Stephan Haidacher

Hey everybody! After a few years of struggling I finally decided to accept defeat and ask

when you tumble with the camera in the viewport, houdini always picks the objects beneath the cursor as local pivot. Please tell me there is a way to disable that and set it like in maya/softimage.

what i mean:
when i space+f or space+g an object, the pivot is set to that as expected. but when i now press ALT and tumble around, the cursor position still matters and possibly picks another object (which is beneath the cursor at this moment) and tumbles around that.

is there a way to disable this cursor-pos-set-pivot nonsense? when i press space+f/g i would like to tumble around this object no matter where my cursor is atm.

is this possible?

thanks!

Wren
Like with a lot of cg, the principles are out there for everyone floating in math/cg papers. It's really the application of them and specifically workflow created that people come up with that has value.

Ie Look at 3Delight's easy breasy creation and management of AOV's.



ps. We have been using the new 3Delight in production and it pretty awesome. FYI

i'm testing it for the last two weeks in Houdini, and I love it, too! limited but awesome experience so far.

BabaJ

again a poor comparison. a digital signal gets translated into an analog waveform. would you say a standard image looks different when opened in photoshop, imageviewer or another painter?

I think your missing the point of what others are trying to convey to you because even digital signals translated to other digital signals, let alone analog output does change.

Same *.mp4 or *.avi files look different whether viewed in my Switch, VLC, Win Media Player or Itunes.

And don't say, yeah well maybe it's just different codecs being employed and different default resolutions.

Because that's the point - just because all renderers may be using the same underlying math, that doesn't mean they are all using the same written code to convert that math into into something that can be utilized.

Same math does not mean same code - nor does it mean same end results.

In this case the math is analogue, the code is digital. At some point (as one example), decisions have to be made on how and where to handle potentional floating point erros; when writting the code for those math rendering principles you are referring too. It's not all going to be done in the same way, nor get the same results.

jesus, i'm simply not accepting the point that one modern pathtracer renders “real” or “awesome” as one user put it, and another with a very similar feature set renders bad or “plastic” as someone else phrased it. that's it, I hope i made my point clear. There are several studios I worked for which switched from Arnold (with existing 20-40 licenses) to Redshift, or added RS to their arsenal (doing commercials I might add), who would all be stupid because now it's suddenly all looking bad.