OK, sort of answering my own question here, but a better way to do it is to put a delete SOP after the fractureparms SOP, turn off the Delete Objects x flag and delete the *Fracture* data.
Still, it would be better to add fracture data only to what's specified in a group field than to have to delete data off a subset of incoming objects. Although, I suppose you could append the delete DOP to the guts of the fractureparms DOP and set its object group field to be something like
Found 42 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Technical Discussion » Groups and dynamic fracturing.
- stjohn
- 140 posts
- Offline
Technical Discussion » Groups and dynamic fracturing.
- stjohn
- 140 posts
- Offline
Has anyone found a magic bullet for dynamic fracturing of some objects but not others?
If you have an RBD glue object or a RBD point object, how do you set it up so that only obj_0 and obj_5 fracture? Right now, the fractureparms DOP processes everything it can see, which is why the shelf tool inserts it below the creator node of the object you choose at the prompt.
Currently, the only way I can do this without opening up the fractureparms asset and putting in a huge, there's-no-way-this-will-ever-look-slick-in-a-demo expression is to create my RBD point object, then make copies of the objects I want to fracture in a separate chain, delete the originals, and fracture the copies.
There's a better way than that, isn't there? Isn't there?
If you have an RBD glue object or a RBD point object, how do you set it up so that only obj_0 and obj_5 fracture? Right now, the fractureparms DOP processes everything it can see, which is why the shelf tool inserts it below the creator node of the object you choose at the prompt.
Currently, the only way I can do this without opening up the fractureparms asset and putting in a huge, there's-no-way-this-will-ever-look-slick-in-a-demo expression is to create my RBD point object, then make copies of the objects I want to fracture in a separate chain, delete the originals, and fracture the copies.
There's a better way than that, isn't there? Isn't there?
-
- Quick Links