Found 340 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Technical Discussion » Missing UVquickshade: What file do I need to delete
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
Well, I tried the usual delete prefs, run first aid, even reinstall OSX without fix. After talking with tech support, I renamed the /Houdini/16.5 and restarted Houdini (which rebuilt the directory). I'm not sure which pref was broken (or plugin), but everything works fine now.
Technical Discussion » Missing UVquickshade: What file do I need to delete
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
For some reason, suddenly the UV quickshade node no longer exists for new files. Files I've already saved have it, and I can even copy and paste quickshade from older files onto new files. I am sure there is some cache or pref file that got corrupted, but I'm not sure which one. I've done first aid on my hard drive, rebooted my computer, deleted and reinstalled the latest daily build and the problem persists.
Edited by Island - June 8, 2018 15:03:32
Houdini Learning Materials » Advice for second 3d package?
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I would not bother to purchase a second product to “extend my 3D horizon”. If you want to increase commercial job opportunities, yes, it would be good to learn Maya. You get a lot further staying with one program and learning it well, rather than half learning two overlapping programs. For many people, the other programs they have are ones they learned on and already feel comfortable with, or ones that fill out some of the gaps in Houdini (like zbrush, substance painter, unfold 3D, etc.). If you have a specific need that is not being met by Houdini, and it is not an issue of your knowlege, that would be a time to add in another program to help you get to where you want to be. If you asked how to work with fluids, you might want to learn realflow. For most vfx, there isn't really a need to look beyond Houdini. For modeling, it might be easier to do things faster in one of the well known programs (3ds max, C4D, Modo, Maya, etc.). You might also want to learn a different rendering engine than Mantra (and how to do materials in that program).
Since I learned a little of Softimage, Maya, C4D, Modo, Houdini, 3D coat, Unfold 3D, Mari, Substance designer, and Substance painter (and took lessons on the piano, recorder, violin, drums, etc.), I can assure you that beginner knowledge in a variety of programs doesn't count for much.
Since I learned a little of Softimage, Maya, C4D, Modo, Houdini, 3D coat, Unfold 3D, Mari, Substance designer, and Substance painter (and took lessons on the piano, recorder, violin, drums, etc.), I can assure you that beginner knowledge in a variety of programs doesn't count for much.
Edited by Island - June 3, 2018 20:36:49
Houdini Learning Materials » /shop vs /mat
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
Generally mat is easier than shop, but I still have to use shop for substances.
Edited by Island - June 1, 2018 23:04:16
Houdini Lounge » Learning Houdini - Steep Learning Curve
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I think the comments from RoboHeadArt and Midphase are right on. As a fairly new user of Houdini, I find the various nodes that basically do almost the same (except one click box difference) not helpful.
A lot of tutorials older than a year use the old point SOP and earlier copy stamp a lot, and I am not sure why downloading an older file doesn't give an option to convert to more modern nodes. I've figured out alternatives, but older files still keep the old nodes but you can't add many of these nodes yourself. It would be helpful to have a conversion of older nodes to more modern node equivalents.
I think some of the autoUV mapping systems need to be simplified. While manual UV mapping in Houdini is pretty good (not up to 3D coat or unfold 3D in my opinion), setting up UV maps for sweeps is not easy. Getting good UV maps procedurally out of a polywire is even more difficult. Could some of these nodes have an option for some sort of logical procedural UV map creation?
Compared with a year ago, there are much better tutorials available for new users and users coming from other 3D programs. However, there is still a deficit in good tutorials on managing material nodes. Fiddling with these is pretty unintuitive if one is doing anything beyond the basics. In contrast, it is pretty easy in Maya or Cinema 4D to add fresnel to the color channels or luminance without gettng lost in strangely named input and output channels of nodes.
The original author of this thread asked about the learning curve, and I think some of the issues brought up do address this. Even if an experienced user of Houdini finds the delete node intuitively obviously different from the blast node, that is probably not the case with new users. The fact that hscript and VEX use different names also does not help.
Lastly, there are not infrequent crashes - not all of which are user error. Today I submitted a bug that UV flatten routinely crashes the latest build when invoked using the radial UV menu. (it works as expected when added as a node in the geometry view).
A lot of tutorials older than a year use the old point SOP and earlier copy stamp a lot, and I am not sure why downloading an older file doesn't give an option to convert to more modern nodes. I've figured out alternatives, but older files still keep the old nodes but you can't add many of these nodes yourself. It would be helpful to have a conversion of older nodes to more modern node equivalents.
I think some of the autoUV mapping systems need to be simplified. While manual UV mapping in Houdini is pretty good (not up to 3D coat or unfold 3D in my opinion), setting up UV maps for sweeps is not easy. Getting good UV maps procedurally out of a polywire is even more difficult. Could some of these nodes have an option for some sort of logical procedural UV map creation?
Compared with a year ago, there are much better tutorials available for new users and users coming from other 3D programs. However, there is still a deficit in good tutorials on managing material nodes. Fiddling with these is pretty unintuitive if one is doing anything beyond the basics. In contrast, it is pretty easy in Maya or Cinema 4D to add fresnel to the color channels or luminance without gettng lost in strangely named input and output channels of nodes.
The original author of this thread asked about the learning curve, and I think some of the issues brought up do address this. Even if an experienced user of Houdini finds the delete node intuitively obviously different from the blast node, that is probably not the case with new users. The fact that hscript and VEX use different names also does not help.
Lastly, there are not infrequent crashes - not all of which are user error. Today I submitted a bug that UV flatten routinely crashes the latest build when invoked using the radial UV menu. (it works as expected when added as a node in the geometry view).
Edited by Island - June 1, 2018 21:24:23
Houdini Lounge » How to divide polygon into squares?
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Learning Houdini - Steep Learning Curve
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
The loop edge cut in Houdini seems to be about the same as C4D in being able to freehand the cuts or restrict to divisions of the edge length (quantize: C4d's term, edgesnap: Houdini's term). Houdini has the advantage that you can add a bunch of edge cuts all at once by increasing the “number of loops”. The Q key in Houdini's viewport will bring up the last command, so it is marginally more time consuming than C4D, that keeps doing edge loops without having to press any key.
Edited by Island - May 30, 2018 13:25:07
Houdini Lounge » Polysplit unexpected result
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
It works for me, but I had issues with latest production build with poly selections. That was fixed with a more recent daily build.
Houdini Lounge » How to divide polygon into squares?
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
You could make the edge cuts (polysplit), which is the easiest way, by far. A semi automatic way would be to select the 36 edges (the boundary) and extrude along some other direction. Then delete the top and select one of the edges and polyfill with quad grid. Then delete out the extruded polygons.
Edited by Island - May 30, 2018 13:13:00
Houdini Lounge » Learning Houdini - Steep Learning Curve
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
The reason people say Houdini has a steep learning curve is that Houdini takes longer to be productive than almost any other 3D application. It is more like learning a mid level programming language, and you don't get too far without learning some VEX and hscript, because not much is done behind the scenes for you. For instance, in Modo, Maya, and Cinema 4D, there is a large library of premade assets, shaders, and textures. When one creates a model, a basic UV set is made for you (whether that works or not). For other programs, there is an abundance of introductory paid and free training videos and books available. There are also forums that cater to beginners that are quick to answer questions.
In other programs you can wing it for awhile without really understanding the concepts of good quad modeling, UV texturing, setting up renders, etc - while you are making pleasing models. Houdini's nodes can sometimes be difficult to understand even with the help file in front of you. Commands do different things if you are hovering over the viewport, or network (like “C” is used for assigning color in the network but bringing up a tool for adding extrudes and other things in the viewport and Q repeats last command differently in the viewport and network view if your last command was “edgeloop”).
Most schools teach other 3D programs to students. Maya is most people's introduction to 3D. If one is learning on one's own, Cinema 4D is fast to get started and very intuitive. Blender is free and has a growing community. Houdini in the past was expensive ($17,000) and used almost exclusively for FX in artists who had worked years with other programs to learn basic concepts.
However, Houdini has a logic to it that is lacking in other programs. As you advance, you will find that buying plugins is rarely needed. You don't feel like the program was sort of jumbled together (like Maya). You have much more control over everything and rarely hit a spot where there are no workarounds. Fluids, particles, smoke, etc. are all there.
In other programs you can wing it for awhile without really understanding the concepts of good quad modeling, UV texturing, setting up renders, etc - while you are making pleasing models. Houdini's nodes can sometimes be difficult to understand even with the help file in front of you. Commands do different things if you are hovering over the viewport, or network (like “C” is used for assigning color in the network but bringing up a tool for adding extrudes and other things in the viewport and Q repeats last command differently in the viewport and network view if your last command was “edgeloop”).
Most schools teach other 3D programs to students. Maya is most people's introduction to 3D. If one is learning on one's own, Cinema 4D is fast to get started and very intuitive. Blender is free and has a growing community. Houdini in the past was expensive ($17,000) and used almost exclusively for FX in artists who had worked years with other programs to learn basic concepts.
However, Houdini has a logic to it that is lacking in other programs. As you advance, you will find that buying plugins is rarely needed. You don't feel like the program was sort of jumbled together (like Maya). You have much more control over everything and rarely hit a spot where there are no workarounds. Fluids, particles, smoke, etc. are all there.
Technical Discussion » Recreating Cinema 4D Helix
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
That last is an impressive video. I wonder if Houdini will eventually bundle more example files that have nodes that can be reused for more complicated scenes. The few that are available under the help menu can be quite useful, but basic procedural shaders, UV mapped objects, etc. are limited. Personally, I haven't found anything I can use for real work in Houdini that doesn't require at least a few lines of VEX code and or hscript. I've used Softimage, Maya, Modo, C4D, and sculpting software (zbrush, 3D coat) and there was certainly less/no programming needed for most models.
I needed to model a snake recently and it was very quick and easy in C4D and a pain trying to do that quickly in Houdini. I would agree with you about the limitations of C4D, though. I have some of the Nitro plugins and would use Houdini over any of them for realistic fracturing/explosions. Lacking realflow, I cannot come close to realistic fluids in C4D even with quite complicated shaders and animations. I have looked at x-particles and am not that impressed with the demo videos I've seen. C4D's mograph is great until you need to add a few effectors and then it is actually easier to do in Houdini. For that matter, the procedural operations in C4D hit a ceiling pretty quickly. For instance, creating a tree with branches is not easy in C4D, as the sweep has to be made editable for the first branch and then one loses the ability to go back and change the thickness or curve of the trunk. The same can be said for Modo's newest procedural operators.
I needed to model a snake recently and it was very quick and easy in C4D and a pain trying to do that quickly in Houdini. I would agree with you about the limitations of C4D, though. I have some of the Nitro plugins and would use Houdini over any of them for realistic fracturing/explosions. Lacking realflow, I cannot come close to realistic fluids in C4D even with quite complicated shaders and animations. I have looked at x-particles and am not that impressed with the demo videos I've seen. C4D's mograph is great until you need to add a few effectors and then it is actually easier to do in Houdini. For that matter, the procedural operations in C4D hit a ceiling pretty quickly. For instance, creating a tree with branches is not easy in C4D, as the sweep has to be made editable for the first branch and then one loses the ability to go back and change the thickness or curve of the trunk. The same can be said for Modo's newest procedural operators.
Technical Discussion » Recreating Cinema 4D Helix
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I think the problem is much more fundamental than having more primitives. Compared with working in Maya or C4D, working in Houdini is like programming in Visual C++ compared with Visual Basic. You have to create absolutely everything from scratch. For instance, the sweep, helix, and circle in C4D creates a helix without VEX programming. The sweep adds caps and they caps can be beveled. Groups are assigned to the beveling part as well as each cap automatically. Proper UVs are created based on behind the scene unwrapping the circle. In Houdini, none of this is done.
SideFx is trying to market Houdini to artists who don't want to do a lot of programming. My experience is that you can create production ready renders in C4D, Maya, Modo, etc without programming; but that is impossible to do in Houdini. The benefit of Houdini basically being a mid level programming language is that you have much more control over everythiing, as you have specified yourself how you want everything to work. You hit a ceiling with other programs as they do a lot of stuff behind the scenes that is inaccessible.
It would be good if Houdini added some extra options to their nodes. There are several that allow operators to create groups, and it would not be difficult to have a similar option for the sweep where caps are added and group names given to the beginning and end caps. It would also be nice to have an option for creating reasonable UVs without having to create them yourself with a lot of extra nodes. Similarly, materials get very complicated quick in Houdini and assigning procedural textures is much easier in other programs. One can only hope.
SideFx is trying to market Houdini to artists who don't want to do a lot of programming. My experience is that you can create production ready renders in C4D, Maya, Modo, etc without programming; but that is impossible to do in Houdini. The benefit of Houdini basically being a mid level programming language is that you have much more control over everythiing, as you have specified yourself how you want everything to work. You hit a ceiling with other programs as they do a lot of stuff behind the scenes that is inaccessible.
It would be good if Houdini added some extra options to their nodes. There are several that allow operators to create groups, and it would not be difficult to have a similar option for the sweep where caps are added and group names given to the beginning and end caps. It would also be nice to have an option for creating reasonable UVs without having to create them yourself with a lot of extra nodes. Similarly, materials get very complicated quick in Houdini and assigning procedural textures is much easier in other programs. One can only hope.
Edited by Island - May 10, 2018 14:28:54
Technical Discussion » sweep and caps?
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
For a long time I thought this was a bug, but if you read the help for sweep, you will see that autoclosure refers to closure of the spline used in the sweep. See attachment for the difference in the two skin types.
So yes, you need to create caps. The sweep is a lot more tedious and complicated than in other 3D apps, and I would hope Houdini would eventually have option buttons to recreate some of the difficult parts (like automatically creating caps, proper UVs, etc.). If you look at the recreation of the C4D helix (in this section of the forum), you can see how many things need to be added to make the sweep “work”.
So yes, you need to create caps. The sweep is a lot more tedious and complicated than in other 3D apps, and I would hope Houdini would eventually have option buttons to recreate some of the difficult parts (like automatically creating caps, proper UVs, etc.). If you look at the recreation of the C4D helix (in this section of the forum), you can see how many things need to be added to make the sweep “work”.
Edited by Island - May 10, 2018 11:23:25
Technical Discussion » Recreating Cinema 4D Helix
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I think I figured out most of the mistakes. I needed to add a fuse, change uvmapping from point to vertex, and change the group to an expression for last two polygons created. Updated:
Edited by Island - May 10, 2018 15:53:10
Technical Discussion » Recreating Cinema 4D Helix
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I am trying to recreate the Cinema 4D Helix in Houdini, but have hit a couple of road blocks. The C4D Helix is pretty intuitive and automatically creates good UV's. It allows one to control the height, turns, cross sectional scaling, and caps. It creates polygon groups for the end and rounding part of the caps so that it is easy to texture these parts separately.
I can get somewhat close in Houdini, but I have several issues. I would like to create caps for the ends of the sweep that have group names that are procedurally calculated, so that I don't have to create these manually. The system I used will not work if I change the helix or circle number of points. I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
I can get somewhat close in Houdini, but I have several issues. I would like to create caps for the ends of the sweep that have group names that are procedurally calculated, so that I don't have to create these manually. The system I used will not work if I change the helix or circle number of points. I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.
Edited by Island - May 8, 2018 21:52:29
Technical Discussion » Cartoon Shader problem in Houdini
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
This is how I would like the outline to occur in Houdini (render from C4D with sketch and toon, using substance material)
Playing with this some more in Houdini, it looks like the toon outline shader is pretty buggy, and sometimes it must get cached incorrectly and refuse to outline. One repeatable issue is that for this to work, using an instance for the outline frequently does not work, but if I create a copy of the object - then the outline works even with principle shader assigned to the original object.
Playing with this some more in Houdini, it looks like the toon outline shader is pretty buggy, and sometimes it must get cached incorrectly and refuse to outline. One repeatable issue is that for this to work, using an instance for the outline frequently does not work, but if I create a copy of the object - then the outline works even with principle shader assigned to the original object.
Edited by Island - May 1, 2018 10:31:28
Technical Discussion » Cartoon Shader problem in Houdini
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
I am trying to use a toon shader in Houdini to add a black outline for 3D objects for a book on illustrated knots. I want to preserve the texture on the objects but add the outline. In C4D this is easily done with the sketch and toon shader, and the outline will be there whether objects themselves have the equivalent of a principleshader or a tooncolor shader. (see attachment). In Houdini, the outline seems only to work if the object is given a tooncolor shader, and will not work with a principleshader assigned to the object. (see attachment). Obviously the setup in Houdini is more complicated than in C4D, and I created instances of the objects in Houdini and assigned these instances the outline shader. How do I create an outline yet keep the principle shader on the object? Houdini file attached.
Attachment Not Found
Technical Discussion » Flickering on animation
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
The description in your link above for arclen was not particularly intuitive, but your solution was very helpful. The index of a curve and way of expressing what node was being measured were not things that I could have figured out with the links.
Technical Discussion » Flickering on animation
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
Thank you again. I would never in a million years have been able to come up with that expression on my own with SideFx help and Google.
Technical Discussion » Flickering on animation
- Island
- 340 posts
- Offline
That is VERY helpful. Rotating one Uv texture -90 degrees made the need to map v coordinates from u coordinates not necessary. The digital asset idea will make this process easier and I liked that your method doesn’t require a 359 degree open arc and adjusting the fuse distance.
Is there a way in uv transform to put in an expression that scales the y axis by arclen circle divided by arclen curve?
Is there a way in uv transform to put in an expression that scales the y axis by arclen circle divided by arclen curve?
-
- Quick Links