Jump to content

Baldric

Members
  • Content count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Baldric

  • Rank
    Peon

Personal Information

  • Name
    Dag Kjetsa
  • Location
    Berlin
  1. Hello everybody, I have an issue that is really puzzling me. I want to copy geo onto other geo in a loop to create an effect where the geo continually grows outward. The issue I have is that the boolean, or perhaps it is something in my loop seem to create the boolean, then merge this with the previous geo or something, which gives me more an more primitives on top of each other until the thing explodes or otherwise fails. Not to mention the increase in primitives per iteration in the loop... It is easy to see this if turning on prim numbers in the attached setup. If I look inside the loop things look ok, but as soon as one is looking at the resulting geo the issue is apparent. I really do want this to create a clean geo, since I will be using attributes on the geo for manipulation of the result. So, can anyone see what I might be doing wrong, or is this a houdini bug, or can it be fixed, and if so, how? Help is much appriciated! Thanks, Doug copy_issue_v001.hiplc
  2. houdini 16 boolean problems

    Hello guys, I am creating a network not too dissimilar to the one that is demonstrated in this vimeo video: ( about 30 minutes in). However, I am using more complex geometry and am looking for a different result. But, I seem to not be able to achieve a clean result. One problem is that even though the boolean is set to union, it sometimes deletes almost all the incoming geo during the boolean process for some reason. Other times it works fine. Another issue is that I get warnings from the boolean that there are issues with non-manifold edges. Indeed I do have the problem that often the union operation does not delete the "inside" geo, and so since this is all in a loop, with scattering points etc. I start to grow geo also inside... Are there any ways to improve the result of the boolean or prep the two geos going into it that is also compilable (this is all inside a compile block)? Thanks, Doug
  3. Cheers for your reply Pazuzu, I think I got it to work properly now. :-) Thanks, Doug
  4. Thanks the link aguywhoneverleaveswor Will definitely look into that @ Pazuzu: Also thanks for the reply. I am sure you are right, but can you be a bit more specific? I do reference the iteration with a spare input, but I take it that you mean that I need to reference more, right? What else is missing? This is the first time I am seriously looking into this. Your replies are appreciated! Cheers, Doug
  5. Hello,I have just made and compared two small test setups where I scatter objects via copying them onto points. I am comparing the newer method of using a foreach and compiled blocks with the older way of copy stamping, because I thought the new method would be so much faster. But somehow it isn't… So now I wonder why that is? Would somebody be so kind to have a look at the setup I made and tell me if I have done everything correctly, or if there is a better way to achieve what I want?Cheers,Doug scattering_issue_v002.hipnc
  6. wedge rop doesn't wedge properly

    Thanks J00ey! That seems to work. Will save my weekend! :-) Cheers!
  7. wedge rop doesn't wedge properly

    Thanks for the reply J00ey, I've tried your suggestion and turned off the caching on the dop network, but it does not improve the situation. Now the first wedge is different to the "original" sim, but the other wedges are now the same as the original. I am really stumped here as to what is going on...
  8. wedge rop doesn't wedge properly

    Hello everyone, today I need to try out the wedge rop for the first time. As far as I can tell I have set things up properly, and very similarly to the help file example, but I run into a strange problem. Basically the wedge rop does not randomize the parameters for each wedge differently. I have set up 4 wedges for a tiny particle system example, and although the wedge files look different from the original sim, they all look exactly the same to each other when I read them in with a file sop. If anyone would take a quick look at the provided example file and explain to me what I am doing wrong I would appreciate it very much indeed. Thanks, Doug wedge_node_issue_dkj_v001.hip
  9. Thanks Dedeks Worked like a charm, and the tutorial was great! Cheers! Doug
  10. Hello everyone, I am trying to move some points in a group along their normals, but want to try out doing so by a wrangle sop instead of the point sop, as I have heard that the point sop is getting a bit out of date. Besides it would be good to learn a bit more VEX code... However, I am new to VEX, and am struggling to get things to work. I know it is probably very simple, so my question is: how do I do this the proper way? Thanks, Doug
  11. detailed point cloud tutorials?

    Thanks for your reply woodenduck. Yes, I have seen them, and several others by him. But I don't think that these particular ones go very in-depth into how to best manage point clouds, what one can and cannot do with these nodes, best approaches etc.. Any other suggestions? Cheers! Doug
  12. Hello, I am just wondering if anyone here can recommend any video tutorials that cover the point cloud nodes and possible uses of these in good detail? I got the basics, but still feel as if I don't really grasp it in detail yet. Any suggestions? Thanks, Doug
  13. particle life time same as frame range?

    Thanks NSugleris! That was exactly what I was looking for :-) Cheers! Doug
  14. Hello everyone, can anyone tell me what one has to do to make sure that particles in Houdini 14 will live exactly as long as the framerange that is set, regardless of what that range is set to? Thanks, Doug
  15. Ok, so the real workaround for this problem seems to be to scale the points to 0 before the copy sop instead of deleting them. I was told it is because when the renderer samples the geometry, and points keeps changing it gets confused, producing the result I had. However with scaling to zero, the geometry is technically speaking still there, but will not show up in your renderer, the point count does not change, and it renders fine :-) Don't know if anyone else have had this problem, but that did the trick for me. Using the trail sop also worked, but only gives a linear blur, which, honestly, shoud be enough for most cases... EDIT: sorry, I didn't see your latest reply Sierra62. Thanks for the info! In this example the objects do not deform, but the path they take is such that a curved blur would look nicer. But I guess it is not really, really, necessary. I am trying to learn, however, and thus it was great how to find out how to deal with the problem if I should happen to see it again. :-) Doug
×