FX Tree - The Future?

Discussions about FX-Tree and Compositing generally
Post Reply
User avatar
Hirazi Blue
Administrator
Posts: 5107
Joined: 04 Jun 2009, 12:15

Re: FX Tree - The Future?

Post by Hirazi Blue » 13 Jan 2012, 21:50

I would suggest reposting your troubles with "Autodesk Composite"
in a separate thread in our "General & Troubleshooting" forum.
It now being part of the Softimage distribution makes it something
our "resident" support guy (you know the one... :D )
may be able to provide some answers/solutions for...
Stay safe, sane & healthy!

User avatar
gustavoeb
Moderator
Posts: 587
Joined: 21 Jul 2010, 00:33
Skype: gustavoboehs

Re: FX Tree - The Future?

Post by gustavoeb » 14 Jan 2012, 00:32

Autodesk has a pack of different composite applications, so I guess they probably don't have interest in one more app... That said the way the FXTree is integrated into Softimage is crazy cool. You can basicaly edit any of your textures through it, paint them, or what ever...
As Pooby suggested probably the FXTree should be though in a different way... Adding ICE capabilities would be great, making it easy for 3rd party renders to get the clips out of the FXtree the same way MR does would be nice, adding the ability to paint in the third dimension...
If that was the way to go the FXTree could probably get a little more attention (read $$$) since it would be valuable in a way no other app can. The inner parts of it would need a upgrade like support for full 32bit Float, and Tiled images, which would also be great for anyone who wants to do some actual Composite work in it.
Gustavo Eggert Boehs
Blog: http://www.gustavoeb.com.br/

User avatar
TwinSnakes007
Posts: 316
Joined: 06 Jun 2011, 16:00

Re: FX Tree - The Future?

Post by TwinSnakes007 » 14 Jan 2012, 00:34

I love the idea, but some questions off the top of my head:

1. Would it require a new context? Say a pixel context?
2. How would you convert between a pixel context and the existing ones? If we say this new ICE Pixel feature is displayed using the Grid primitive, then you could map pixel info to mesh info that way with some new attributes like, PixelToNearesetVertex or PixelToPolygonIndex. But, you'd need UV data for that wouldnt you?
3. Would it also make sense to upgrade the WeightMap to use pixels as well? That may require the mesh to be UV'd as well.
4. Would it also require some new region(s) perhaps? Maybe an imaging region that sits above modelling and below simulation? Maybe the imaging region is where the image is created and its size defined, and image type (BMP, PNG, JPG) as well.

Wish I knew what Autodesk had planned in this area...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests