baq8 at op.pl
Fri Mar 31 13:56:04 EST 2006
thanks for info everyone
Sean Lewkiw wrote:
> I'd have to agree with Ben.
> What DOPs really needs is more documentation, (the usual refrain).
> One other problem we came up against was how to break things up, Ben
> put together a clever cookie based DA that worked well, but it's still
> a huge pain. He also came up with a stamping based way to loop
> through all your primitive groups and perform operations on them, (so,
> for example, you can orient all of your geo along an axis so that the
> SDFs can be created nicely, or to replace your high-res geo with
> bounding boxes).
> Some things do need to be a lot easier, like telling DOPs when to
> release something into a sim. It's possible now, but again, not
> easy. There also needs to be some way to pre-flight geo to make sure
> it is not going to freak out when it gets released into a sim.
> Having said all that, it does provide really nice, realistic, and
> relatively fast results once everything is set up.
> Ben Schrijvers wrote:
>> Hi Rafal,
>> Yes a one click solution would be very wrong. What if you have 500+
>> objects, do you really want to do 500+ clicks?
>> DOP's have been set up to be input independant so you can set up a
>> sim network without knowing exactly how the final input objects look.
>> So a setup that works with 3 objects will work with 300 as well, you
>> just change the input. This is in line with the rest of Houdini.
>> Because of that you only need to do the setup one time and just reuse
>> the same network later to do other sims.
>> I must admit that in the learning process over the past months I've
>> gebuild my DOP networks a couple of times. But once you know what
>> you're doing that's no problem.
>> Actually the biggest part of the setup was done in SOP's. Creating
>> primitive groups and finding ways to process each group as a single..
>> chunk of geometry.
>> Setting attributes that where used in DOP's to trigger something or
>> set initial parameters.
>> We didn't do a lot with constrains... yet. They do seems a bit
>> strange but I can't compare with other 3D apps.
>> Check out Xmen3 when it comes out. There's some large scale
>> destruction that we used DOP's RBD for.
>> We were not planning to do a lot but as people saw the result we were
>> overloaded with work.
>> rafal wrote:
>>> Hi people.
>>> I would like to hear your opinion about new dynamics in Houdini.
>>> I have much more experience with other 3d app but really would like
>>> to do some cool stuff with DOPs but... After few days of playing
>>> with it I get enough. Maybe it's just me but in my opinion it takes
>>> too much time to set all these stuff to work correct. In example in
>>> other 3D app I just select geo and set it as rigidBody active or
>>> passive or just can apply gravity to geo and it follows down. Is
>>> this approach (just one click and make it rigid) wrong?
>>> Also rigidBodyConstraints are strange to me. What U people think
>>> about DOPs comparing it to another dynamics engines/solutions in
>>> other apps?
>>> Have U more advanced Houdini users plan to use it in any movies?
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list