Dave Kin

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case in my testing.

The shelf setup uses a detail attribute to average the primitive values into a single value.
The value is set as a reference link and by itself does not seem to iterate in forms of point or primitive numbers.

Some users love to add fur using the groom tools and also varies fur density around areas such as the body versus fingers, face and etc. And what this does is that it either messes up the groom details for higher density areas, or creates holes in lower density ones if a user is not careful. While breaking those components up may cause issues with later fur sim or create fur seam lines.

While this is a matter of workflow / pipeline. Was just wondering if there was considerations to change this for more flexibility.

Hi all,

I have a question for the masses if anyone is kind to offer their opinions/2cents

I'm working on an issue with the houdini fur shelf tool and encountered this issue. An Artist was using a density map to control the distribution for his sculpt, but had an issue with the fixed Influence Radius setting on the Fur Node which was uniformly distributing the guide curves' influence over the entire model regardless of the curve density.

Upon inspecting the setup, I notice there to be a attribwrangle setup in the guides_render section which measures the root points of the curves and issues a PRIMITIVE attribute @guideradius. A setup which is read back into the fur setup via detail(“guides_render/AVERAGE_RADIUS”,“guideradius”, 0)

This setup seems to evaluate attribute per primitive(per guide curve) and assigns them an individual guideradius attribute, but the detail() expression seems to negate that effort and only assigns a uniform parameter throughout.

My question is. why is this so, and if there is a way to pipe a non-uniform Influence radius into the Houdini fur node.


Thanks

David