[Sidefx-houdini-list] Different otl version per node instance
ken.ouellette at gmail.com
Tue May 10 09:26:32 EDT 2011
I think Jeff's comments are spot on.
I don't get to use Houdini as much, but I ate a lot of ground working with
OTLs when they first came into existence and I admit there are a few factors
that can trip you up. There is a lot of pre-planning and pre-conceiving that
has to be done to walk through usage and workflow with OTLs. But you have
one "type" you can upgrade it and point your hipfile to a newer or older
version of that "type", some of the changes that exist in your definitions
will either work with the data in your file or it won't. In some cases you
have to plan around the changes. In other cases you need to crack the OTL
open and just get it done.
I went back to your original question "I just want to deal with Houdini
assets like I would for any file called in reference in Maya for example."
It might be helpful to consider what is it about the reference that you were
hoping to get out of OTLs. It could be a usage or design consideration and
it might be mean you need to look at the design of your OTLs or what you are
doing with them. Even references will only get you so far in Maya. Reference
edits can be the death of you and even though Maya lets you do things with a
reference it doesn't mean it won't change things under the hood in the
actual maya file so it can actually do what the user has asked to do. I'm
thinking an example is applying a deformer on a shapeNode that is coming
from a reference. Reference or not, maya inserts new suffix for the node in
question and creates a new one Orig and Deform. Once you open up an OTL you
have the same problem trying to retain some of the versioning and promotion
issues from newer definitions, but it is a choice that has to be made.
Designing a structured way to branch, iterate (version up) and then
republish a type into the pipeline is a legit way to go as well.
So much fun.
2011/5/10 François Duchesneau <sidefx at trinix.ca>
> Lots of interesting ideas so far but nobody has given an opinion on why it
> couldn't be possible to make a new feature to allow more than one version at
> the same time of the same otl definition.
> People from SideFx maybe could comment about it.
More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list