Correct, I should work on that. I’ve only made quick previews for Twitter so far, I will work on a longer format with more didactic talking
It does work. Like any modifier. The later example of convex hull stacks the openmesheffect modifier after an Armature modifier for instance. I could have added a subsurf afterwards with no problem.
Nope. OpenMeshEffect and regular modifier play well together. It is already not possible to move a mesh from one DCC to another without either deleting or applying the modifiers (i.e. burning them into the geometry, cannot be undone). This does not change at first, but ultimately could if all modifiers are OpenMeshEffect ones. So worst case is status quo, best case is better interoperability.
The very point of my last example with VCG was to show that OpenMeshEffect enables new workflows completely independent from Houdini. VCG is a GPL library, using it in Blender through my branch requires nothing about Houdini.
I fear you’re lending me bad intentions I don’t have. First, as seen earlier, this can remain totally independent from Houdini if one wants/needs. Actually this is a strong requirement because I want it to be open the possibility to propose alternatives to Houdini. About seeing this as a workaround from writing C plugins to Blender, well, it’s not wrong. But how is this a bad news for Blender? It will remain unofficial until it becomes official (if it does), as for any features that goes through a proper submission and code review pipeline.
You’re both right about a point: I should make this explanation video.