art3mis Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 (edited) Many of the solutions I've seen here in the forums are absolutely brilliant and reflect a great amount of hard work as well as experience. But many posted examples are also incredibly complex and almost impossible to modify, debug, and art direct. Is there a point when you are working on a solution for a particular effect when you have to say,' Wait a minute, I'm creating way too many nodes at the SOP level' and start over again, trying to simplify? Or do some solutions simply require 100's of nodes (and or tons of Vex code) to achieve the desired result? Edited August 11, 2017 by art3mis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourfather Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Some node networks can be very complex like hundreds or even 1,000+ nodes. When networks get that complex it's important to stay organized using network boxes and subnetworks. Documenting things and leaving notes can make or break a job especially if there are others touching it. Simple is better but that's not always possible. Hopefully it goes without saying but don't do something with a dozen nodes that could be done with one or two nodes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 I've often looked back on the network(s) I'm using and thought "shit - this is crazy" and tried to go back and simplify - it's a good idea generally but it's a mistake to look at Houdini's node network(s) and think there are 'too many nodes' every DDC app worth using builds the same insanely complex networks - the difference is Houdini shows them to you... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art3mis Posted August 11, 2017 Author Share Posted August 11, 2017 Ouch!...Is that Maya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourfather Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 It looks like Hypergraph in Maya. What a total goat fuck that thing is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyei nightmare Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 i dont see the problem with complex networks, the real problem is when you dont have networks at all and all is a black box... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yon Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 (edited) When it does not serve your objective. Im not a big coder, but I once heard a programmer say it is important to not add features freely. Every node cost efficiency. And there is a universal wisdom of "using the least effort". I find it easier to understand complex networks that you have built then those built by others. So don't think you don't have the capacity to work on that level. Edited August 12, 2017 by Yon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelgardiner Posted August 12, 2017 Share Posted August 12, 2017 maybe when there are inter dependencies within in it that would be better separated. which makes things easier to change. say for example a dop network containing related flip, pop and smoke solvers, it seems to make sense to run them as three separate networks so if there is an issue/change with one part of the network you only have to re run that dop. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.