Re: Schematic View

["Bradley Gabe" <withanar(at)gmail.com>]

I think the theme is summed up from my earlier reply to your email:

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008:

I would hate to see the schematic broken by making it too detailed. However, based on how I use it now (which is heavily influenced by how I used it in si3d) for keeping track of hierarchy, scene organization, and relationships at the x3dobject level (aka rigging), it wouldn't kill the schematic if we could make relational changes by clicking and dragging on the hierarchy, _expression_, and operator lines we already see in the interface.

The ability to "rewire operators" is not the same as making "full operator
connections." I think we are getting confused again in semantics and
pedantics.

By "full operator connections" you may be thinking something like the
render tree or moondust node graph, where it is required to see many
potential input and output channels on the nodes, and have the ability
to add new nodes, and convert between data types, etc. I think of that
kind of work as node-flow programming, the place where you build new
operators or edit operator architecture.

What we've been asking for in the schematic is rewiring existing
operators, not designing new ones or fundamentally modifying them. Once
an operator has already been assigned (and I'm including constraints,
expressions, SCOPs, default XSI operators, and custom moondust
operators), the schematic currently displays a simple relation line
linking the X3D Node where its operator exists to all the other X3D
Nodes that have some connection to that operator. At this point, all of
the local address ports have been set for the op to function properly,
such as kinematics driving a constraint, or some parameter driving an
_expression_. It should be possible to disconnect the link, and drag and
drop it over a new X3D Node. If that new node has the same matching
local address to the original, then the operator port gets rewired to
the new X3D Node, otherwise not.

The more I think about this, the more I realize it's going to be a
necessity for Moondust. In a production environment, you will have
those who are comfortable programming in a node-flow environment (
TD's), and others who need to use the custom operators, but won't be
comfortable outside the explorer or schematic (animators). If you have
a custom Moondust operator that connects to a dozen meshes, curves, and
nulls in your scene, it would be far more workflow efficient if you
could select those operator link lines in the schematic and move them
between X3D nodes, rather than trying to find the right input nodes in
the Moondust tree.

-Brad

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsilist(at)googlemail.com> wrote:

Fair enough Luc, but that was Brad's recap not the backbone of the whole thread. I would say the largest majority of the opinions on the thread seem to point toward the need of better layout tools first and foremost (or at the very least not disagreeing with it), regardless of what view will one day replace or complement the schematic. Same goes for hdn and maya's brief mentiones, I don't think they were really the key of the thread nor the recurrent theme :)

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <lucer(at)softimage.com> wrote:

From: Raffaele Fragapane

I don't know how it keeps happening, or if somebody is making a conscious effort not to read the sense in what's being written, but nobody seems to want full operators connections in the schematic, don't know where you read that Luc.

From the post I quoted in my reply:

From: Bradley Gabe

[…] As far as improvements go, it also seems there are two areas, aesthetic improvements such as node size and layout, and functionality improvements such as the ability to rewire operator connections.

 

And there were a couple of posts referring to Houdini, and Hyper Graph, which is the view on Maya DAG, and not merely just a relation viewer.

 

 

From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Raffaele Fragapane
Posted At: March-04-08 6:40 AM

Posted To: xsi
Conversation: Schematic View
Subject: Re: Schematic View

 

Yeah, please no more views, please!
The proposed added functions would NOT change the schematic one bit, just make it more useful.

I don't know how it keeps happening, or if somebody is making a conscious effort not to read the sense in what's being written, but nobody seems to want full operators connections in the schematic, don't know where you read that Luc.

All people have been asking for is better layout tools/options and possibly some sort of access to it. That doesn't change the "schematic experience"tm one flying iota for anybody who uses it in its current form, it enhanches it for them as well if anything.

If we could also reconnect constraints that would be a bonus, and that also would NOT change the current "schematic experience"tm in the least. All it needs is ONE button somewhere to turn "connection safe" on or off, with on as a default. That way people who don't want it can move on blissfully unaware, people who want it can activate it and middle click their way to connection joy or whatever.

If we get yet another window that does more then I could possibly ever need (not to mention half of what it does would probably be the same of some other window but worse) I'll get a retro-3D fit and ebay an amiga2000 to run silver on.

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 11:08 AM, kim aldis <xsi(at)kim-aldis.co.uk> wrote:

I agre