Well, even being a new user I've definately come to appreciate the “blank slate” approach and past the one-week mark I think it's helped me learn Houdini faster,

I think thats missing in most programs, as it might be hard to know what's essential and what's there for the quick / macro stuff.

If they added to much stuff it might end up being really bogged down or I've heard the term “saturated” like maya/max, where there are a lot of options spread all over the place and some are old and not used to much, some are giant and modern, some are even obsolete comaired to others etc.

So far I haven't run into anything in Houdini that wasn't really imporant in some context. So maybe something like expanding on the shared DA idea and they could have “sidefx assets” which could be developed by sidefx, installed and used for that stuff, and be well documented / tested / supported / seamlessly integrated … like autorig but not installed by default.

one of the thing that sesi needs to put into Houdini is production-ready, robust shaders out of the box, with default settings that give you nice results. Garman Herigstad and I were talking about these a while back. Aren't most production houses have custom shaders with default settings that give you pretty nice result? I wish the default shaders shipped with Houdini are like that…

However, those default shaders shipped with Houdini do provide some nice example on how to write your own VEX code tho.

I for one would love to see the expanded use of houdini I meet so many artists who look and hear of what it can do but it dies when they come accross how difficult it is to just do the smaller every day things … ie just trying to UV and pelt poly objects is a nightmare compared to other applications , for applications to be appealing they have to be attractive to different roles , unless that is Houdini wants to just be a specialist application with a tiny user base.
The blank slate is great , but the thing ive found the most fustrating is being able to do simple things. In many ways I know what I want to do I just lack the correct info on work flow tool options. More attention need to be given to documentation and tutorials to show this so people can get kick started . I would love to start assembling my own MR shaders or Renderman shaders but I have not got a clue where to start ………

R

put into Houdini is production-ready, robust shaders out of the box, with default settings that give you nice results.

:? I haven't even thought of searching for a default material library, after reading your posts I guess there is none.

I am still not sure why there is a need for a “one app fits all”?
From a pipeline-point-of-view sure a fully integrated environment that serves all our need would be great. But this would also be a monolithic monoculture how this does this fit in our distributed world?

If I understand it right the houdini approach is one step beyond the other “multi-resolution packages”: more like this touch/player/designer model where one part is like a tool factory and the other one is a “player” like environment for the artist. In my opinion this is a really economic approach. You don't have to pay for tools you don't really need - but it looks like everybody really needs particles, fluids, rbds and make nice render buttons.

It still doesn't hurt to understand the things you do. I was told “with houdini EVERYTHING is possible”. But this is simply not true. If you find the “make fully bloated cinematic” OTL, please PM me.

Georg

well, after doing a few projects with PFlow in 3ds Max I think Houdini particles are very easy. The problem in a lot of apps lies in their in-ability to use one part of the program in a different part of the program.

For instance, there was a post the other day in 3ds Max forum on how to get a local scale and animation for a whole particle system. In Max particles are locked to the “world” in a lot of ways and exist in their own context, and you can't simply get a system and move it around or scale it as one peice. Houdini easily accomplishes this task if it is used in the Geometry or Object context. There are a lot of complicated and scripted ways to do that in Max but in Houdini a very simple task is actually “simple,” due to the way it's set up. Something more complex like spawning stuff from collisions is a little more complex probably for giving the user the maximum control over the effect.

While a slightly faster/easier workflow in an app like Max might be good for the most simple effects once an effect quickly reaches a certain complexity there's normally a need to cross-reference more and more stuff from other areas of the program/project/scene.

So, to make that an effecient and easy process I really like how Houdini uses very basic peices like point sop, attribute, copy, delete nodes in every context, and subnetworks. Most of the problems I've had to solve with scripting, and probably most of the really “tough” questions you see on other forums could easily be solved with those.

I really like how Houdini uses very basic peices like point sop, attribute, copy, delete nodes in every context, and subnetworks.

I agree.
This approach helped me see aspects of other software I was missing all the years.

jeff
My observation is that Houdini tends to be used by very small teams within large facilities to do very difficult tasks. Many times it is one person working on a shot from beginning to end comp.

There are a few studios using Houdini that only have 1 to 5 people delivering cutting edge shots.

What do you think about using Houdini as a freelance Effects Animator/TD? Is it something worth considering to distinguish oneself from the hordes of Maya animators out there?

Mats

Wow what a thread, really chimin in there Salty Ninja (You know who you are! :] )

Where to begin my reply, well I like houdini because it treats you like you are intelligent and tells you if your dumb. I have come up with some very extravigant ways to accomplish something, only to be shown how it's done with 2 sops and one expression. (a hyperbole, but you know what I mean). And the question here is what is more difficult, the simple or the complicated. Any fool can make somthing complicated, only a genius can make things simple. Einstein said make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. So that is the question is houdini too simple in it's out of the box tools?

I don't think so, everything you need is there, and if houdini starts holding artists hands now, all in an effort to be PC and please everyone then the road to mediocraty is being paved. It's important that the artists are forced to learn how these things are being done, and how to think proceduraly to accomplish them. I have been working in houdini for almost 2 years now and Im not that great at shader writing or lights, but that's not houdini's fault. I just havn't had the need to dig to deep.

You wouldn't just give your kid 20 bucks and say go have fun. They gotta learn the what it's all about too. But that's just my 2 cents. The fact that I had to learn all the gory details of everything that was going on was one of the most powerfull parts, the challenge and the results. It was all great fun!

-3db

hi ross

matsbt
What do you think about using Houdini as a freelance Effects Animator/TD? Is it something worth considering to distinguish oneself from the hordes of Maya animators out there?

Mats

I have found that Houdini is a superior teaching tool and that is why I have stuck with it over the years. There are two reasons why I say this, first there is an infinitely gradient of complexity that I can use to explain a particular concept and that complexity is very easy to scale up and down.
The other, I regard more important, point has to do with the end results of over 10 years of teaching Houdini. I have found that those students who stick with Houdini have a greater chance of maintaining their own artistic integrity, as nebulous as that may be.
Other software packages generally lead students down very particular paths, cause it's easier, and everyones work winds up looking the same.
I don't regard this as the fault of the student, they are after all ignorant of the real work that is required.

As you've mentioned, there are hordes of Maya users out there. You want a job you need to distinguish yourself from the herd.


Regarding using Houdini as a stand-alone artist. I think Houdini is even more valuable to you than to a large studio.

I think it is true to say that for a small studio to reap the rewards of Houdini you may need to spend a little time developing assets that will be suitable for the type of work you do. Once those are set up nicely then everything becomes super efficient. The trick is finding the time to do the initial set up.

Simon
I think it is true to say that for a small studio to reap the rewards of Houdini you may need to spend a little time developing assets that will be suitable for the type of work you do. Once those are set up nicely then everything becomes super efficient. The trick is finding the time to do the initial set up.

I am agree. I like using RenderMan.
I hope that for Houdini 9 more “ready to use” tools will be included, liek for example a production ready set of shaders.
With these many small studios aand freelancers could make the move to Houdini easily.

Hello all, I myself am mostly a modeller, and a Houdini Newbie. I am coming from a Maya and Silo background because I want the ultimate control that houdini offers. If I wanted easy to use, cheap and dirty results, I wouldn't be here

lisux
I hope that for Houdini 9 more “ready to use” tools will be included, liek for example a production ready set of shaders.
With these many small studios aand freelancers could make the move to Houdini easily.

More “production ready” shaders aside, (which we all agree Houdini could benefit from ), what “ready to use” tools are you hoping for?

I reckon if calin could finish the auto-rig so it had muscle capture that would be a big one.
I bet a lot of people hope for pre-rolled particle and dynamics effects. Explosions, fire, smoke trails, the kind of stuff you get in plugins for other packages.

no … please .. I would be very confused if Houdini had tons of extra stuff in it like that … I wouldn't know what was important and what wasn't. Or, let's put it this way; there's a big difference between a “pre-made” effect, and a natural phenomenon … maybe I misinturprited.

I really think the idea of Fluids in Houdini is cool because it's a very abstract idea and if it works like the rest of Houdini than I'd imagine you could use useful fluids algorythms for anything from water to compositing effects to toothpaste.

I would stop short of building lots of preset stuff though, because then more people would end up using them even though they aren't as powerful, then those would end up getting the most support and upgrades, and finally the really good stuff might be half-broken and end up like the ancient 3dsmax mesher or vol.select compound objects. How bout some upgrades to CHOPs like more integration with VOPs.

While the auto-rig is very cool and competitive with biped and motion builder etc it's certainly grounded in reality and I'd almost prefer it be an optional install.

Here's an idea, Houdini isn't going to be able to complete in the easy or preset department with these other apps probably ever. Instead why not come up with an open source universal particle format with stuff like velocity, age, etc to allow studios to use Houdini for the really hard particle motions etc, and then maybe bring it into 3ds Max with Afterburn or something. More and more plugins and people would be drawn to Houdini and use what they would use anyway for the stuff they don't know / or / like the presets with.