MartybNz RMB on the tool ‘Set to Default’ does fix that.
Yes, it does; for the current session. Next time you restart Houdini you have to do it again. But not only this is a problem - I think Houdini should have the defaults of some tools set to the value that's mostly used, wouldn't you agree?
For extrude would be use normals and for bevel would be high density round.
Thanks, that's very useful. Didn't cross my mind to check there, but then again I'm still like a blind person in a labyrinth when in Houdini.
Any idea why when setting the bevel repetitions to 2 it goes to 4 rows of polys? So ‘0’ is for one row of polys (the original one), ‘1’ is for two rows (the original split in two) and then ‘2’ creates four rows of polys instead of three.
At first I thought the algorithm is “power of two”: '0' -> 1 row '1' -> 2 rows '2' -> 4 rows but then: '3' -> 6 rows What gives? Also, what if I need 3 rows? Is this an overlook or a feature? How about number of repetitions creates the same number of polygon rows? So the default and minimum value would start at ‘1’, set it to ‘2’ to have two rows, to ‘3’ to have three rows of polys and so forth.
Working as in… not being 5 but 6? I did miscount the number of rows for 3 reps, it's true, but replace “5” with “6” in my comment and what I've said is just as valid (or at least remains to be seen if that's the case).
Here, I've edited above and marked the edited text with red. Of course, now I can ask what if I want 5 rows of polys? I'm not going to test with bigger numbers in the hope I'll figure out a pattern, I'll just wait for a dev. to come and clarify this.
Yeah, no, the pattern seems to be “even numbers” For some reason the devs. thought this (image below) wouldn't look sexy. (I'm obviously joking, I can't possibly know the reasons)
MartybNz ..so what happens if you count the lines?
A star will go nova I'm not sure what you're tryingto say, but I was talking about polygon rows the whole time, so if that's relevant regarding your point, you might want to revisit it.
I was talking about a number (the value of repetitions which has no relation to the # of edges) and how does that influence the # of polygon rows generated.
All joking aside (even though I'd laugh my ass out if devs would decide to put cats or rabbits instead of repetitions in the next version), the pattern is as I previously said: number of ploys = repetitions * 2 Which are even numbers with the exception of the first value obviously. But the question is why?
Is there a way to set up a hot key for Edge Loop? I get that it is just a poly split with Quad Strip enabled, but for some reason I can't find it in the hotkeys editor.
Werner Ziemerink Is there a way to set up a hot key for Edge Loop? I get that it is just a poly split with Quad Strip enabled, but for some reason I can't find it in the hotkeys editor.
You can right-click on the tool in the shelf, go to the hotkeys tab, and set it there. That is strange it doesn't show up when searching in the Edit > Hotkeys… dialog.
goldleaf You can right-click on the tool in the shelf, go to the hotkeys tab, and set it there. That is strange it doesn't show up when searching in the Edit > Hotkeys… dialog.
McNistor All joking aside (even though I'd laugh my ass out if devs would decide to put cats or rabbits instead of repetitions in the next version), the pattern is as I previously said: number of ploys = repetitions * 2 Which are even numbers with the exception of the first value obviously. But the question is why?
Not sure Why is really relevenet here; reviewing a few other programs and the manual for SI, it appears that everyone baring Nuke and Houdini implements explicit bevelling option, some with more options, some with less.
Limited implicit implementations aren't the current flavour for modellers
SI and Blender appear to have the best executions today.
MartybNz Not sure Why is really relevenet here; reviewing a few other programs and the manual for SI, it appears that everyone baring Nuke and Houdini implements explicit bevelling option, some with more options, some with less.
Limited implicit implementations aren't the current flavour for modellers
SI and Blender appear to have the best executions today.
It was more of a rhetorical why than a real question, like a cry to the heavens (man drops in knees raises arms towards the sky and screams whyyyy)
Currently this is the only problem I seem to have with the bevel tool - not allowing the user input a desired odd number of subdivisions. And of course, one less important (but still not negligible) the default which is set to flat. Yes yes, I know I can change it for good, but still it doesn't make sense to not improve when you can, especially when there's so little to do in order to cross it from a list of improvements.
