That's really good to hear. I'll need to test more thoroughly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of todd akita
> Sent: 05-April-2006 00:00
> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> Subject: Re: 5.1 asset import question
>
> Seems to be working fine on both particles and hair here.
> The only funny thing I've noticed is that it's bad to set
> your cycling to negative numbers otherwise your geometry gets
> crumpled up real bad. But then again it wasn't like you
> know, really fancy particles with scripted events and
> rendertree stuff...
>
> -T
>
> kim aldis wrote:
> >
> > I'd check out using PO with particles and hair before you
> jump to too
> > many conclusion in that respect, Todd. I've only briefly looked at
> > particles but I didn't have a lot of luck. Not tried hair yet.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM
> >> [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of todd akita
> >> Sent: 04-April-2006 21:18
> >> To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
> >> Subject: Re: 5.1 asset import question
> >>
> >> so you could do some neat things with particle/hair instancing and
> >> get some very nice performance gains by throwing away all
> the rigging
> >> (which can get very heavy depending on the number of
> instance masters
> >> you have).
> >>
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the
> following text in body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following
> text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
