I'm at a point where I'm nearly ready (after using 3ds since around 1995) to dive headfirst into the world of houdini. I'm very fond of procedural systems - Thinking Particles is a fine example of one in 3ds max, but I'm not prepared to dump $1600 on that plugin right now. If I want to get a fairly nice fluid system for flames and liquid, that's probably going to run me another 1k. Houdini, with their free Apprentice edition is perfect for me until I decide to seek a professional position using Houdini.

It's kind of laughable in retrospect - as I've been asking Autodesk for years to do so many of the things that I'm now discovering are already available in Houdini. This software seems so brilliantly designed. The way particles, dynamics, fluids, cloth etc all interact is just lightyears ahead of what I'm familiar with in 3ds. 3ds is powerful because of it's huge userbase - so it benefits from some excellent 3rd party plugins, but rarely do they (the plugins) ever talk together in a common language. I hope that if Houdini ever experiences a substantial growth in 3rd party solvers/renderers etc, those developers properly design them to talk properly with the rest of the software.

Regarding flames/smoke, what are the best example videos you're aware of for Houdini? I suppose this fluid tech is fairly new in Houdini (i'm just getting familiar with Houdini myself) so it's not bad if these (the few on this website) are the best examples available so early on. However, coming from using FumeFX (plugin for 3ds max) these examples leave me a little cold. They seem muddy, soft and poorly defined. The preset in Houdini has an uggly 3d noise shader bolted on, tryhing to compensate for the lack of detail. I've been digging through the Houdini tutorial videos and documentation and I get the idea that it's just a matter of time before someone matches or surpasses the FumeFX quality flames - perhaps the presets just aren't dialed in quite as nicely? What do you guys think? Is Houdini not capable of matching FumeFX, or do Houdini users just not have enough experience with it? I hope its the latter, as I'm more than willing to put some time into making this thing sing if it is indeed capable.

Please let me know your thoughts - and thanks for reading!

Welcome Shadowed, glad you are enjoying your time with Houdini.
Indeed it is early days for fluid dynamics in Houdini but it has already come a very long way. Have you looked through the Gallery, in particular the Camp Fire has a scene file that you can download and investigate. That sequence was done by one of our interns, as was the Lighthouse. Both being test sequences to troubleshoot the dynamics systems.
While Fumefx is great, due to Houdini's procedural flexibility I would regard its dynamics to be of a much greater utility in a production.

I don't recommend abandoning good ole' 3ds however. I've found I can use the two software packages in unison for many things. I still prefer to model, unwrap, and do previz stuff with lighting in Max. And, while Fumefx might not be able to talk to other parts of Max, it's defiantly light-years faster than any equivalent Houdini technique for rendering those type of effects.

But, Houdini is a much more complete overall system. You can use it to accommodate any 3d task without any custom code, or dreaded max-script. Every part of Houdini can talk to every other part of Houdini . which is what makes it great. And, that is sorely lacking in Max. The other disappointing thing about Max lately is the fact that they haven't improved their particles in quite a few years. And, dynamics and effects are probably the most-improved area since I've been using Houdini.

Thank you Probbins, I haven't looked at the actual campfire scene, I assume that's the scene thats the scene shown in the houdini 9.5 bootup screen? I will check it out. As for the lighthouse, I must have missed that one, I'll browse around some more.

As for the speed not being quite up to par with FumeFX, that may be the case - but from my brief experience with other parts of Houdini's dynamics systems, the default parameters or the solvers, seem more stable right out the door. I'd trade speed for stable solutions in most situtations. Right now, my only concern is being able to get the detail. I think it can be done, I just don't know the system well enough yet. Some more carefully dialged in defaults would be helpful here in future releases.

Andrew, I hear ya. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate 3ds max's capabilities, it's more than capable of competing with any other software out there, given the right users behind it driving. For me though, I've fallen behind the upgrade curve on my personal copy at home and don't really want to dump another $1,500 on upgrades on a software that really doesn't seem to be making any substantial advances to the core - advances that would really be moving it in the direction of Houdini. While I don't think Max is going to die anytime soon - considering it's huge userbase, I do feel with the acquisition of XSI - we're going to see even less film-centric development. I just don't see how Autodesk can honestly ‘equally’ support each of its three package. If they were, we'd see some of the ‘large’ features (perhaps Maya's dynamics) surfacing in Max at approximately the same time. They know though, that for many game developers - the havoc stuff is adequate so there's very little incentive.

I spoke with a manager at autodesk several months ago responsible for the future of 3ds. When I was describing some of what I wanted (much of what I'm finding out is already available here in Houdini) his eyes sort of glazed over. At the time, I got the impression that he had no idea why I'd make such requests. In retrospect, I believe he was probably wondering why I was using 3ds - when other software already fits the bill.

But yeah Andrew - when it comes to previz, I can fly with 3ds - then again I think I could learn to with Houdini in not too much time I do a lot of scripting in 3ds (small utilities.) I do like maxscript… Maybe not for the most complex operations, but its perfect for quick'n'dirty tasks. I'm not sure I'd want to tie a bunch of nodes together in Houdini to accomplish the same thing. Perhaps VEX works best in these cases?

Anyway, thanks again. I look forward to figuring out this beast.

well, having done a lot of Maxscript myself .. believe me … you'd definatly want to tie together a bunch of nodes in Houdini to do the same stuff.

A script can be very limiting in it's extendability. Because unless it's originally built into the script you'd have to wade through code to figure out how to extend the script for other purposes.

With Houdini-node-based .. you can swap stuff out and see what happens. Very intuitive, very fast, and much easier and more powerful than scripting IMO

andrewlowell
well, having done a lot of Maxscript myself .. believe me … you'd definatly want to tie together a bunch of nodes in Houdini to do the same stuff.

A script can be very limiting in it's extendability. Because unless it's originally built into the script you'd have to wade through code to figure out how to extend the script for other purposes.

With Houdini-node-based .. you can swap stuff out and see what happens. Very intuitive, very fast, and much easier and more powerful than scripting IMO

I suppose it's just a different thought process, I try to write my scripts in an object-oriented style, but the node system should take care of a lot of that for me… hard to let go of old habits ;P I'm still nostalgic for the ascii bbs days, so nodes representing functions is challenging to get comfortable with.

One thing that throws me with Houdini after watching many of the tutorial videos - on one hand so much of it is graphically-node based, on the other hand there are many situations where it seems essential to use expressions and explicit paths. I'm sure the reasons will become more apparent as I learn more, but from my unenlightened perspective, I do wonder why some of these parameters aren't accessible via a more graphical UI. Maybe they are, and the tutorial authors choose to type in these expressions and strings. I just don't know yet.

Another thing I really enjoyed about Thinking Particles in 3ds max, is how directly the nodes display their channel-class/type. In Houdini, it seems most have about 4 non-descriptive input nodes, and one out. I've just gotta forget that stuff for a while until I get a grasp of Houdini. Right now I think I'm unfairly projecting what I like about TP onto Houdini when they, while both graphically node-based, function in very different ways.

ah … well

Yeah you can go crazy with expressions in Houdini if you like. However, changing the name of a node .. will update all of the dependents/expressions that reference it automatically.

andrewlowell
ah … well

Yeah you can go crazy with expressions in Houdini if you like. However, changing the name of a node .. will update all of the dependents/expressions that reference it automatically.

Thats definitely handy I just purchased a couple tutorial videos on cmiVFX (Fundamentals and Fluid Effects) just finished the Fundamentals and and about halfway through the fluid effects… wow, this software is amazing. I haven't felt like this about 3d in many many years… it's so exciting thinking about the possibilities as I watch some of the workflow explained.

Hi, new here too. I started with Houdini a month ago and im very happy and impressed about this soft. I come from 3ds as well and the particle systems in houdini are far more advanced and i love the events, also easy to understand just viewing the nodes conections. Another feature that im really interested is CHOPS, i very interesting in learning the combination between POP and CHOPS.

( Sory for my horrible english-typing, its not my native lang )

interested in CHOPs eh? shameless self-plug

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1268&Itemid=66 [sidefx.com]

andrewlowell
interested in CHOPs eh? shameless self-plug

http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1268&Itemid=66 [sidefx.com]

Hehe i bought it last week! I started reading, watched the Intro to Chops and i did a few tests I liked the idea to move particles or generate animations based on music. Just from the beginning of the lessons i try making some procedural anim with a single combination of waves and its great, the power to manipulate all in the motion view and make adjustments is a very useful tool other softwares i used dont have. It's an honour to be speaking with you Andrew, the book is great and i really like it the way you explain. Congratulation! and keep them coming