RE: Secondary Shape Madness

["Matt Lind" <speye_21(at)hotmail.com>]

> You can always expect that you'll reach a point where the most
> efficient solution is to simply model what you need, and blend that
> into the performance result.

Yeah, it's called the beginning. ;-)

While it may be more memory efficient to translate a few points than use 
null deformers, I don't think it's by the margin you're assuming.  The 
advantage to using nulls is it gives you more options (even if ugly) - which 
you don't seem to have as you're currently locked into the shape system and 
it's quirks/limitations.  Honestly, what does the shape animation system 
give you that you cannot replicate using null deformers?

Matt

---------------------------
Matt Lind
Animator / Technical Director
Softimage certified instructor:
   Softimage|3D
   Softimage|XSI
Matt(at)Mantom.net



Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
From: withanar(at)stanwinston.com
Subject : RE: Secondary Shape Madness

I'm already using envelopes on a serious of nulls representing a volume.
And that's riding on top of another system, which is riding on top of
another. The thing is, it doesn't matter how many nodes you use in your
deformer. You can always expect that you'll reach a point where the most
efficient solution is to simply model what you need, and blend that into
the performance result.

Each null * envelope weight consumes significantly more memory than the
3 double values required to translate a point. It would be far more
efficient to write a simple scripted op transfering the
Points.PositionArray from one model to another. 

---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo(at)Softimage.COM with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi