Hello!
I am a probably naive guy looking to purchase a Houdini Indie License. I would like to avoid x-particles in Cinema 4D for a couple reasons. Also Houdini intrigues me.

Question: I see that Houdini Indie requires your assets to be saved and rendered in it's own file type (I think?)- Will I be able to integrate the particle simulations and cloth etc into my Cinema 4D scene? Is it difficult? I plan to composite everything in Nuke Studio, I'm not sure if that changes anything.

I am also planning on buying the permanent Redshift license to work with both C4D and Houdini. I will devote a lot of time to learning Houdini for the particles and cloth sims at least, I hope this isn't too lofty of a goal.

Thank you!
Daniel

You can export Houdini Indie files to fbx or obj - which can be imported in C4D. If you learn Houdini well enough to make useful assets for C4D, you may find it is easier to just stay in Houdini. I'm not sure C4D deals with point clouds, so you may need to add a copy to points and distribute some small object to those points to be able to use it in C4D.

Island
You can export Houdini Indie files to fbx or obj - which can be imported in C4D. If you learn Houdini well enough to make useful assets for C4D, you may find it is easier to just stay in Houdini. I'm not sure C4D deals with point clouds, so you may need to add a copy to points and distribute some small object to those points to be able to use it in C4D.

Hey thanks for your response,
When you say that it might be easier to stay in Houdini, do you mean that I should import my C4D files into Houdini? Because I would like to stay in C4D for mograph/modeling.
Best,
Daniel

I think once you start familiarizing yourself with Houdini, it's unlikely that you'll want to go back to C4D. It's a bit like learning to drive a Ferrari but then opting to go back to a Toyota…not likely.

I had the same plan as you initially…learn just enough Houdini that I could create assets and HDA's to use in C4D. A couple of months later I was hardly opening C4D again. Three years later and I've pretty much forgotten C4D!

Midphase
I think once you start familiarizing yourself with Houdini, it's unlikely that you'll want to go back to C4D. It's a bit like learning to drive a Ferrari but then opting to go back to a Toyota…not likely.

I had the same plan as you initially…learn just enough Houdini that I could create assets and HDA's to use in C4D. A couple of months later I was hardly opening C4D again. Three years later and I've pretty much forgotten C4D!

Haha! That sounds like a wishful thinking, I'm afraid I'm a slower learner now than I used to be. I have no idea why, I'm only 32, but I have difficulty retaining information compared to my youth. This might take me a while.

BTW is it a problem getting those assets into indie from C4D or C4D into Indie?

I would use Alembic files to go back and forth between the two. It seems like a more reliable method than FBX or OBJ.

You can also import HDAs into C4D using the Houdini Engine that SideFX provides, but it can get complicated real quick, and at that point you might seriously consider just going to final render in Houdini.

Midphase
I would use Alembic files to go back and forth between the two. It seems like a more reliable method than FBX or OBJ.

You can also import HDAs into C4D using the Houdini Engine that SideFX provides, but it can get complicated real quick, and at that point you might seriously consider just going to final render in Houdini.

Thank you for your help! I really appreciate it.
Best,
Daniel

It is much more likely that one would move a model from C4D into Houdini than vice versa.

My experience is similar to Midphase, except that I came from XSI before C4D. Mograph effects are easily replicated in Houdini. The issues in using C4D as your main modeling program and Houdini as a supplemental are:

1. C4D is quite expensive to maintain, if you include yearly maintenance, a third party renderer, x-particles, realflow, etc. C4D is more of a hub for other software than a complete program.

2. C4D is easy until it isn't. It does allow you to be somewhat productive while not fully understanding 3D concepts, so there is a lot of bad topology on commercial models. It can get quite complicated when you try to use attributes to control things like color. The constraint system coupled with rigging gets glacially slow and does not have internal methods to prevent gimble lock. Its character rigging tools are behind most of its competitors. Xpresso is very inefficient, and you often need to cobble together various nodes just to do a simple expression.

2. Its procedural features fall apart when you want to do serious modeling. For example, if you do a sweep nurb and then want to create a branch, you will have to make the sweep editable, destroying any procedural features. Modo, Blender, and Maya are better modeling apps.

3. The mograph features are great for adding quick effects, but look a bit stereotyped.

4. The particle system in C4D is so poor, almost everyone buys a third party program to do it, and that cannot do decent fire or smoke.

Maintaining competence in multiple 3D programs is possible, but generally you will get further really learning one well. It is hard to be very productive not really understanding Houdini. The biggest mistake I see people make is to try to bring over a complicated scene from Houdini into C4D where they really don't understand how that scene was created or what it is doing. You are dabbling into a second program where you go right into the most complicated parts to start with.

Where Houdini is not the strongest is destructive modeling. I modeled a human hand, for instance, and had to create a lot of “edit” nodes, which is basically destructive modeling. Houdini is a lot slower for quickly adding edge loops, extrudes, etc. than any of the standard modelers. But if you are interested in a great non procedural modeler, C4D only fair, and lags behind other 3D apps as mentioned above.

Where C4D excels is ease of use for beginners (with a very logical menu system), speed in creating simple mograph effects, probably the best NPR rendering engine out there, a much easier hair system than in Houdini, and great stability both in Windows and Mac. Unless your work requires you to use C4D or you are doing a lot of quick mograph work for television advertising, it is not as good a match for the weaknesses of Houdini as Modo or Blender or Maya. C4D also doesn't really understand point clouds or extra attributes brought over from Houdini, so you will have to do more work than if you just stayed in Houdini.

katzlancer
I'm only 32, but I have difficulty retaining information compared to my youth. This might take me a while.

I'm nearly 40, picked up Houdini about 1.5 years ago, after using C4D for about 10 years straight, have found only one reason to go back to C4D, and that is to use its excellent toon shader. For pretty much everything else, Houdini has entirely replaced C4D for the better, and I mean significantly better. I wince at the thought of ever having to use C4D again for anything substantial.

Nobody is kidding about that learning curve though. It is going to repeatedly kick you in the groin when getting started. I never thought I'd say this as a man, but all that kicking was entirely worth it. Houdini forced me to understand 3D geometry on a more fundamental level, got me to think more about how I approach and tackle various problems, and got me to expand my knowledge with basic maths and coding.

As someone who had long been chained to C4D's pseudo-proceduralism, and miserable (dare I say disrespectful?) pace of development, I cannot recommend Houdini enough.

Apart from these forums, join the (un)official Discord: https://discord.gg/b8U5Hdy [discord.gg]