You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Please describe the enhancement you have in mind and explain what the current shortcomings are?
Houdini publishes of USD only has "USD" creator and a "look" creator. However, asset workflows, shot workflows, models, grooms, fx, they all go through this default "USD creator" which makes a 'usd' product type.
We should really work towards being able to publish more explicit product types, like "model", "look", "groom" or even shot department layers using a shot USD creator or also there more specific to the contents, like "pointcache" or other types.
Separating these also allows us to set much better defaults on the ROP nodes, and specify more dedicated validators
How would you imagine the implementation of the enhancemenent?
No response
Describe alternatives you've considered:
No response
Additional context:
link to discussion on Discord (might be a private channel)
This issue was automatically created from Clickup ticket AY-6956
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Please describe the enhancement you have in mind and explain what the current shortcomings are?
Houdini publishes of USD only has "USD" creator and a "look" creator. However, asset workflows, shot workflows, models, grooms, fx, they all go through this default "USD creator" which makes a 'usd' product type.
We should really work towards being able to publish more explicit product types, like "model", "look", "groom" or even shot department layers using a shot USD creator or also there more specific to the contents, like "pointcache" or other types.
Separating these also allows us to set much better defaults on the ROP nodes, and specify more dedicated validators
How would you imagine the implementation of the enhancemenent?
No response
Describe alternatives you've considered:
No response
Additional context:
link to discussion on Discord
(might be a private channel)
This issue was automatically created from Clickup ticket AY-6956
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: