[Sidefx-houdini-list] New obfuscation of Lookat - am I the only one saddened?
parker.jon at gmail.com
Sun May 7 15:14:13 EDT 2017
I agree, Peter.
I am FOR the actual logic being implemented in CHOPS, but the UI as it
is currently, is a big step backwards. The implementation calls on
a lot of scripting / shelf tooling to work... well, if that's the
case, why not just make the constraints action button create spare
parameters that mimic the old workflow? Plus, no matter what you do,
adding a constraint from the action button forces you to do something
in the 3D viewport. A big drag when it's not needed.
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Peter Bowmar <pbowmar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 :(
> Peter B
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list