Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote: > > > In Maya, it's the Shape node that contains the geometry, and the > Transform node places it in the 3d word, with the additional twist > that you can put multiple shapes under the same transform. I'm not > really aware of any problem with this, but people tend to build > legends around things they don't often see. > > Sure, and you also have multiple transforms owning the same shape for instancing, which often confuses the hell out of people, however technically correct it is :) As for multiple shapes under a transform, there have been genuine issues with it in the past with it, and some remain, though the ones that remain are mostly in custom tools, hacks, and people's heads. One is that Maya's auto-naming can easily turn inconsistent or hard to parse if shapes move in and out of different transnforms and start being mulitple-per, so a lot of cheapo in-house scripts tended to fail in that case, and it doesn't help that there are no valid events to monitor and catch parenting (that I know of, I should add) to gate that, whereas creation is obviously a lot easier to gate keep. The other thing is that a lot of tools use simpler than they should implementations to deal with shapes (extendToShape to the first shape) instead of contemplating multiple shape per transform cases, and therefore leave a mess behind or refuse to work in the multiple shapes per transform scenario, but that's not Maya's fault. All in all it's not really an issue with Maya. We do use multiple shapes and instanced shapes (the only way to emulate Soft proxies, really), and have no issues with it, but this is now, years ago it was a lot worse, and that rep stuck. It's also true that moving shapes around in Maya or manually instancing requires you use scripts, the UI and the availale commands are ill suited to handling it.
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
Wasnt there talk of an asset store for ADMaya in the 2015 introduction presentation, when they were hyping bit-froth with Marcus Nordenstam, then someone jumped in the last 20 minutes and talked about how the maya asset store is the future, and your credit card was the past. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:58 PM, Jason S wrote: > On 02/27/15 16:58, Cesar Saez wrote: > > Shape nodes are not equivalent to operators but the primitive itself (the > parent of the operator stack with a P icon on the explorer). > > In the Softimage SDK we have access the primitive of an object by calling > obj.ActivePrimitive, I guess the initial idea was to implement more than > one primitive per object (that's why 'active' is in the name!?) but it > never happened. > > Maya has the same concept implemented in the form of shape nodes, the main > difference is that it supports more than one and you have access to > parent/unparent them into a transform node by using the parent command > (e.g. a geometry instance is done by sharing a shape node on several > transforms). > > > Perhaps, but weather or not I was referring to what(ever) defines the > geometry as "an operator" or "a primitive" or "a primitive operator", > the fact (of an "object" and it's center being more "one", and that being > a mere example of -many- specific abstractions) remains.. > and it's not just like a "potatoe / pot-a-toe" thing, > > And I think this is a fair statement.. > > *Vegeta_DTX * > *15/03/2014* > ... > *So from my personal and biased opinion, I kind of look at it this way - > for XSI you just have to be an artist with some technical knowledge to do > professional stuff.* > > > > *For Maya you need to be both an artist and a bit of programmer to be able > to work professionally. I mean, I often find myself having to write my own > little plugins in the middle of the project.* > > *Sure it's awesome, flexible and creative, but I can't do that when > deadline is two days from now :)* > ... > >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
On 02/27/15 16:58, Cesar Saez wrote: Shape nodes are not equivalent to operators but the primitive itself (the parent of the operator stack with a P icon on the explorer). In the Softimage SDK we have access the primitive of an object by calling obj.ActivePrimitive, I guess the initial idea was to implement more than one primitive per object (that's why 'active' is in the name!?) but it never happened. Maya has the same concept implemented in the form of shape nodes, the main difference is that it supports more than one and you have access to parent/unparent them into a transform node by using the parent command (e.g. a geometry instance is done by sharing a shape node on several transforms). Perhaps, but weather or not I was referring to what(ever) defines the geometry as "an operator" or "a primitive" or "a primitive operator", the fact (of an "object" and it's center being more "one", and that being a mere example of -many- specific abstractions) remains.. and it's not just like a "potatoe / pot-a-toe" thing, And I think this is a fair statement.. Vegeta_DTX 15/03/2014 ... So from my personal and biased opinion, I kind of look at it this way - for XSI you just have to be an artist with some technical knowledge to do professional stuff. For Maya you need to be both an artist and a bit of programmer to be able to work professionally. I mean, I often find myself having to write my own little plugins in the middle of the project. Sure it's awesome, flexible and creative, but I can't do that when deadline is two days from now :) ...
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
Shape nodes are not equivalent to operators but the primitive itself (the parent of the operator stack with a P icon on the explorer). In the Softimage SDK we have access the primitive of an object by calling obj.ActivePrimitive, I guess the initial idea was to implement more than one primitive per object (that's why 'active' is in the name!?) but it never happened. Maya has the same concept implemented in the form of shape nodes, the main difference is that it supports more than one and you have access to parent/unparent them into a transform node by using the parent command (e.g. a geometry instance is done by sharing a shape node on several transforms). On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Jason S wrote: > > Otherwise, indeed sound sounds like the "shape" is like what can be the > "*polygon > mesh*" (or other geo type) "*operator*", > just under what is encapsulated as "*an object*" or one "thing" in Soft. >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
They, you know, Them,... They, as per definition, They know. They always know. Somehow. 2015-02-27 21:14 GMT+01:00 Jeremie Passerin : > The main difference between parenting in Maya and Softimage is the > hierarchy scaling. > http://www.softimageblog.com/archives/84 > > be aware of that ;-) > > On 27 February 2015 at 10:16, Leendert A. Hartog > wrote: > >> Artur Woźniak schreef op 27-2-2015 om 19:01: >> >> I,ll blame You now. They read this, You know. >> >> >> So when exactly did "they" start reading a Softimage related list? >> I was under the impression, that part of our predicament was that they >> actually hardly ever did... >> :D >> >> Greetz >> Leendert >> >> -- >> >> Leendert A. Hartog AKA Hirazi Blue >> Administrator NOT the owner of si-community.com >> >> >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
Here it is with formatting (easier to make-out) This is probably helpful for anyone transitioning from Softimage to Maya. ( by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this, but he's making a point) https://vimeo.com/120223100 " never parent under objects like this" because it causes some sort of problem in Maya[?] (that i don't get?), or because you just don't like it? Yes, it can cause problems in Maya. Often problems specific to rendering. It's been a while, but I think it involved material mixups or visibility mixups. It's fine to parent to things that aren't renderable, like groups, locators, even splines, though I'm not 100 percent on splines, as I usually use constraints in such a case. you can't parent one object to another? really?.had no idea it can cause skewing on the objects under objects.. and yes, you can parent under objects, just don't parent the dag of shapes under the dag of other shapes. There is really no reason to parent a cube under another cube. i think us Softimage guys have a whole 'nother idea of what "parenting" is..do i understand this to mean that "don't parent constraint objects to one another",.rather than "don't assemble them in a hierarchy"? essentially, "middle drag" vs "parent -r", etc yeah, parent -r -shape, is just to parent shapes,, middleDrag/"p"/parent is to parent transforms Its okay, but not usual to parent multiple shapes under one transform, and certain exports like FBX really don't like when you do that. but ys, Softimage parenting is similar to sets . There is no hierachy in that sense. yes, Why would we want to parent objects under others... (won't even go there... sigh) Otherwise, indeed sound sounds like the "shape" is like what can be the "polygon mesh" (or other geo type) "operator", just under what is encapsulated as "an object" or one "thing" in Soft. And in Maya, it's as if an object's "center" was itself like a separate invisible null. (seperate without even any conncection in the DAG (at least by default), and you can only press "down" if shapes are visible in the outliner, ) But this is a fine example of basically everything in Soft/Maya, when it comes to proportions of "power" vs "ease" (and speed) While access to low level things can no doubt be an advantage and can be very powerful, it can also be like a considerable amount of extra things to manage and to "work over" (daily). So there may be occasions where multiple geometries under one transform might be useful, ... but in 96.4729% ;) of the time... And all these "layers of abstraction" in Soft, may not always be the right ones, or you may sometimes find yourself wanting more low level access, but all-in-all they really do seem to be .. having been carefully made with the artist in mind... while still allowing for quite considerable amounts of "power", and are essentially what makes it FAST & intuitive while "powerful" And I think that was the very point of XSI, which Maya, down to the most basic things, as Miquel said in his video.. could only be "quite different". (also remains true even for things like FCheck vs. Flipbook) On that note BTW, that video does look fine if you overlook all the "I guess it's just different" and the "kinda weird, but once you get use to it" (notably about going into point mode deselecting objects in the outliner.. if shapes displayed, in point mode the outliner shows it's accessing the transform node..) On 02/27/15 10:41, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote: That vimeo video looks fine, but I can't make sense of the quoted forum discussion below. The video is telling that you Maya always "branch select", i.e. when you pick a parent, the children are high
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
The main difference between parenting in Maya and Softimage is the hierarchy scaling. http://www.softimageblog.com/archives/84 be aware of that ;-) On 27 February 2015 at 10:16, Leendert A. Hartog wrote: > Artur Woźniak schreef op 27-2-2015 om 19:01: > > I,ll blame You now. They read this, You know. > > > So when exactly did "they" start reading a Softimage related list? > I was under the impression, that part of our predicament was that they > actually hardly ever did... > :D > > Greetz > Leendert > > -- > > Leendert A. Hartog AKA Hirazi Blue > Administrator NOT the owner of si-community.com > >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
Artur Woźniak schreef op 27-2-2015 om 19:01: I,ll blame You now. They read this, You know. So when exactly did "they" start reading a Softimage related list? I was under the impression, that part of our predicament was that they actually hardly ever did... :D Greetz Leendert -- Leendert A. Hartog AKA Hirazi Blue Administrator NOT the owner of si-community.com
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
Hahaha, great concept... Sent from my Samsung device psif i hear one more Maya guy say "there's a script for that", i may scream back, "then why did you buy the software" :)
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
I,ll blame You now. They read this, You know. Artur Wysłane z iPhone'a Dnia 27 lut 2015 o godz. 18:43 Mirko Jankovic napisał(a): just wait when AD figures out that they can create asset store like Unity have now and then most of the everyday uses you will got store to buy. out of the box maya great nice looking grid in viewport. you wanna have transform manipulator? go to asset store ;) On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:04 PM, john clausing wrote: > thanks Luc-Eric, > > honestly, this all seems like a VERY important thing for me to > understand...(sets, groups, locators, hierarchy), but it seems difficult > to place these issues in analogous terms with Softimage, which to be frank, > is how I "know" 3d. > > so i guess i just need to spend more time with Maya workflow than i had > anticipated. > just another reason to lament the demise of Softimage. > > john > > psif i hear one more Maya guy say "there's a script for that", i may > scream back, "then why did you buy the software" :) > > > On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:42 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau < > luceri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That vimeo video looks fine, but I can't make sense of the quoted > forum discussion below. > > The video is telling that you Maya always "branch select", i.e. when > you pick a parent, the children are highlighted as well. So if you're > still modelling on the components, the whole branch will be enabled > for component editing, which you may not want. In that case, so you > can either pick the shape in the Outliner, or just press Arrow Down on > the keyboard, which is the pick walking hotkey. > > The Shape is like the Primitive in XSI, but since people don't usually > deal with the primitives in XSI, I guess that's not really useful. > But so that you know, in XSI, there is the primitive, like "polygon > mesh" or "Nurbs", which contains the geometry but has no transform, > and it's placed in the 3d world by being put under a X3DObject, which > has a Kinematics property. > > In Maya, it's the Shape node that contains the geometry, and the > Transform node places it in the 3d word, with the additional twist > that you can put multiple shapes under the same transform. I'm not > really aware of any problem with this, but people tend to build > legends around things they don't often see. > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, john clausing > wrote: > > i've had the following conversation regarding parenting and hierarchies > over > > on the he3d/maya page. > > would someone mind translating into Softilanguage for me? this seems > like a > > crucial difference to me. > > > > and i don't like it > > > > as follows: > > > > > > This is probably helpful for anyone transitioning from Softimage to Maya. > > ( by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this, but > > he's making a point) > > > > https://vimeo.com/120223100 > > > > "by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this" > > because it causes some sort of problem in Maya (that i don't get), or > > because you just don't like it? > > > > Yes, it can cause problems in Maya. Often problems specific to rendering. > > It's been a while, but I think it involved material mixups or visibility > > mixups. It's fine to parent to things that aren't renderable, like > groups, > > locators, even splines, though I'm not 100 percent on splines, as I > usually > > use constraints in such a case. > > > > you can't parent one object to another? really?.had no idea > > > > it can cause skewing on the objects under objects.. and yes, you can > parent > > under objects, just don't parent the dag of shapes under the dag of other > > shapes. There is really no reason to parent a cube under another cube. > > > > i think us Softimage guys have a whole 'nother idea of what "parenting" > > is..do i understand this to mean that "don't parent constraint > objects > > to one another",.rather than "don't assemble them in a hierarchy"? > > essentially, "middle drag" vs "parent -r", etc > > > > yeah, parent -r -shape, is just to parent shapes,, middleDrag/"p"/parent > is > > to parent transforms Its okay, but not usual to parent multiple shapes > under > > one transform, and certain exports like FBX really don't like when you do > > that. but ys, Softimage parenting is similar to sets . There is no > hierachy > > in that sense. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
just wait when AD figures out that they can create asset store like Unity have now and then most of the everyday uses you will got store to buy. out of the box maya great nice looking grid in viewport. you wanna have transform manipulator? go to asset store ;) On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 6:04 PM, john clausing wrote: > thanks Luc-Eric, > > honestly, this all seems like a VERY important thing for me to > understand...(sets, groups, locators, hierarchy), but it seems difficult > to place these issues in analogous terms with Softimage, which to be frank, > is how I "know" 3d. > > so i guess i just need to spend more time with Maya workflow than i had > anticipated. > just another reason to lament the demise of Softimage. > > john > > psif i hear one more Maya guy say "there's a script for that", i may > scream back, "then why did you buy the software" :) > > > On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:42 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau < > luceri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > That vimeo video looks fine, but I can't make sense of the quoted > forum discussion below. > > The video is telling that you Maya always "branch select", i.e. when > you pick a parent, the children are highlighted as well. So if you're > still modelling on the components, the whole branch will be enabled > for component editing, which you may not want. In that case, so you > can either pick the shape in the Outliner, or just press Arrow Down on > the keyboard, which is the pick walking hotkey. > > The Shape is like the Primitive in XSI, but since people don't usually > deal with the primitives in XSI, I guess that's not really useful. > But so that you know, in XSI, there is the primitive, like "polygon > mesh" or "Nurbs", which contains the geometry but has no transform, > and it's placed in the 3d world by being put under a X3DObject, which > has a Kinematics property. > > In Maya, it's the Shape node that contains the geometry, and the > Transform node places it in the 3d word, with the additional twist > that you can put multiple shapes under the same transform. I'm not > really aware of any problem with this, but people tend to build > legends around things they don't often see. > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, john clausing > wrote: > > i've had the following conversation regarding parenting and hierarchies > over > > on the he3d/maya page. > > would someone mind translating into Softilanguage for me? this seems > like a > > crucial difference to me. > > > > and i don't like it > > > > as follows: > > > > > > This is probably helpful for anyone transitioning from Softimage to Maya. > > ( by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this, but > > he's making a point) > > > > https://vimeo.com/120223100 > > > > "by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this" > > because it causes some sort of problem in Maya (that i don't get), or > > because you just don't like it? > > > > Yes, it can cause problems in Maya. Often problems specific to rendering. > > It's been a while, but I think it involved material mixups or visibility > > mixups. It's fine to parent to things that aren't renderable, like > groups, > > locators, even splines, though I'm not 100 percent on splines, as I > usually > > use constraints in such a case. > > > > you can't parent one object to another? really?.had no idea > > > > it can cause skewing on the objects under objects.. and yes, you can > parent > > under objects, just don't parent the dag of shapes under the dag of other > > shapes. There is really no reason to parent a cube under another cube. > > > > i think us Softimage guys have a whole 'nother idea of what "parenting" > > is..do i understand this to mean that "don't parent constraint > objects > > to one another",.rather than "don't assemble them in a hierarchy"? > > essentially, "middle drag" vs "parent -r", etc > > > > yeah, parent -r -shape, is just to parent shapes,, middleDrag/"p"/parent > is > > to parent transforms Its okay, but not usual to parent multiple shapes > under > > one transform, and certain exports like FBX really don't like when you do > > that. but ys, Softimage parenting is similar to sets . There is no > hierachy > > in that sense. > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
thanks Luc-Eric, honestly, this all seems like a VERY important thing for me to understand...(sets, groups, locators, hierarchy), but it seems difficult to place these issues in analogous terms with Softimage, which to be frank, is how I "know" 3d. so i guess i just need to spend more time with Maya workflow than i had anticipated.just another reason to lament the demise of Softimage. john psif i hear one more Maya guy say "there's a script for that", i may scream back, "then why did you buy the software" :) On Friday, February 27, 2015 10:42 AM, Luc-Eric Rousseau wrote: That vimeo video looks fine, but I can't make sense of the quoted forum discussion below. The video is telling that you Maya always "branch select", i.e. when you pick a parent, the children are highlighted as well. So if you're still modelling on the components, the whole branch will be enabled for component editing, which you may not want. In that case, so you can either pick the shape in the Outliner, or just press Arrow Down on the keyboard, which is the pick walking hotkey. The Shape is like the Primitive in XSI, but since people don't usually deal with the primitives in XSI, I guess that's not really useful. But so that you know, in XSI, there is the primitive, like "polygon mesh" or "Nurbs", which contains the geometry but has no transform, and it's placed in the 3d world by being put under a X3DObject, which has a Kinematics property. In Maya, it's the Shape node that contains the geometry, and the Transform node places it in the 3d word, with the additional twist that you can put multiple shapes under the same transform. I'm not really aware of any problem with this, but people tend to build legends around things they don't often see. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, john clausing wrote: > i've had the following conversation regarding parenting and hierarchies over > on the he3d/maya page. > would someone mind translating into Softilanguage for me? this seems like a > crucial difference to me. > > and i don't like it > > as follows: > > > This is probably helpful for anyone transitioning from Softimage to Maya. > ( by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this, but > he's making a point) > > https://vimeo.com/120223100 > > "by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this" > because it causes some sort of problem in Maya (that i don't get), or > because you just don't like it? > > Yes, it can cause problems in Maya. Often problems specific to rendering. > It's been a while, but I think it involved material mixups or visibility > mixups. It's fine to parent to things that aren't renderable, like groups, > locators, even splines, though I'm not 100 percent on splines, as I usually > use constraints in such a case. > > you can't parent one object to another? really?.had no idea > > it can cause skewing on the objects under objects.. and yes, you can parent > under objects, just don't parent the dag of shapes under the dag of other > shapes. There is really no reason to parent a cube under another cube. > > i think us Softimage guys have a whole 'nother idea of what "parenting" > is..do i understand this to mean that "don't parent constraint objects > to one another",.rather than "don't assemble them in a hierarchy"? > essentially, "middle drag" vs "parent -r", etc > > yeah, parent -r -shape, is just to parent shapes,, middleDrag/"p"/parent is > to parent transforms Its okay, but not usual to parent multiple shapes under > one transform, and certain exports like FBX really don't like when you do > that. but ys, Softimage parenting is similar to sets . There is no hierachy > in that sense. > > > >
Re: parenting in Softimage vs. Maya.....confusion
That vimeo video looks fine, but I can't make sense of the quoted forum discussion below. The video is telling that you Maya always "branch select", i.e. when you pick a parent, the children are highlighted as well. So if you're still modelling on the components, the whole branch will be enabled for component editing, which you may not want. In that case, so you can either pick the shape in the Outliner, or just press Arrow Down on the keyboard, which is the pick walking hotkey. The Shape is like the Primitive in XSI, but since people don't usually deal with the primitives in XSI, I guess that's not really useful. But so that you know, in XSI, there is the primitive, like "polygon mesh" or "Nurbs", which contains the geometry but has no transform, and it's placed in the 3d world by being put under a X3DObject, which has a Kinematics property. In Maya, it's the Shape node that contains the geometry, and the Transform node places it in the 3d word, with the additional twist that you can put multiple shapes under the same transform. I'm not really aware of any problem with this, but people tend to build legends around things they don't often see. On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM, john clausing wrote: > i've had the following conversation regarding parenting and hierarchies over > on the he3d/maya page. > would someone mind translating into Softilanguage for me? this seems like a > crucial difference to me. > > and i don't like it > > as follows: > > > This is probably helpful for anyone transitioning from Softimage to Maya. > ( by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this, but > he's making a point) > > https://vimeo.com/120223100 > > "by the way, never, ever ever ever, parent under objects like this" > because it causes some sort of problem in Maya (that i don't get), or > because you just don't like it? > > Yes, it can cause problems in Maya. Often problems specific to rendering. > It's been a while, but I think it involved material mixups or visibility > mixups. It's fine to parent to things that aren't renderable, like groups, > locators, even splines, though I'm not 100 percent on splines, as I usually > use constraints in such a case. > > you can't parent one object to another? really?.had no idea > > it can cause skewing on the objects under objects.. and yes, you can parent > under objects, just don't parent the dag of shapes under the dag of other > shapes. There is really no reason to parent a cube under another cube. > > i think us Softimage guys have a whole 'nother idea of what "parenting" > is..do i understand this to mean that "don't parent constraint objects > to one another",.rather than "don't assemble them in a hierarchy"? > essentially, "middle drag" vs "parent -r", etc > > yeah, parent -r -shape, is just to parent shapes,, middleDrag/"p"/parent is > to parent transforms Its okay, but not usual to parent multiple shapes under > one transform, and certain exports like FBX really don't like when you do > that. but ys, Softimage parenting is similar to sets . There is no hierachy > in that sense. > > > >
