[Sidefx-houdini-list] New obfuscation of Lookat - am I the only one saddened?

François Duchesneau houdini at trinix.ca
Sun May 7 14:23:10 EDT 2017

I haven't had the chance to play with it yet but I'm willing to give it 
a chance. There is one thing right away I see could be improved but I 
don't know if there's a reason for not doing it. Instead of writing 
"constraints" only in the Constraints field, if we type 
"constraints/lookat" then it makes it easier to get directly to the 
parameters on the look at node through the arrow.

Also, you don't have to use the shelf, just click on the chop icon next 
the constraints field on your camera and you have the option of creating 
different types of constraints.


On 05/07/2017 01:27 PM, Peter Bowmar wrote:
> Hi,
> Just curious if I'm the only one saddened by the new, much clumsier, Lookat
> "constraints" on Cameras, Lights etc?
> I recall commenting on how the multiple levels of obfuscation and lack of
> UI saddened me before, but now that I actually want to use it for
> something... wow it really slows down the workflow.
> -You _must_ use a shelf tool for something that previously was a single
> drag and drop operation. Massive workflow slowdown.
> -the actual parameters that get created are buried on nodes inside the
> object itself (!!) so both obfuscation and a massive workflow slowdown as
> you jump contexts
> I get that it's "more powerful" in the sense it's a CHOPnet you can
> intercept and manipulate, and I think that's great. However the tradeoffs
> aren't worth it since you don't actually manipulate the CHOP data in 99% of
> simple "LookAt" cases.
> I'm not opposed to the actual calculation being done in CHOPs, I love CHOPs
> like any self-respecting Houdini zealot.
> I just the think the way the UI and requirement for a shelf-tool has been
> done is a massive leap backwards and makes me sad :(

More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list