[Sidefx-houdini-list] Different otl version per node instance

François Duchesneau sidefx at trinix.ca
Tue May 10 11:07:32 EDT 2011

Thanks everyone. I'll talk about that with people at work. It looks like 
I didn't have a good idea.


Ken Ouellette wrote:
> 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.
> -k
> 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.
>> François
> _______________________________________________
> 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