DATE:	<<	>>		THREAD:	<<	>>		INDEX:	Main	Thread

Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes

Date : Wed, 18 Jul 2007 14:59:30 +0100

To : XSI(at)Softimage.COM

From : "Dan Yargici" <danyargici(at)gmail.com>

Subject : Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes

I totally disagree. Sorry, but I don't see any advantage in making them the same. :/

I definitely agree about nodes being zapped from the rendertree though.

One thing I'd really like to see to complement the FXtree is the old media illusion reels facility. Seeing as we have half of illusion already implemented, why leave that out? ;)

DAN

Follow-Ups:
- Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
  - From: "Kris Rivel" <krisrivel(at)gmail.com>

References:
- FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
  - From: "Kris Rivel" <krisrivel(at)gmail.com>
- Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
  - From: todd akita <takita(at)earthlink.net>
- Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
  - From: "Kris Rivel" <krisrivel(at)gmail.com>

DATE:	<<	>>		THREAD:	<<	>>		INDEX:	Main	Thread

Previous by Date: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
Next by Date: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
Previous by Thread: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
Next by Thread: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread

Search the XSI List archives here or use the advanced search form to search across mailing lists. Searching help is available.