Re: [Maya2osg-users] Discussion of next changes

[Javier T. <jav...@gm...>]

  Hi J-S,

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay
<jea...@cm...> wrote:
>>    Of course, I absolutely agree with you here. What I meant was to
>> modify Maya to automatically do that for the artist.
>
> Perhaps that's the root of my lack of understanding of what you're
> suggesting... I was under the impression that we didn't have much
> control over Maya itself (other than through scripting), so when you say
> "modify Maya" I thought that was impossible. But from your reply below I
> assume you mean through scripting...

  Well... OK. Perhaps, "modify Maya" is not the most adequate
expression (we don't have the source code)  :)

  I meant using scripts, of course. But don't say "we don't have much
control over Maya (other thatn through scripting)". The whole Maya UI
is built on MEL scripts, or at least it was so some time ago. The user
preferences are stored as MEL scripts and even the maya scenes when
saved in Maya ASCII format are no more than a big fat MEL script.

>>    Could you solve your problem with a pre-export MEL script that fills
>> the Maya node descriptions that will then be automatically exported to
>> OSG node descriptions?
>
> Yep, that sounds perfect.

  Well. I think that's the best solution then.

> I don't know how much you follow the osg-users list, but Farshid
> Lashkari who currently does most of the development for the Max export
> plugin is starting to do similar things there. Though he's going to do
> it directly from the C++ code I think. But the result is the same.

  About the osg-users list, I try to keep reading it, but the time I
have is quite limited. I just browse the messages and read some when I
find something interesting. Let's say that I read it "diagonally" (I
don't know if this expression is used in english) :)

  I saw a looooong thread about the Max export, but didn't read the
messages, as I don't use Max.

> Perhaps we could try to follow the same naming and format convention for
> our version of this feature, that way it would be easier for us to parse
> the data. But I can do that, no need to jump in and do it all for me. :-)

  Of course, if a similar thing is made in both exporters, we should
try to join efforts as much as possible and if a naming convention is
defined, let's follow it. I don't see any need to reinvent the wheel o
just "be different".

  Anyway, this is all in your hands ;)


  By the way, have you got a SourceForge account?


-- 
Javier Taibo