Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/22/2022 in Posts

  1. Nodal workflows are more difficult to conceptualize. As for me, I need to watch out for approaching nodes without first thinking through the core steps. Having written (and re-written) some rather extensive software programs for work (Unix shell based with C), I can tell you that the first pass is just inefficient spaghetti code if you start without crafting a logic diagram. I would imagine the same applies to nodes. So I resonate with your comment on complexity. Interestingly enough, Redshift has implemented the Standard Material node - which is brilliant. Nodal trees are behind it but the front end echoes the channel system that is a lot easier to wrap your head around. On the Houdini side, I started to look at Igor's posted node diagrams on Houdini. Very pleased to say that I can understand "some" the logic of what it going on (still a far way off from "all"). That is probably one of the big benefits of nodal workflows: you can see the approach taken. I look at some of Cerbera's or Vectors (or pretty much anyone else's) masterful meshes and you really can't figure how they got there by starting with a primitive. You do learn what good polygonal modeling looks like, but you have no idea how they did it. Not so with studying nodal workflows in Houdini. They are teaching opportunities. I think that is a big downside to C4D nodes which may be corrected with capsules. The nodal commands embrace more mathematical than everyday 3D functions: normalize, decompose, cross-products, vectors-to-matrix....and that was to just create a "look-at" function for animation. Honestly, I can't learn from that. Dave
    2 points
  2. 2 points
  3. 2 points
  4. 1 point
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
  7. 1 point
  8. Please register for full access
    1 point
  9. 1 point
  10. Please register for full access
    1 point
  11. 1 point
×
×
  • Create New...