to line them up properly so that the light in the
HDRI is coming from the same place as the equivalent visible areas in the
beauty image -- which of course one can do easily in the wrapped spheres. But
in the pass shaders, they don't seem to use the same rotation systems...
Any advice on getting an undistorted, seamless image
SP2
Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? Hans
Re: SP2
0.0.05 rather On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? Hans
Re: Environment sphere issues
Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross)
setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross.
Is this not working for you, now?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow
n...@nicholasbreslow.comwrote:
The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the
equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out
the nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of
the distortion. You can use Pano2vr
http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for the conversion. After
convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the Polar method
mentioned before.
** **
Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would
share this.
** **
*Nicholas Breslow*
** **
** **
*From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Jacobs
*Sent:* Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM
*To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
*Subject:* Re: Environment sphere issues
** **
Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment
for a seamless space experience.
** **
Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job
rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill have
to drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That
plugin you linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe
ill find a use for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your
images and not mine. Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening
visually near the bottom and top of the image.
** **
On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched
panoramic photos, using Blender.
very clever:
http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/
** **
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:***
*
Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind
of smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I
wonder what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas?
** **
Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was
going to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is trying
to solve this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin overcompensates?
** **
I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if
I could get any image to show up on the sphere.
** **
Thanks again,
Nancy
On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson magic...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical
mapping corrector:
http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/
** **
No 64 bit support, I believe.
** **
here is the install and use docs:
Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising
Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08.
** **
** **
INSTALLATION:
** **
Simply unzip spheremap.zip and copy spheremap.8bf to your
\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\ folder, or whichever plugin folder your host program
uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and select
the plugin.
** **
** **
DESCRIPTION:
** **
This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping.
** **
When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional
spherical mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles
where the texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a
plane and a sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of
distortion. However, by properly distorting the texture map, it is possible
to minimize and even compensate for the polar distortion.
** **
Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to
this plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/.
** **
Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use. (Nearest
Neighbor being fastest, Bicubic being best.
** **
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Nancy Jacobs illus...@mip.net wrote:***
*
Greetings,
I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to
light the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to
the render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of
the sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a background
which I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle. It seems this
worked in renders at one point years ago in another software. Perhaps even
XSII don't recall.
I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an
environment (using the
RE: SP2
Naming software after their correct versions sells them not quite as good as numbers in years for example. At least for the people in marketing devisions. The fact that versioning was (and is) always strictly ruled by certain changes, is something marketing monkeys seems to have a problem with. Some companies name their updates regardless of the correct versioning evolvement. Very unprofessional, to say the least. Besides this example of the unclear naming, the service pack versioning you meantioned may be ok since it's a SP and could be considered as a hotfix. I think AD would't call it a hotfix, because it doesn't sells very well. Furthermore, a SP isn't a term inside the versioning convention you're talking about. Basically it doesn't mean something at all. So I think a SP can be anything, doesn't matter what or what not it is including. sven From: mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Hans Payer Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:37 PM To: mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: SP2 Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? Hans
Re: SP2
An SP and a hotfix are a million miles apart, and there is a definition to both, and their impact on software versioning IS important when you have to manage the software park. A hotfix is an emergency patching deployed (potentially and often with little testing) to immediately fix something in place with little regard for side effects because the issue is blocking. An SP is a pack, it polishes and tests against regression several fixes before being distributed. Very, very big difference there. Given SPs are on an if-needed basis you don't epxect them to be affected by marketing, and in fact they aren't nor have ever been, especially for Soft. Sales (not marketing) might leverage the SP and ext releases as a benefit of subscription, but given their release isn't guaranteed they are more of an engineering and damage containment call than anything. It wasn't marketing going hey, we need a new snazzy release to have something to talk about this Siggraph prompting the SP, it was a bunch of users in beta pointing out there were regressions that, in many cases, were blocking. I agree with Hans that if the versioning pattern has changed that's an issue, and Soft should be made aware of it so that they stick to their own conventions again in the future. WTF happened to the list the last two weeks? I understand uncertainty and consequential resentment towards AD given their lack of official communication, but since when does that warrant a barrage of unfounded and insulting statements? This place used to be a lot better than that. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Sven Constable sixsi_l...@imagefront.dewrote: Naming software after their correct versions sells them not quite as good as numbers in years for example. At least for the people in marketing devisions. The fact that versioning was (and is) always strictly ruled by certain changes, is something marketing monkeys seems to have a problem with. Some companies name their updates regardless of the correct versioning evolvement. Very unprofessional, to say the least. Besides this example of the unclear naming, the service pack versioning you meantioned may be ok since it's a SP and could be considered as a hotfix. I think AD would't call it a hotfix, because it doesn't sells very well. Furthermore, a SP isn't a term inside the versioning convention you're talking about. Basically it doesn't mean something at all. So I think a SP can be anything, doesn't matter what or what not it is including. ** ** sven ** ** *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.comsoftimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Hans Payer *Sent:* Monday, July 29, 2013 10:37 PM *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com *Subject:* SP2 ** ** Please someone explain, ** ** How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? ** ** 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 ** ** Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? ** ** You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. ** ** It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? ** ** Hans -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
RE: SP2
My statement was a bit generic. I apologize for that. But the SP2 for 2014 includes two bugfixes. I would call that a hotfix. From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Raffaele Fragapane Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 12:13 AM To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: SP2 An SP and a hotfix are a million miles apart, and there is a definition to both, and their impact on software versioning IS important when you have to manage the software park. A hotfix is an emergency patching deployed (potentially and often with little testing) to immediately fix something in place with little regard for side effects because the issue is blocking. An SP is a pack, it polishes and tests against regression several fixes before being distributed. Very, very big difference there. Given SPs are on an if-needed basis you don't epxect them to be affected by marketing, and in fact they aren't nor have ever been, especially for Soft. Sales (not marketing) might leverage the SP and ext releases as a benefit of subscription, but given their release isn't guaranteed they are more of an engineering and damage containment call than anything. It wasn't marketing going hey, we need a new snazzy release to have something to talk about this Siggraph prompting the SP, it was a bunch of users in beta pointing out there were regressions that, in many cases, were blocking. I agree with Hans that if the versioning pattern has changed that's an issue, and Soft should be made aware of it so that they stick to their own conventions again in the future. WTF happened to the list the last two weeks? I understand uncertainty and consequential resentment towards AD given their lack of official communication, but since when does that warrant a barrage of unfounded and insulting statements? This place used to be a lot better than that. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Sven Constable sixsi_l...@imagefront.de wrote: Naming software after their correct versions sells them not quite as good as numbers in years for example. At least for the people in marketing devisions. The fact that versioning was (and is) always strictly ruled by certain changes, is something marketing monkeys seems to have a problem with. Some companies name their updates regardless of the correct versioning evolvement. Very unprofessional, to say the least. Besides this example of the unclear naming, the service pack versioning you meantioned may be ok since it's a SP and could be considered as a hotfix. I think AD would't call it a hotfix, because it doesn't sells very well. Furthermore, a SP isn't a term inside the versioning convention you're talking about. Basically it doesn't mean something at all. So I think a SP can be anything, doesn't matter what or what not it is including. sven From: mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [ mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Hans Payer Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 10:37 PM To: mailto:softimage@listproc.autodesk.com softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: SP2 Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? Hans -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
Re: SP2
looks alright to me. the build number change tell me SP2 is indistinguishable from SP1 except it's got some code change that caused 5 builds but dont affect API or scene file. However, if SP1 is indeed a 11.1 instead of 11.0, then there must have been API change or something that affects the version of the scene file. you can see other examples of build numbers here.. http://xsisupport.com/2012/07/18/softimage-build-versions 2011 SP2 changed persistence. goddamn shader persistance bug and the only time we've done a SP2 at ADSK On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: 0.0.05 rather On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now?
Re: SP2
Well, my apologies too, the e-mail was likely way too snappy. It's just I'm getting very, very tired of seeing mailing lists turning so dark. What prominent private lists there are see every industry discussion quickly turn into union VS anti-union, or subsidies discussions or the inactions of VES. What technical lists there are have every other thread about roadmaps or features or issues quickly turn from potentially useful discussion and fixes/workarounds into giving AD some lip and blaming various unrelated departments for how bad they are at some thing or another, and the original issues and any related discussions quickly thin out. I'm not an AD apologist, and there are plenty threads and cases where I think a healthy dose of reality and telling them how you feel has its place, just it can't be every other thread IMO, and not as aggressively as we some times do it, especially recently (it's only by some thick skin that some AD employees are still posting IMO, and I'd really rather not lose their contributions). Now, as I'm doing exactly what I'm complaining about, I'll quietly bow out and let it be about versions again. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Sven Constable sixsi_l...@imagefront.dewrote: My statement was a bit generic. I apologize for that. But the SP2 for 2014 includes two bugfixes. I would call that a hotfix.
Re: SP2
2014 SP2 *does* have API changes, even to the extent that plugins compiled against 2014 SP1 are not loadable in 2014 SP2. Our installer got broken by the weirdness in version numbers. In all versions back to 2011 (and probably before that), the minor version referred to the SP#, i.e. 2011 SP2 is 9.2.. The SAPs start at minor version 5, with a similar +1 on the minor for SPs, e.g. 2011 SAP SP1 is 9.6.. So I agree that the version number is wrong for 2014 SP2. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau luceri...@gmail.comwrote: looks alright to me. the build number change tell me SP2 is indistinguishable from SP1 except it's got some code change that caused 5 builds but dont affect API or scene file. However, if SP1 is indeed a 11.1 instead of 11.0, then there must have been API change or something that affects the version of the scene file. you can see other examples of build numbers here.. http://xsisupport.com/2012/07/18/softimage-build-versions 2011 SP2 changed persistence. goddamn shader persistance bug and the only time we've done a SP2 at ADSK On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: 0.0.05 rather On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now?
RE: SP2
Thanks Luc-Eric, the build number link is really useful! N From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] on behalf of Luc-Eric Rousseau [luceri...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 July 2013 08:41 To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com Subject: Re: SP2 looks alright to me. the build number change tell me SP2 is indistinguishable from SP1 except it's got some code change that caused 5 builds but dont affect API or scene file. However, if SP1 is indeed a 11.1 instead of 11.0, then there must have been API change or something that affects the version of the scene file. you can see other examples of build numbers here.. http://xsisupport.com/2012/07/18/softimage-build-versions 2011 SP2 changed persistence. goddamn shader persistance bug and the only time we've done a SP2 at ADSK On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: 0.0.05 rather On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Hans Payer hanspa...@gmail.com wrote: Please someone explain, How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number increment of 0.0.03? 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now?
Re: PyQt4 installing and environment path.
sorry... i meant the 'PythonPath' environment variable. and i did switch off. but not working pyqt. to adding PythonPath is one way to solve.. Thanks Kang 2013/7/30 Steven Caron car...@gmail.com sorry, i misread. i thought you meant the 'PATH' environment variable. i do not have any experience with win8 so i don't know how the installers behave. did you switch to system python? filepreferencesscripting... uncheck use python installed with softimage On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Byungchul Kang k...@cgndev.com wrote: The pyqt installer should not set the python path automatically in win8. Thanks. -- *Byungchul Kang* | MBC CG TEAM [http://imbc.com] http://cgndev.com
