Clarity on nesting imageables under gprims

Community USD
1

Hi all. I’d like to get some clarity on the validity of nesting Imageables underneath Gprims.

The OpenUSD glossary discourages the nesting of Gprims.
USD Terms and Concepts — Universal Scene Description 24.05 documentation (openusd.org)

Should a Gprim be viewed as the terminal of an imaging hierarchy, with only GeomSubset-like prims allowed to be descendants?

Or is it acceptable for other Imageable primitives (including Xform, Scope, SphereLight), etc. to be nested underneath a Gprim? It seems like the same logic for Gprim would apply to lights, but perhaps not as strongly to Xform or Scope.

Thanks!

2

To avoid having to think too deeply about the subtleties and possible ramifications in the near term, can we say for now that our strong guidance is to have no Imageable prims under Gprims, with the expected (resources-willing) single exception of GeomSubset, when that becomes Imageable?

1 Like
3

Thanks for clarifying!