How can you go and spoil all this with a simple solution? If it
doesn't require coding to fix then I'm out of a job ;)
On 7/24/07, Chris Marshall <chris(at)eclipsecreative.co.uk> wrote:
If Soft could put a null connection point on the material that could
accept many inputs, then any floating nodes would automatically be
connected to this null point via an invisible connection. That way, the
only way of losing a node would be to delete it.
You can only assume an actual solution is non-trivial, or it would have
been implemented by now.
Guillaume Laforge wrote:
> Or you can create an unconnected layer directly on the material. I
> think this feature is never used. At least it can be a good place to
> plug your "temporary tree".
>
> 1/2
>
> Guillaume Laforge
>
>
> peter boeykens a écrit :
>> rather put it in photon volume, you're extremely unlikely to ever use
>> that port :-)
>> I use this all the time, never had any problems with it, doesnt slow
>> down in the slightest bit.
>>
>> you could argue that part of the tree gets translated to mental ray,
>> so it would somehow take a bit of time and memory - but as long as
>> you're not putting a zillion nodes you wouldnt possible notice a
>> difference.
>>
>> only issue is that certain shaders, (i guess its phenomena?) can be
>> only plugged into the surface port so you cant use this trick.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Williams" <w1343(at)comcast.net>
>> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 3:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
>>
>>
>> Bill Blakesley showed me a neat trick to use until Soft gets the issue
>> addressed. Take a mix 8 node and plug all kind of potential branches you
>> might like to keep into it. Then plug that into and unused slot of the
>> Material port. Something like the photon port if you arent using GI
>> etc. My
>> question is, do those branches still get calculated even if Photons are
>> turned off in the render globals?
>> -wayne
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ignasi Vidal"
>> <ignasi(at)elastoplanet.com>
>> To: <XSI(at)Softimage.COM>
>> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 6:59 AM
>> Subject: Re: FX tree nodes vs. render tree nodes
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I use a "switch color" every time I have an option that I want to
>>> keep in the future... just a workaround.
>>>
>>> todd akita escribió:
>>>> Right now if I think there's something in the RT I may want to keep
>>>> around then I ctrl-C copy it.
>>>>
>>>> -T
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Williams wrote:
>>>>> The fix for the rendertree nodes disappearing has been asked for
>>>>> since I started using XSI at v3. Perhaps this is something that
>>>>> CAN'T be fixed without breaking a ton of other stuff? Soft usually
>>>>> listens and attends to user requests like this fairly quickly,
>>>>> especially when they are asked for as much as this one has been.
>>>>> The silence from the devs on the issue leads me to think it's a
>>>>> bit tougher to fix then what we'd all like to think. But then
>>>>> again, the Soft devs are always all ninja and busting out feature
>>>>> packed releases out of nowhere. Maybe they just don't have the
>>>>> time to fix something they consider not that major of a bug just yet?
>>>>> -Wayne
---
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
