Holy Shit Gmail! Sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to Eric in another thread, how it literally jumped me to this thread upon hitting send I have not the faintest clue about :)
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Raffaele Fragapane < raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Don't you have some Canadian jobs to steal? > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Sebastien Sterling < > sebastien.sterl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why not petition SDK improvement ? >> >> on a side note, has anyone seen the updates to mudbox ?! the new topology >> tools look pretty sassy ! >> >> >> On 10 April 2013 18:21, Eric Cosky <e...@cosky.com> wrote: >> >>> Just to add to the discussion, when I made EssGeo (a geometry plugin, >>> http://www.boundingboxgames.com/tools/essgeo) I had to disable a couple >>> of features due to problems with cluster management. Namely, a random >>> cluster op and a greeble op. I think they could have been pretty useful >>> tools.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I made an imgur gallery that showed the features I had to abandon, check >>> it out here: http://imgur.com/a/5T7v0**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> It’s been a while since I wrote all this, but if memory serves I >>> couldn’t find what I needed for cluster management in the C++ API, so I had >>> to resort to this sort of thing which basically builds a VB command to make >>> changes to clusters:**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> CString prefix = cluster.GetFullName() + L", " + pname + L".poly[";**** >>> >>> >>> if(ecount > 0)**** >>> >>> >>> {**** >>> >>> >>> CString arg = prefix + L"0-" + CString(CValue(pcount-1)) + L"]";**** >>> >>> >>> args[0] = arg;**** >>> >>> >>> status = Application().ExecuteCommand(L"RemoveFromCluster", args, val);* >>> *** >>> >>> >>> DEBUG_ASSERT_OK(status);**** >>> >>> >>> }**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> This of course is pretty slow compared to a proper native API, but it >>> generally solved that part of the problem and in practice wasn’t a >>> performance problem since clusters didn’t change all the time.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Unfortunately I had to yank these features because I could never get >>> them stable. Changing anything that changed cluster data had the potential >>> to crash Softimage. I usually assume when something doesn’t work that it’s >>> my fault, because there always seems to be a tendency for things to >>> actually turn out to be my fault the moment I point the finger somewhere >>> else, but in this case I wound up convinced the cluster management >>> internals of Softimage was buggy and there was nothing I could do about it. >>> I’d love to be wrong so I could fix my plugin but this thread suggests >>> otherwise.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> If someone on the Softimage dev team would like the source code to this >>> plugin along with an already-built version with these features enabled in >>> order to fix the crash and see a specific example of what cluster API >>> changes would be useful, I’d be happy to provide it.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> -Eric Cosky**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto: >>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Sebastien >>> Sterling >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 09, 2013 5:40 PM >>> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >>> *Subject:* Re: Softimage 2014**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> If these things are to hard to accomplish for third party people, then >>> what realistic chance is there that they will ever be implemented ? is what >>> i want to know, Autodesk don't exactly have a good track record of treating >>> there customers as a valid source of input... is there some secret ballot >>> where this stuff gets decided ?**** >>> >>> Also, is the problem that the SDK is just too archaic ? does it need a >>> complete rewrite ? or are aspects of the code unavailable or illegal to be >>> changed to/by scripters ? if so does Autodesk have the ability to make the >>> code available ?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> On 9 April 2013 09:27, Eugen Sares <softim...@keyvis.at> wrote:**** >>> >>> Oil on my fire. >>> That cluster SDK restriction really really sucks. It is the reason why >>> there never were any good topology/modelling addons from 3rd parties, which >>> leads to stagantion if there aren't any new "factory" modelling tools >>> brought also. >>> In 3ds max or Maya, all kinds of plugins are available, completely >>> natural. Not so in Softimage. >>> The few ICE modelling tools like Cap are nice, but slow. Native code is >>> nice and fast. >>> >>> Luc-Eric mentioned once, ICE was meant to be the "new SDK", that's why >>> this cluster update mechanism has been implemented for ICE already. >>> Imho that's an excuse. ICE complements the SDK, it is NOT a replacement! >>> Cluster updates should be supported by the SDK as well, even if it is >>> complicated, and thus somewhat of a challenge for a 3rd party dev. >>> Try us! Provide a good code example alongside, and we'll do fine. >>> >>> Be wise and do it. Please. >>> >>> >>> >>> Am 09.04.2013 09:08, schrieb Piotrek Marczak:**** >>> >>> Just give us proper SDK and let community do the rest. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> "**** >>> >>> Softimage currently does not fully support custom topology operators. >>> The problem is that any cluster or cluster property will not properly >>> update when a topology operator adds or removes points that belong to the >>> cluster. In the worst case Softimage may crash. Hence custom topology >>> operators should only be used in the more limited scenario of objects that >>> do not have any clusters. Once the geometry is ready it would be possible >>> to freeze the object to remove the custom topology operators (but leave the >>> result of their evaluation), then to add the clusters and other operators. >>> **** >>> >>> "**** >>> >>> ??**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> 2013/4/8 olivier jeannel <olivier.jean...@noos.fr>**** >>> >>> They do modo for birds ? >>> >>> Le 08/04/2013 20:27, pete...@skynet.be a écrit :**** >>> >>> I’m pretty sure there’s neither gentlemen nor ladies on this list.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> as for Modo vs SI – a little bird tells me there’s more important issues >>> at stake than selection.**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> *From:* Rob Chapman <tekano....@gmail.com> **** >>> >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 3:35 PM**** >>> >>> *To:* ron...@toonafish.nl ; softimage@listproc.autodesk.com **** >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: Softimage 2014**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> now now gentlemen, there are ladies present on the list too! **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> lets just say , when it comes to apps and selection methods, leave the >>> race courses for the race horses..!**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> :)**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> On 8 April 2013 15:32, Toonafish <ron...@toonafish.nl> wrote:**** >>> >>> ...but I prefer brunettes with bigger boobs. If you get the idea J >>> >>> That's prolly because bigger boobs aren't obstructed so much, so they >>> are much easier to select in shaded mode ;-) >>> >>> - Ronald**** >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
