QUOTE(pshipkov @ 09/05/07, 09:52 AM) [snapback]272823[/snapback]
There are no options to instance geometry to points.
Yes there is! (just connect any mesh into particles in mesh)
But yes its true that the exporter to mr stream sucks. And why the hell they just cant fix in a method to dump per particle attributes to the instanced items. Ala MTOR / renderman studio (which is even better). However the whole system is just way too limited as theres no DECENT script able or even very good codable support for customizing parts of the export.
But you can do it no problem. The coding interface just sucks on that front. But to be honest instead of one limited gui tool id be much more happier to a between maya and mi export API support. Because even if the mtor export is GOOD its still not exactly what you always need. For example sometimes you want particles that are of ONOE of maya partocle types such as 4 frame curve segments. And doing this with mtor/renderman studio is relatively painless.
So in the end all you need is a node tet write the custiom data's data slot.
QUOTE
You can still give it a try - convert the paintFX strokes to polys or curves, then use them as softBodies/dynamicGoals. You will have even more problems if the point count changes over time.
Instance your geometry to the particles.
You dont actually need to rely on the curve conversion to get the points, or even the segments. Maya has a utility that dumps you out all the segments in order just convert that into a mi stream of your own. So yes you could do the above but as you said you wouldnt want to!
QUOTE
In fact there is no control over that part.
Actually there is no technical reason for that, a shading network CAN do it. The only flaw in the system is that its very hard to get the id of each instancer instance. Beyond that its a breeze all you need is a mi shader to act on 2-XXX lists of data. And thats it. It works, if id have time to finish rest of my work i could wor on releasing my shader and support node. So in fact all data needed for this shader is already in place,
To be honest it would be 3 day job to do all this properly. form autodesks side. But i think they focus more on character animation and leave stuff like this to Houdini
But mayas not houdini. And to be honest if mayas hard to grasp then HOUDINI is downright insane at first ![]()
byt by no means a hard one either.
PS: but i dont deal in what things I can NOT do, i only deal in what I can. And this can be done, ive done it several times.
You can all dwell in what cant be done as much as you want, it dont get you anywhere. You might be right at the moment, but yes pessimists often are. But even tough optimists are more OFTEN WRONG they also end up succeeding more because they do the mistakes without falling down.
A tool that might be there in future is not worth the same amount as teh same tool today.