Is it possible to recreate standard POPs as VOP POPs?

[magneto]

Thanks vectorblur, you are right, it works when I do that

[lisux]

+100

I think POP context should be merged with DOPs at some point.

[magneto]

I think POP context should be merged with DOPs at some point.

That's what I was gonna ask actually. If doing particles in SOPs is superior, why didn't SESI implement them as SOPs? Like why the need to have POPs?

I am not criticizing, just asking

[symek]

That's what I was gonna ask actually. If doing particles in SOPs is superior, why didn't SESI implement them as SOPs? Like why the need to have POPs?

I am not criticizing, just asking

Because besides SolverSOP introduced in H12, you can't really do particles sims in timeless SOPs..? I also think POPs will be integrated into Dops at some point. They almost are already.

[zarti]

That's what I was gonna ask actually. If doing particles in SOPs is superior, why didn't SESI implement them as SOPs? Like why the need to have POPs?

I am not criticizing, just asking

just guessing here since i do not know its history ;

the diff between master and escape are pops and dops .. and $ome thousands =)

if pops descend in escape ( sop ) .. escape ' flies high ' .. and becomes somehow unreachable / unmanteinable financially for some .

..

pardon if my post goes off topic ( from technical context ) , but i believe that is a factor . i could be wrong though ..

[magneto]

Thanks guys appreciate the ideas.

@Symek, sorry that's what I meant by SOPs (solver sop). Like in vi_rus' example scene, where he use a solver sop for particles, can you do everything that can be done in POPs? i.e. completely replace it with a more powerful sop solver based particle system and not use POPs at all?

Also by POPs being integrated into DOPs, do you mean like having the same POPs as DOPs and completely remove the POP context?

@zarti, I didn't realize this but this is actually a good point. But historically is this pricing scheme as old as POPs? In Escape you can't use POPs/DOPs? But can you open files with those OPs? Otherwise why not just mark some operators as not creatable unless you throw in the cash?

[static]

Thanks guys appreciate the ideas.

@Symek, sorry that's what I meant by SOPs (solver sop). Like in vi_rus' example scene, where he use a solver sop for particles, can you do everything that can be done in POPs? i.e. completely replace it with a more powerful sop solver based particle system and not use POPs at all?

Also by POPs being integrated into DOPs, do you mean like having the same POPs as DOPs and completely remove the POP context?

@zarti, I didn't realize this but this is actually a good point. But historically is this pricing scheme as old as POPs? In Escape you can't use POPs/DOPs? But can you open files with those OPs? Otherwise why not just mark some operators as not creatable unless you throw in the cash?

It's so houdini is less expensive for people that don't need those ops, like lighters. Also, I'm pretty sure you could wrap up a dop tool if you wanted, and still use it in escape. I haven't tried this though.

[zarti]

@magneto:

there was a time( cannot remember exactly )when houdini was sold in more than two 'shapes' .. combinations of contexts .

the 17k price of master at that time , always pushed me imediately away .

so , i do not know how things have evolved and why .

the current entry point( escape )was affordable for me one year ago when needed to reconsider and looked around

to switch my main 3d app .

yes . escape misses the pop and dop contexts .

( you can 'simulate' that if you sometimes try doubleclick the escapes' icon instead of the master' s one . )

there are cheap or free solutions around to fullfill their empty space , when i need such things .

.. but yea' , i wish that limited variations of those both contexts wd be included in escape . wd make houdini more popular .

anyway .

Back on Topic :

almost always , when i need to desintegrate something and drive its pieces with particles ,

i give up on using the particleSOP ( yes escape has particles ) and use points .

the ability to oscilate the timeline 3frames forward and backward in order to judge how the animation is going

( without cacheing ) .. is PriceLess !

[edward]

FYI, no one here has mentioned the Cache SOP. When people stopped using /pop for particles I thought people had switched to using it (eg. appending one after a POP SOP).

[gaurav]

I guess its so common that people assume every one should be knowing it, Its something like asking where is the flipbook button ?

Should be included in the day 1 training in Houdini.

I like this 3d flipbook sop alot, gives the ability to control frame rate and blend position at the same time.

Cheers,

[Ole]

You can even recreate your own particle system with sop solver! I usually do this if I need a total control of particle behavior. In this case you can use full power of sop context.

I get missing asset definitions when trying to open this file in H 11.1.

[Visual Cortex Lab]

I think POP context should be merged with DOPs at some point.

totally agree! I actually started doing all my POP work in a POPsolverDOP since a while.

Edited March 15, 2012 by sum][one

[vi_rus]

I get missing asset definitions when trying to open this file in H 11.1.

That's because scene was created in H12 and used new node Solver. But you can easily create it in H11 too with sop solver in DOP.

[magneto]

[one' date=15 March 2012 - 03:41 AM' timestamp='1331808093' post='93232]

totally agree! I actually started doing all my POP work in a POPsolverDOP since a while.

Is PopsolverDOP another way than solver SOP? If so can you please show a sample scene showing this?

I thought doing particles in SOP solver was superior, or is there no difference in doing them in DOPs?

[symek]

Is PopsolverDOP another way than solver SOP? If so can you please show a sample scene showing this? I thought doing particles in SOP solver was superior, or is there no difference in doing them in DOPs?

Yes it is, but not really differs from standard POP networks besides it cashes automatically.

0) ParticlesSOP: the only way to get particles in SOPs prior SolverSOP

1) POPNetwork: old school fully featured particles.

2) POPSolverDOP: Standard POP network ( that is: 1) embedded inside DOPs (free caching + interaction with other solvers).

3) SOPSoverDOP: SOP network embedded in DOPs which modifies geometry with time-history (unlike usual SOPs). Can do custom particles system.

4) SoverSOP: it's SOPSolverDOP (that is: 3) embedded in SOPs (technically it's a closed DOP network with just a single SOPSolverDOP inside).

3) and 4) are the same thing in fact, similarly to 1) and 2) which are also the same (with extra benefit of caching for pop in dops land)

Edited March 15, 2012 by SYmek

[magneto]

Thanks Symek, very beautiful summarization

[magneto]

Btw on a similar note, I was thinking about this recently. If one were to only use VEX for particles, I understand you can still do what you need to do, but wouldn't that take your ability to use expressions/variables in fields since you would be using say VOP POPs but not just standard POPs?

[edward]

I thought that was the point of going to VOPs, so that it would be fast. Going back to expressions would just slow it down again.

[magneto]

Thanks Edward for clearing that. I had the impression that the VOP version would be a replacement for the standard POPs, but if the expressions are gone, then it would be a trade off between flexibility and speed

Since attributes are supported in VEX, would it at least not be possible to allow using attributes in the same source points where the VEX compiler could inject them as "import attribute" code?

It would be very powerful and would probably cover 99% of cases where people would want to use expressions in VEX/VOPs.

[edward]

That's a good idea. The thing I'd be worried about is that these things always start off serving the 99%, and then immediately someone complains about the 1% case.