Hello guys,
I am working on houdini asset for ue4 and I am working on optimizing the scene. For my hda, I used string to get the mesh files, creating buildings without using any geometry or curve input. Also, the tool doesn't requires using parameter after setting all the file path. Because of that, I was thinking that I can just bake all my tool to fbx and other artists don't have to worry about getting houdini engine on the machine, but I am not sure that is it going to be better to optimize the scene better. Is it possible to get some information about how houdini asset actor output(?) works in UE4 and is it better to bake them all or keep it as a houdini asset actor for the optimization point?
Baking or Houdini Asset Actor for Optimization?
2522 2 1-
- sungho1114
- Member
- 18 posts
- Joined: Jan. 2016
- Offline
-
- dpernuit
- Staff
- 534 posts
- Joined: Sept. 2016
- Offline
Hi,
Houdini Asset Actors will always have an overhead cost compared to a regular Actors w/ static meshes components, as they also store all the relevant information used for to interface a HDA with the Houdini Engine (parameters etc.. ).
We generally always recommend to bake out HDAs to native UE4 actors once they are considered “final” and no tinkering in the editor is required..
If your hda has no parameter/input exposed then there is very little point in using it in the editor, since the whole idea is to be able to edit and modify it in the unreal viewport.
The only “optimisation” the plugin would have over Houdini's FBX export would be that if you're using packed primitives/instancing, the plugin will give you instanced static meshes out of the box while FBX wont…
Houdini Asset Actors will always have an overhead cost compared to a regular Actors w/ static meshes components, as they also store all the relevant information used for to interface a HDA with the Houdini Engine (parameters etc.. ).
We generally always recommend to bake out HDAs to native UE4 actors once they are considered “final” and no tinkering in the editor is required..
If your hda has no parameter/input exposed then there is very little point in using it in the editor, since the whole idea is to be able to edit and modify it in the unreal viewport.
The only “optimisation” the plugin would have over Houdini's FBX export would be that if you're using packed primitives/instancing, the plugin will give you instanced static meshes out of the box while FBX wont…
-
- sungho1114
- Member
- 18 posts
- Joined: Jan. 2016
- Offline
dpernuit
Hi,
Houdini Asset Actors will always have an overhead cost compared to a regular Actors w/ static meshes components, as they also store all the relevant information used for to interface a HDA with the Houdini Engine (parameters etc.. ).
We generally always recommend to bake out HDAs to native UE4 actors once they are considered “final” and no tinkering in the editor is required..
If your hda has no parameter/input exposed then there is very little point in using it in the editor, since the whole idea is to be able to edit and modify it in the unreal viewport.
The only “optimisation” the plugin would have over Houdini's FBX export would be that if you're using packed primitives/instancing, the plugin will give you instanced static meshes out of the box while FBX wont…
Thank you for the clear explanation.
-
- Quick Links