Olaf FinkbeinerNobody wants, to break the “Houdini way”. This detail has been discussed many time before. I don't get why some people see this as having something to do with improving modeling tools.
McNistor,
you cant discuss one without the other. When expanding the houdini toolset i think it is of upmost importance to not break the “houdini way”.
Olaf Finkbeiner
If you want to do speedy subD manual modelling there is plenty software out there to do just that. I dont see why you cant import the results into houdini and work from there. And there is special software like marvelous designer for clothing, i dont want all that stuff in houdini. Or rhino/grasshopper for nurbs…
I know you have good intentions, but that can be read as disrespectful. I'm not offended, I'm just telling you that's probably best to not argue in this manner. What if someone replied to how you'd like Houdini improved in say liquid simulations by telling you to use another tool, like Realflow or w/e else is out there, because after all we don't want Houdini to be a swiss army knife.
Olaf Finkbeiner
Houdini is all about procedural workflows.
Yeah, no. Houdini's all about creating compelling images. It just happens that proceduralism is the route Houdini took regarding how one goes about creating those images and it just happens that we like it this way.
Olaf Finkbeiner
I dont see why manual modelling tools need to be high up in the feature request list? Why is this so important to you?
Because I like modeling more than other things. I don't think I'm alone in preferring something over something else.
Olaf Finkbeiner
I see however a need for more procedural modelling tools also in connection to sub-d modelling.
Like I said before, a lot of stuff doesn't need procedural modeling - probably an important point of contention, especially when the confusion is not lifted by further clarification which I'm going to attempt below - and that “stuff” is featured on big budget movies, where Houdini has already a foot in the door.
OK, so what do I mean by “doesn't need procedural modeling”. It applies to situations where the final model doesn't need 1000 variations which would greatly benefit from a procedural approach by quickly dialing up and down or randomizing some params. It does not however mean that one shouldn't or couldn't use the same exact tools which comprise what we call “procedural workflow”.
It's not a zero sum game and it's by no means exclusionary in any way.