Re: Maya - what were they thinking 2 - transforms
On 09/17/17 18:39, Anto Matkovic wrote: I'm talking more from practical side. Let's say, once your plane landed into jungle, how to make dinner of worms :), which worm is better, so on. Regarding Node Editor, someone definitively won't use it to build a chain of deformers by bringing and connecting nodes, because in this case, plain connect is simply not enough to get things to work. Transformations are different story, connect here works immediately, making possible to build really nice and complex interactions. No doubt, but I don't think that this takes anything away form any of the points mentioned in this thread, Points that similarly don't seem to take anything away of how complex node interactions can be with the node editor. -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Maya - what were they thinking 2 - transforms
I'm talking more from practical side. Let's say, once your plane landed into jungle, how to make dinner of worms :), which worm is better, so on.Regarding Node Editor, someone definitively won't use it to build a chain of deformers by bringing and connecting nodes, because in this case, plain connect is simply not enough to get things to work.Transformations are different story, connect here works immediately, making possible to build really nice and complex interactions. From: Jason S To: Anto Matkovic ; Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 7:43 AM Subject: Re: Maya - what were they thinking 2 - transforms On 09/15/17 15:16, Anto Matkovic wrote: Whatever works for you. For example I never tried to key the global transform in SI, always used constraint instead, because this clearly shows what's going on. Also followed 'one object one transform' 'rule', that is, never more than one constraint or expression per object - this makes it easier to connect to another structure, reset, so on. But that's just me. It's always possible to hide some null, after all. Hum. I don't think it's just for what works for me.. --> * (see footquote) In Maya (as I think I understand) , once you freeze your object, -it- becomes the center of itself (for things to be relative to it), and looses all references to Universe 0 does it not (?) (also kind-of like many public companies actually ;) ) Then where are it's 'universal pose' values after it's frozen? (where is the object in universal space?) In XSI there is "Neutral Pose" which allows to reset to that, but there is always a (read/writable, and resettable) reference to 0 universe. and as previously covered, where are it's 'local pose' values once it's a child of something? it's doable but ... ... complicated (for simple things) (more nulls forever) And consequently, I really don't think any advantage of "dual coordinates" has to do with 'keying global transforms' but rather (as you probably know inside) :: --> there is -always- 'local' ( parent relative values.. --and what you normally animate in XSI-- ) and 'global' (universal) coordinates, -- both coordinates for reference, keying, driving or just setting (or -resetting-), that are intricately part of absolutely everything, and there all the time. Without the need for redundant transient items that can accumulate quite fast, and clutter up everything , ( speaking by sometimes already finding too many control items in XSI and always trying to simplify as much as possible ) and without the need to calculate or deduce those (super useful) values when wanting to reference (or drive) them. --> * and the previously mentionned "sea of relationships" can also very-much include how relations are represented in the node editor, with little to no abstraction to a way of doing things that (historically) has been recognized as over-bloated or over-complicated. --> ** * from 2005 (about clutter and things) http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php?t-173245.html ... in maya there are many things where i wonder what the hell is going on. very often i parented an object into another and couldn't define the coordinates correctly any more. and much more things. a further example: after having mirrored and smoothed an object, maya has generated 4 additional objects to the scene (2 transform groups, the low-poly mirror and the smoothed mesh). working with blendshapes also generates some more objects, so the whole scene gets very confusing after a little time. if you don't give a name to EVERY little thing (even if it's a texture node), efficient working gets nearly impossible. every object is connected to many nodes - the complete program seems to be a big net, and it's your job to navigate through it. (really annoying under time pressure) while working with nurbs surfaces you should better clean up the history (delete modifier stack) or maybe you get double transformations, can't move a parented objects correctly or get other problems like that. ** from 2016 about Maya transforms http://forums.fabricengine.com/discussion/585/maya-transforms ... as I was saying in the beginning, there is not reason to try to have a Maya transform. It is an old thing that caries with it many problems. It tries to give many features that in theory sound great, like the possibility to set its pivots, but in practice it's simply way to complicated, convoluted, over-designed, resulting in a huge object (considering the context of its typical use) that it's slower than what it should, not mentioning the headache it gives every time you have to deal with it in the API. My suggestion? You have Fabric now, that allows you to stay away from the bloated Maya's transform as much as you can
Re: Soft 2014 in Linux is "always-on-top"?
Hi Thomas It worked thanks a lot for your help, you made my day :D Regards On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Thomas Volkmann wrote: > It should be there now... I had Dropbox syncing disabled :/ > > > Ahmed Barakat hat am 14. September 2017 > um 16:59 geschrieben: > > > Hi Thomas thanks again > > I will try renaming those 2 first and see, I can't seem to find your > mainwin folder at the dropbox link u shared earlier. > > > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Thomas Volkmann < > li...@thomasvolkmann.com> wrote: > > > so you mean renaming the original /usr/lib64/libx11.so.6 ? > > NEVER! I meant the one in the Softimage folder which you did already. > > > xset: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6: undefined symbol: > xcb_wait_for_reply64 > > > Can't remember if I ever got this error... but your libxcb is referencing > to the mainwin folder where on my end the system libxcb is used. > > Same goes for libXau > > libxcb.so.1 => /usr/Softimage/Softimage_2015/ > Application/mainwin/mw/lib-amd64_linux/X11/libxcb.so.1 > (0x7f4a5754d000) > > > > libXau.so.6 => /usr/Softimage/Softimage_2015/ > Application/mainwin/mw/lib-amd64_linux/X11/libXau.so.6 > (0x7f4a57449000) > > I remember now that I replaced the whole mainwin folder with an older one > (SI 2013 or 2014?) to fix the 'always on top' issue. > > Maybe it's enough to rename these two libs, but I added my mainwin folder > to dropbox so you can try that. Just rename your old mainwin folder and > extract mine to that place (Application/mainwin). > > > Let's see if that eliminates the error when you run the source command. > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > > > -- > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > -- Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
Re: Maya - what were they thinking 2 - transforms
test 2017-09-16 22:13 GMT+02:00 Jason S : > On 09/15/17 15:16, Anto Matkovic wrote: > > Whatever works for you. For example I never tried to key the global > transform in SI, always used constraint instead, because this clearly shows > what's going on. Also followed 'one object one transform' 'rule', that is, > never more than one constraint or expression per object - this makes it > easier to connect to another structure, reset, so on. But that's just me. > It's always possible to hide some null, after all. > > > Hum. I don't think it's just for what works for me.. --> * (see > footquote) > > In Maya (as I think I understand) , once you freeze your object, > -it- becomes the center of itself (for things to be relative to it), > and looses all references to Universe 0 does it not (?) > (also kind-of like many public companies actually ;) ) > > Then where are it's 'universal pose' values after it's frozen? > (where is the object in universal space?) > > In XSI there is "Neutral Pose" which allows to reset to that, > but there is always a (read/writable, and resettable) reference to 0 > universe. > > and as previously covered, where are it's 'local pose' values once it's > a child of something? > > it's doable but ... ... complicated (for simple things) > (more nulls forever) > > > And consequently, I really don't think any advantage of "dual > coordinates" has to do with '*keying global transforms*' > > but rather (as you probably know inside) :: > --> there is -always- 'local'( parent relative values.. --and what > you normally animate in XSI-- ) > and 'global' (universal) coordinates, -- both coordinates for reference, > keying, driving or just setting (or -resetting-), > that are intricately part of absolutely everything, and there all the time. > > Without the need for redundant transient items that can accumulate quite > fast, and clutter up everything , > ( speaking by sometimes already finding too many control items in XSI and > always trying to simplify as much as possible ) > and without the need to calculate or deduce those (super useful) values > when wanting to reference (or drive) them. --> * > > and the previously mentionned "sea of relationships" can also very-much > include how relations are represented in the node editor, > with little to no abstraction to a way of doing things that (historically) > has been recognized as over-bloated or over-complicated. --> ** > > > > * from 2005 (about clutter and things) > http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php?t-173245.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * ... in maya there are many things where i wonder what the hell is going > on. very often i parented an object into another and couldn't define the > coordinates correctly any more. and much more things. a further example: > after having mirrored and smoothed an object, maya has generated 4 > additional objects to the scene (2 transform groups, the low-poly mirror > and the smoothed mesh). working with blendshapes also generates some more > objects, so the whole scene gets very confusing after a little time. if you > don't give a name to EVERY little thing (even if it's a texture node), > efficient working gets nearly impossible. every object is connected to many > nodes - the complete program seems to be a big net, and it's your job to > navigate through it. (really annoying under time pressure) while working > with nurbs surfaces you should better clean up the history (delete modifier > stack) or maybe you get double transformations, can't move a parented > objects correctly or get other problems like that.* > > > ** from 2016 about Maya transforms > http://forums.fabricengine.com/discussion/585/maya-transforms > > > > > > > > *... as I was saying in the beginning, there is not reason to try to have > a Maya transform. It is an old thing that caries with it many problems. It > tries to give many features that in theory sound great, like the > possibility to set its pivots, but in practice it's simply way to > complicated, convoluted, over-designed, resulting in a huge object > (considering the context of its typical use) that it's slower than what it > should, not mentioning the headache it gives every time you have to deal > with it in the API. * > > > *My suggestion? You have Fabric now, that allows you to stay away from > the bloated Maya's transform as much as you can. * > > > *Learn instead how to handle Xfos, and do what you want with those. * > > *Care about the Maya's transform only when you set them from Fabric or > read them for Fabric.* > > * You said you come from Xsi. Don't make your life unnecessary sad and > ugly as I had to do* [image: :)] > > > > *_ ... really thanks for the detailed > answer. Yes, I am trying to replicate Maya's transform for 1. understand > it better since now I have to work with it and 2.understand Fabric Engine. > * > > > *I was thinking that Mat44 and Xfo were pretty much the same as
