[Sidefx-houdini-list] DOPs versus POPs?

Peter Bowmar pbowmar at gmail.com
Tue Aug 21 16:53:31 EDT 2007

 I prefer to do what I can in straight POPs just because it's a lot
easier dealing with local variables etc. DOPs still has a few holes
with regards to easily doing things like randomizing forces per
particle etc. that are trivial in POPs.

Having said that, it is cool you can combine things and use POPs in
combo with everything else, as appropriate... I'm doing particle
fluids right now and having POPs be able to affect them, using forces
etc, is what puts Houdini's fluid particles ahead of everyone else's
by far.


Peter B

> On Tue, 2007-21-08 at 11:38 -0600, Darran Edmundson wrote:
> > I've just finished watching Craig's awesome DOPs DVD ... again.  Near
> > the end of the lessons, it strikes me that a lot of the free space
> > examples could equally be accomplished with POPs.  I realize (and love
> > the fact) that there's always multiple ways to do something in Houdini.
> >   I'm curious though, is there a consensus about when to use DOPs versus
> > POPs?  As cpu power increases, are people starting to use DOPs more and
> > more in places that would have once been the domain of POPs?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Darran.
> >
> --
> "gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer"
> "everything is coincident"
> "Love: the state of suspended anticipation"
> "To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
> a sensible amount of time, you must lie."
> "Easy, is not how you make a living."
> _______________________________________________
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list

More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list