fnar
________________________________
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM on behalf of Richard Perry
Sent: Thu 06/03/2008 01:25
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
Alas, poor Aldis! I knew him, Raffaele: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.
How's about a new schematic view,eh, guv'nor?
---- Original Message -----
From: Halfdan Ingvarsson <mailto:hingvars(at)Softimage.COM>
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:54 AM
Subject: RE: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
My kingdom for better a schematic?
- 1/2
________________________________
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Richard Perry
Sent: 05-Mar-2008 19:47
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
Forget improvements to the Schematic view, I'd like to see a William Shakespeare window inside XSI. Maybe it could implement a "Beast with two backs" feature.
Kim?
----- Original Message -----
From: Eriya Ito <mailto:eriya.ito(at)grapecity.com>
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:24 AM
Subject: RE: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
Either you were very successful on getting everybody pretend to believe your pun,
Or your Yahoo account is being attacked by someone who is opposing Microsoft's merge.
Why Shakespeare?
Good day all!
Another 'E'
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Eric Lampi
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 2:09 AM
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Subject: Re: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
Uhhh.. WTF? I hit reply to RE: Schematic View and it shows up as Free Shakespeare??
That's the most bizarre email bug I have ever seen.
E
Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist
----- Original Message ----
From: Eric Lampi <ericlampi(at)yahoo.com>
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 9:55:39 AM
Subject: Free Shakespeare (limit two Shakespeare per customer)
Models nulls, are a bold box, materials, a box with slanted sides, but not much else gives you the ability to tell what is what unless you either bring up it's PPG or see the highlighted object.
It wouldn't be so bad if, for example, a curve's node were a curved line, a poly some kind of angled shape or a NURB as a four sided shape with curved edges, nulls could be a +. You see where I am going with this...
Or at the very least give us the ability to change the shape to any one of a collection of predefined icon shapes as you already can do with nulls. You can see at a glance what is what without having to open up your hierarchy stack in explorer. The fewer clicks the better I say.
Just a thought.
E
Freelance 3-D Animator, F/X Artist
----- Original Message ----
From: Luc-Eric Rousseau <lucer(at)Softimage.COM>
To: XSI(at)Softimage.COM
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 10:16:58 PM
Subject: RE: Schematic View
Yep, I get what you mean, thanks for the feedback.
________________________________
From: owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM [mailto:owner-xsi(at)Softimage.COM] On Behalf Of Bradley Gabe
Posted At: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 8:53 PM
Posted To: xsi
Conversation: Schematic View
Subject: Re: Schematic View
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.4 - Release Date: 03/03/2008 00:00
<<winmail.dat>>
