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 <[email protected]>
To: Anto Matkovic <[email protected]>; Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
<[email protected]>
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.
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 _____________________________________
... 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
Scalar and Float32, for instance.
Different names for the same thing, which confuses me a lot in Fabric. There
are SO-many-nodes! It was good to see your opinion on Maya's Transform, which
seems to be the general one.
I never see people messing with the pivots, just grouping lots and lots of
transform groups. I'll keep taking a look at Fabric.
Cheers
So maybe in another life would there be simplicity again,
then also hopefully made by non-self-centered entities (not referring to
employees)
Thanks,
J
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
