That would make the TreeView very useful… nice ideas! > On 20 Oct 2017, at 09:42, Tim Bolland <tim_boll...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I have campaigned for the tree view to allow control over hierarchies and > exhibit other useful features similar to Soft. These would include > manipulating parent/child relationships, duplicating objects and deleting > objects. I was also asking for an option to see and edit parameters on the > object node (such as kinematics and custom promoted parameters). > > They seemed interested in this and have submitted and RFE for the changes > (Submitted as RFE (ID=85595)), so fingers crossed this is coming in a future > update! > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > <softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> on behalf of Ponthieux, Joseph G. > (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] <j.ponthi...@nasa.gov> > Sent: 19 October 2017 19:54 > To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com > Subject: RE: Houdini hierarchical organization > > Olivier, > > Yes, that’s what I was looking for. Though it really isn’t Tree View but > rather Network View in List Mode . Apparently its not possible to make Tree > View behave the way I was expecting it to. But I guess there is a greater > advantage to having Tree View and Network View in use simultaneously as long > as you understand that Tree View is neither procedural nor spatial in its > representation. > > This is useful, and it confirms my initial perception of Tree View. It also > confirms that reconciling the multiple contexts that Network View apparently > governs, procedural vs spatial for example, is going to take a bit more > effort than I originally anticipated. > > > Thanks > > Joey > > <> > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > [mailto:softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] On Behalf Of Olivier Jeannel > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:25 PM > To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=ScFIn7D4C28koShcB40kW_jG5xL8zYOKII9bGEUKYCE&s=ohuEXEToqJg7X6ZaqlvKeAaQsLvTbYU7l5UKLKImT48&e= > <softimage@listproc.autodesk.com> > Subject: Re: Houdini hierarchical organization > > Not sure I understand you well Jopseph, but here a little tutorial with som > "gem" about the tree view > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=ScFIn7D4C28koShcB40kW_jG5xL8zYOKII9bGEUKYCE&s=bFWjwFCeLVZGKXZii1JxLho9Ae8s7KLQJWp4aJUY8yg&e= > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_233232773&d=DwMFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=OKef69kBqPJXx68i4heEfHR30NI_NUub2sbaNk2wwws&s=LxaiEbXJ3vm44MM6t9mv5vJ_ShpJjcEj5uTiecLtIkM&e=> > Apologies if I'm way out of topic. > > 2017-10-19 20:08 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore <jonathan.moo...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonathan.moo...@gmail.com>>: > Apologies for the rushed response as I'm heading out for an event. However, > the tree view in Houdini is best viewed simply as an alternative data > visualisation (best utilised a-z filtering). It's not an organisational view > or a place where you manipulate data. Transform hierarchies should be created > in the Network Editor and you can quickly traverse nesting structures via the > tree view. > > In simple terms the Network Editor is where all major scene manipulations > take place and the Tree View is provided to aid navigation in complex node > structures. > > At least that's the way I've always worked in Houdini. ;) > > jm > > On 19 October 2017 at 16:47, Ponthieux, Joseph G. (LARC-E1A)[LITES II] > <j.ponthi...@nasa.gov <mailto:j.ponthi...@nasa.gov>> wrote: > Hello folks, > > I figured people using Houdini on this list would understand the context of > this question better, coming from a Softimage background, rather than an > exclusive Houdini background. I’ve been trying to learn Houdini the past > several months and I’ve suddenly realized something that has me questioning > some things that may very well be misconceptions on my part, about the > interface. > > To get right to it, is there a way to make Tree View represent object > hierarchical parenting relative transform relationship? > > I’ve discovered that I can create transform relationships just fine in > Network View, but that it has also taken some effort to realize what happens > in Network::Scene is both similar and dissimilar to what happens in > Network::Geometry and neither is exactly reflected the same way in Tree View. > A big part of the dissimilarities that I’m starting realize differ on how, > and when, a network produces transform relationships versus when it permits > procedural editing of object data. > > It seems that Tree View only depicts a kind of “container view” context. Or > rather, what is “inside” something else as opposed to what is the parented > relationship by transform or articulation context. Tree View is great for > finding and selecting something but more or less seems ineffective in setting > up a hierarchy of objects affected by transformation relationships. I’m > finding the only place I can do that is in Network View, and that the nature > of this changes in context somewhat depending upon Network View’s active > object context, whether its Scene or Geometry for example. > > Which gets me to my next question, what and where is the proper way in > Houdini to set up hierarchical relationships of transform context? (Parenting > for articulation purposes) > > I find I can use nulls or geometry in Network::Scene to do this but then I > have to use transforms in Network::Geometry to do the same thing. But > transforms in Network::Geometry also permit instancing of the geometry as > well as transform relationships and the entire behavior of the network in > Geometry seems to permit a higher degree of proceduralism than does the one > at Network::Scene level. While none of this is necessarily problematic, it > more fundamentally raises the question of “what is best practice?”. > > Should Geometry nodes be limited to only creating static objects and > hierarchical articulations established only at Scene level? If so, what nodes > are best used for transform hierarchies? > > Or is reasonable to arrange structures in Geometry nodes that permit > transform articulations? The concern here is, of course, would such > structures end up inadvertently duplicating or instancing geometry where I > think I am setting up transform articulations instead? > > And am I left with the ability to create transform articulation hierarchies > only in Network View and unable to create articulation hierarchies in Tree > View? > > All thoughts or suggestions in this regard would be very welcome. > > -- > Joey Ponthieux > > __________________________________________________ > Opinions stated here-in are strictly those of the author and do not > represent the opinions of NASA or any other party. > > > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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.
