meshsmooth Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Did you know when in pose mode, if you select more than one bone with out any kinematic solvers active, for example a forearm and a bicep, and you select the end of the bone, it behaves like a temporary IK solver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Yep. Did you know that for any number of contiguous NoK bones, you can select them and then moving *any* joint to have it behave like IK? Better yet, you can shift-click on a bone to lock its tip. Then it will try to move the other joints without moving the locked one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshsmooth Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 That is why I make almost every controller in my rig a bone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 The pose tool makes me make every controller either a bone, an asset (otl for those ... ah crap I'll give up) I mean otl, or a null that has new SOPs in them. Assets aka otl's can have handles bound to them and best of all, they can be iconic (represent a controller through geometry run through an ends SOP and unroll in u to make wireframe all the time). I use Assets for most of the controllers in my rigs and bones where it makes sense. The pose tool knows how to get object handles as well as bone handles. I simply don't use transform in Object viewport any more. Pose is my default tool in Objects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshsmooth Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 You could call them "object types Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Since Houdini currently does not have per-display options in the object viewport, I force it in SOPS with the ends SOP set to unroll. If I have polygons, I just pass the data in to the ends SOP and the first option Close U, I choose "Unroll" which simiply inserts a vertx in the end of each face then opens that face. Presto wireframe display in shaded mode. If it is a NURBs, Bezier or mesh primitive type, I do the same but put a carve SOP before the ends SOP. I carve in u and v from 0 to 1 from First to Second, then turn on the Breakpoints option, then turn on the Extract option. Follow this with an ends SOP with the same above option. Presto wireframe display for any parameteric (NURBs, Bezier, Poly mesh) surface. -jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfwood Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 an asset (otl for those ... ah crap I'll give up) I mean otl, Ha. I win. 50% of the time I call them "custom types" the other 50% of the time I call them "those little bastards". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Hey Jim; I think you spoke too soon. Let's look at that post again, shall we? First, he says: an asset (otl for those ... ah crap I'll give up) I mean otl Which I think was deviously designed to put you off guard, because if you keep reading, he goes on to say: Assets aka otl's... Notice that "Assets" comes first! And later on, we have: I use Assets for most of the controllers... Note this time he doesn't even *mention* the word OTL Worse yet! he capitalizes the word "Asset" for no good reason... other than perhaps to drive his point home at a subconscious level. That's it! He's going subliminal on us! Methinks Jeff's battle for correctness is far from over... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert.magee Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 We are promoting the use of the term digital asset because there are so many things going on here: - a group of operators and operator network managers are bundled into a single subnet. - there is a custom operator type created - it is stored in an OTL - an interface can be built out parameters and handles - the inner workings of the asset can be used to control the asset - the operator type definition can be updated and synchronized across your production Because there are so many concepts involved, it is better to use one overiding term such as digital assets then to use one of the other terms which only describes part of the process. Also the term digital asset has more meaning for someone who is learning and doesn't yet know Houdini intimately while OTL or operator type takes time to sink in. Of course these other terms will crop up from time to time since they all do apply. Robert Magee Senior Product Specialist Side Effects Software Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Marengo Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 We are promoting the use of the term digital asset because there are so many things going on here... Hey Robert, Yes; "Digital Asset" is a *fine* term... though getting some of us who started calling them OTLs from the begining to switch is another thing entirely I was just making fun of the ongoing Jim/Jeff OTL vs. HDA saga... Plus, you've *got* to admit that "Those Little Bastards" has a really nice ring to it Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I think using the term OTL is fine - *if* there is only one 'thing' in it....OTLs are after all - Libraries... we only have one thing in our OTLs - unless it's some kind of utility OTL - like the Platonic Solids SOP - it's one tool - but it kinda has more than one thing inside....we have an OTL that has a whole bunch of rigging icons inside (each icon is an asset)- no point in creating an OTL for each one... I've been using the word 'thing' above...this 'thing' is an 'asset' (or hda - but no one uses that term) - that is contained (alone or with others) inside an OTL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshsmooth Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 I like to refer to them as object types because I like to think of it as object orientated programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfwood Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I like to refer to them as object types because I like to think of it as object orientated programming. Somewhere off in a distant land....someone is smiling happily because you said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 in more ways than one ... let's not go over that whole what does it mean to "instantiate" issue again .... besides, objects are those which contains sops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meshsmooth Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 I like object orientation Hell when I studied programming I gave up on my VB classes so I could focus more energy on java. 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.