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

Floyd Gillis floyd at afcg.com
Mon May 8 06:10:16 EDT 2017


K.I.S.S.

On 5/8/17 6:45 PM, Andy Nicholas wrote:
> Uggh. Yep. Couldn't agree more. I love that it's in CHOPs (I wasn't a 
> fan of the original design - too black box), but it's a poor attempt 
> at simplifying how people interact with it for so many reasons.
>
> So sure, the GUI presents a simple interface to applying contraints 
> (aside from the annoying viewport picking). But in 90% of cases you 
> still need to modify the look-at axis or change the target object, so 
> you're going to have to drill down anyway and understand the network 
> (that you didn't create) to change parameters. So why try to hide it 
> in the first place? Like you guys said already, it needs to add some 
> spare parameters at the top level so you have direct access.
>
> Looking at the top level object, you're able to tell if an object has 
> constraints, but you have no idea which constraints it actually has. 
> Not to mention that you can't remove them or change their order of 
> evaluation. If you add multiple constraints and drill down to look at 
> the CHOP network, unless you're quite familiar with constraint CHOP 
> networks, you'll still have no idea what constraints you have.
>
> Lastly, it's the old case of being able to add nodes into a tree with 
> a menu system, but good luck if you change or customise the tree 
> yourself. The result of menu operations probably won't give expected 
> behaviour any more.
>
> Sorry to the hardworking SideFX dev team but I find the motivations 
> behind designs like this hard to understand. It's usually as a result 
> of people saying "it's too complicated, can we simplify" without 
> thinking it through. Like I said, I don't have a problem with CHOP 
> constraints,  just how it's hidden behind a pointlessly over 
> simplified interface. It just doesn't add anything.
>
>
>
> On 07/05/2017 18:27, 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 :(
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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