There is a very strong push for Houdini to upgrade modelling, so far there hardl any support for keeping he modelling tools the same.

It's not that easy, if You ask little different You get another result. for example I want sidefx to enhance the simulation tools, make cloth and rbd faster, interaction between all simulation objects types, voxelsims to use vdbs for simulation and so on. and if all this is done, let's talk about modeling tools. this happens when You for example ask me if they should shift manpower to modeling tools. just my opinion.
I think it takes some time to develop a cool modeling workflow that works well with houdinis procedural way and is not just halfway of any another modeling tool. and there are a lot of modeling tools on the market

Of course but take snapping as an example. No one uses it as it was neglected.

It should be a given that fx is the bread and butter and would have to kept competitive.

I used to LOVE the model SOP for it's ability to put things down quickly in a singular workspace- proceduralism went out the window, but it was a small price to pay for the fluidity that it afforded. My nostalgia for the model SOP was routinely met with eyerolls from the sidefx faithful.

I found that over time I was spending far too much effort trying to keep my models procedurally viable and that in a lot of ways the cost outweighed the benefits. In my experience it's often easier to make changes at the end of a chain rather than to search up the chain to make a change and then to make sure that the changes are non-destructive at the end of what might be dozens of SOPs. That said, I find that the working in non-procedural sub-assemblies and then combining the results live is a good way to keep the flexibility that a procedural workflow provides while not being a slave to it.

You can do destructive modeling in Houdini. Simply model as you want, add a null and set it to “locked” (red on the node). Now you can delete all previous nodes.
This is the same as “delete history” in Maya.

stu
I used to LOVE the model SOP for it's ability to put things down quickly in a singular workspace- proceduralism went out the window, but it was a small price to pay for the fluidity that it afforded. My nostalgia for the model SOP was routinely met with eyerolls from the sidefx faithful.

I found that over time I was spending far too much effort trying to keep my models procedurally viable and that in a lot of ways the cost outweighed the benefits. In my experience it's often easier to make changes at the end of a chain rather than to search up the chain to make a change and then to make sure that the changes are non-destructive at the end of what might be dozens of SOPs. That said, I find that the working in non-procedural sub-assemblies and then combining the results live is a good way to keep the flexibility that a procedural workflow provides while not being a slave to it.

I have found a lot of success modelling in a modular fashion. But even then there are just decision that need to be destructive. I think the best style is a hybrid. No on bats an eye with procedural shaders being assisted by bitmap textures. I think of modelling in Houdini the same way. Have a procedural base, then destructive on top and then alternate where you needs fit. Of course i would love those destructive parts to be in one node.

Another problem with using locked nodes is it deletes history of the whole chain, it would be great to have a string of nodes, then some destructive modelling on top that then gets baked to one node after the procedural portion of the model. So i can still make changes.

i think time ago there was a modeling node that didnt need more nodes, and was just pure modeling but the story goes that was remove, becuase defeted the hole porpuse of proceduralism inside houdini.

thought you could OpUnhide all deprecated nodes?

phrenzy84
I think the best style is a hybrid.

i agree for example: you cam assume a window/doorframe/roof/ pre made models then a network in houdini to procedurally place resize and fit those models in a building.

that way you can sculpt a pieces in zbrush. and see the result rightaway in houdini.

to be honest i rather see more attention given in CHOPs, its such a powerful network but there are less documentation on production specific task for it.

but i guess SESI will favor FX none the less

danylyon
You can do destructive modeling in Houdini. Simply model as you want, add a null and set it to “locked” (red on the node). Now you can delete all previous nodes.
This is the same as “delete history” in Maya.

Another option in Houdini - you can RMB on the geometry and select Geometry > Delete History to lock the current node and delete all the input nodes.

This is my view of destructive modeling in Houdini.
It is still young (near 2 weeks of development) but, IMO, capable to save a lot of time in classic modeling workflow:

1. http://youtu.be/uK4cFD9sCYU [youtu.be]
2. http://youtu.be/f0ZXvWuh0IM [youtu.be]
3. http://youtu.be/7hP0-u1WwOQ [youtu.be]
4. http://youtu.be/IcE356UkYyc [youtu.be]
5. http://youtu.be/d3uBe1dUe1s [youtu.be]
6. http://youtu.be/-rrfE_2DyGg [youtu.be]

Gyroscope
I have to agree with DaJuice. One of the biggest hurdles for me working in Houdini is to NOT be procedural in everything. Thinking the network of nodes then just becomes a History. Innately you want to set things up that are flexible, non-destructive, procedural and re-usable. Somethings just aren't worth the time though.

I'd totally be fine with SideFX improving the Interactive Viewport workflow (which does need a lot of work) and underneath it all you get those hundreds/thousands of nodes. It's up to the user at that point to lock nodes/cache/subnet/save out an external file for use in other areas.

I totally agree. If viewport workflow improves to the point that I rarely have to leave it, then what do I care what happens “underneath”? (I personally actually care, I'm speaking generally)
Do modelers/artists care what happens in other destructive modeling apps when they model? Most do not, but if you were in the position of needing access then… ctrl+Z or start over or plug-ins to accomplish things you can easily do in Houdini due to its procedural nature.

Modeling/interaction in Houdini can (and I'm confident that it will) improve w/o abandoning its paradigm which made it the powerful app that it is.