wow, no reason to get upset .. no one has to convince me Houdini is a good deal I wish more studios used it just like you do, and if I had my way I'd be using it exclusively instead of Max so I can stop staring at code
… convincing studios, studio owners and people working at studios that it's a good deal is another matter however … especially studios that don't use Renderman.
I've seen Mantra outperform or get better results than just about everything I've tried in VRay / Mental Ray but I've used Mantra .. I'm pointing to the fact that studios don't like to up and change renderers just because, especially if they already have experts in Mental Ray or a “Max” renderer.
I'm a Max owner but not Maya so looks like I needed to do some more research on the Maya pricing … my apologies
Also I don't agree with a lot of studios not using Max … where are you getting that figure? If you're talking about film than that's probably true compaired to Maya, but do more film studios really use Houdini than Max? I would be very pleasantly suprised.
Found 531 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Lounge » Release date for Houdini 9.0?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Release date for Houdini 9.0?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
not trying to start a software debate here … both ways have their advantages but the studio I freelance for uses Max as thier primary application, then mental ray and VRay, then Afterburn .. and a few other plugs only on specific stations.
I would think that for serious particle stuff the PFlow boxes would be all necessary as well, and/or Real-flow, but the main part of a studio might not be particles, it would be more along the lines of modeling / texturing / animation.
My main gripe with Max is the fact that it does not have a built in Compositor … and while it works good with Combustion render passes are a huge pain.
I would think most people however would see this as an unnessesary feature in a 3D app and better done in a stand-alone application … but this was one of my main “wow” moments when getting into Houdini. Both applications are interesting.
I would think that for serious particle stuff the PFlow boxes would be all necessary as well, and/or Real-flow, but the main part of a studio might not be particles, it would be more along the lines of modeling / texturing / animation.
My main gripe with Max is the fact that it does not have a built in Compositor … and while it works good with Combustion render passes are a huge pain.
I would think most people however would see this as an unnessesary feature in a 3D app and better done in a stand-alone application … but this was one of my main “wow” moments when getting into Houdini. Both applications are interesting.
Houdini Lounge » Release date for Houdini 9.0?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
well, I'm not a studio owner, so I don't know what's too expensive and what isn't .. I was just pointing to a few reasons why studios might not want to use it as their main app … it might be too high it might not but it is more expensive than the other ones so that isn't a good reason to switch,
Also while mantra might be great there again is the issue that a lot of people might not intimately know Manta, and Houdini doesn't use a lot of other 3ds party renderers, so even though mantra might be better than Mental Ray / other stuff studios might stick with what is in their pipeline.
Generally I think people do value more what they pay more for, so a more expensive Houdini would be a benefit to Houdini users/freelancers, probably not to studios though.
Also while mantra might be great there again is the issue that a lot of people might not intimately know Manta, and Houdini doesn't use a lot of other 3ds party renderers, so even though mantra might be better than Mental Ray / other stuff studios might stick with what is in their pipeline.
Generally I think people do value more what they pay more for, so a more expensive Houdini would be a benefit to Houdini users/freelancers, probably not to studios though.
Houdini Lounge » Release date for Houdini 9.0?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
looks like Houdini master is around $1,000 more than Maya unlimited, and around $4,000 more than Max. Also the Max/Maya prices are for unlimited rendering, the floating for Houdini is $3,000 more than Maya unlimited
http://estore.autodesk.com/dr/sat3/ec_Main.Entry16?SP=10024&PN=29&xid=19515&V1=31047593&V2=31047593&V3=1&V5=&V4=10&S1=&S2=&S3=&S4=&S5=&CUR=840&DSP=0&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0 [estore.autodesk.com]
http://estore.autodesk.com/dr/sat3/ec_Main.Entry16?SP=10024&PN=29&xid=19515&V1=31047593&V2=31047593&V3=1&V5=&V4=10&S1=&S2=&S3=&S4=&S5=&CUR=840&DSP=0&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0 [estore.autodesk.com]
Houdini Lounge » Release date for Houdini 9.0?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
I'm not sure if an app like Houdini could have it both ways … I would think it would either be an app that most people don't know, and used for technically difficult/procedural things, or it could be a standard like maya/max that no-one thinks anything differently about.
I was drawn to Houdini because not everyone and their brother was using it and I thought it might have some special things to offer, which it does. To compete as a studio's main application it wouldn't just be a matter of making Houdini “easier to use” it would also be
a. price point, coming down but still way higher than the standards
b. talent, building the main modeling/materials/animation departments would require a lot more staffing than specialty FX and Dynamics people, and they would need cheaper rates as well.
c. onslaught of promo and marketing, trying to complete with Autodesk on this would be a huge undertaking
d. more plugins / renderers, and this would take a lot of time and is a result of more studios/people using it.
I'd personally rather they just keep making Houdini better/faster/more flexible, keep the market specialized and keep the price-points high on employment. More and more studios will use it as a result of things like increased product awareness and education, and also because of features other programs don't/can't offer like Digital Assets, Procedural Modeling, Controllable Particles, and High-end Dynamics … and of course the alien chops.
I was drawn to Houdini because not everyone and their brother was using it and I thought it might have some special things to offer, which it does. To compete as a studio's main application it wouldn't just be a matter of making Houdini “easier to use” it would also be
a. price point, coming down but still way higher than the standards
b. talent, building the main modeling/materials/animation departments would require a lot more staffing than specialty FX and Dynamics people, and they would need cheaper rates as well.
c. onslaught of promo and marketing, trying to complete with Autodesk on this would be a huge undertaking
d. more plugins / renderers, and this would take a lot of time and is a result of more studios/people using it.
I'd personally rather they just keep making Houdini better/faster/more flexible, keep the market specialized and keep the price-points high on employment. More and more studios will use it as a result of things like increased product awareness and education, and also because of features other programs don't/can't offer like Digital Assets, Procedural Modeling, Controllable Particles, and High-end Dynamics … and of course the alien chops.
Houdini Lounge » Houdini mindset? (new user)
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
I started on POV-Ray, which didn't have an interface … just script .. pretty much forced to work procedurally, if or for loop for everything.
Once I started using POV-Ray for commercial projects it quickly became very cumbersome and once I discovered Maya/Max I quickly switched over and did most things much more efficiently … however, I always thought something was missing in these major 3D apps until I bumped into Houdini and gave it a serious look.
After that … all the pov-ray knowledge that was hiding somewhere came back. I know it's very possible to use Houdini in the same way as a maya/max or to use maxscript/mel in the same way as Houdini, but I do think they are very different, which is what makes Houdini very refreshing for me at least.
Once I started using POV-Ray for commercial projects it quickly became very cumbersome and once I discovered Maya/Max I quickly switched over and did most things much more efficiently … however, I always thought something was missing in these major 3D apps until I bumped into Houdini and gave it a serious look.
After that … all the pov-ray knowledge that was hiding somewhere came back. I know it's very possible to use Houdini in the same way as a maya/max or to use maxscript/mel in the same way as Houdini, but I do think they are very different, which is what makes Houdini very refreshing for me at least.
Houdini Lounge » Hey, how about a feature request section of the forum?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
true, but it could be both too … I'm guesing sidefx main site has more traffic, and autodesk has “the area”
Houdini Lounge » Hey, how about a feature request section of the forum?
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Houdini mindset? (new user)
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Houdini mindset? (new user)
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
the “mindset” a lot of people might be referring to would be the mindset that would normally be scripting in other applications .. which would be reserved for scripting people.
In Houdini everyone gets to enjoy the fun.
This is just my personal observation, but another thing that might require a different mindset is that everything in a more mainstream (see the thread a few posts down) 3D program is typically based around the idea of an “object.” In Houdini it's much more abstract than that and it's more centered around the idea of a network, containing many building blocks of graphical components, not even limited to 3D graphics (cops, chops).
In Houdini everyone gets to enjoy the fun.
This is just my personal observation, but another thing that might require a different mindset is that everything in a more mainstream (see the thread a few posts down) 3D program is typically based around the idea of an “object.” In Houdini it's much more abstract than that and it's more centered around the idea of a network, containing many building blocks of graphical components, not even limited to 3D graphics (cops, chops).
Houdini Lounge » Houdini mindset? (new user)
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
the same way you'd approach it in any package, I'd get a basic component working, then the next component, then the next component. It's probably better to get things working in pieces.
This approach is particularly good in Houdini though because of Digital Assets, which is pretty much your own operator/node. Once those nodes are made to do the parts you want than the job gets a lot easier.
Unfortunately there is a drawback though, once you get used to using digital assets you'll want to construct one for everything when something similar might be in the default interface, so it is good to do some background resurch with the default stuff first. I made a DA for a 3dsmax-like polygon sphere the other day (took quite a few hours) only to discover that the “mesh” option for the sphere was exactly the same thing … OOps.
This approach is particularly good in Houdini though because of Digital Assets, which is pretty much your own operator/node. Once those nodes are made to do the parts you want than the job gets a lot easier.
Unfortunately there is a drawback though, once you get used to using digital assets you'll want to construct one for everything when something similar might be in the default interface, so it is good to do some background resurch with the default stuff first. I made a DA for a 3dsmax-like polygon sphere the other day (took quite a few hours) only to discover that the “mesh” option for the sphere was exactly the same thing … OOps.
Houdini Lounge » for 3D teachers
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
here it is … I replaced the students names.
I was also thinking that it would be funny to do a procedural model of the students sitting at desks, and have their heads scale based on the scores … but that would be too dorky even for me, so I opted not to waist any more time,
is much better than the grade-book program though, and you can also do instant estimates by sliding the scores of what they need to get on what to pass or get to a certain grade etc.
I was also thinking that it would be funny to do a procedural model of the students sitting at desks, and have their heads scale based on the scores … but that would be too dorky even for me, so I opted not to waist any more time,
is much better than the grade-book program though, and you can also do instant estimates by sliding the scores of what they need to get on what to pass or get to a certain grade etc.
Houdini Lounge » for 3D teachers
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
Wow, thats really cool
I teach classes in 3ds Max and was sick of the horrid error-prone gradebook program at the school. I set up a simple template with CHOPs and the grades work great
just enter in all the students names in the constant, then add in the assignment grades, multiply them by the percentages, and to do averages just set them to different chains and math operations.
Would anyone be interested in a digital asset for this?
I teach classes in 3ds Max and was sick of the horrid error-prone gradebook program at the school. I set up a simple template with CHOPs and the grades work great
just enter in all the students names in the constant, then add in the assignment grades, multiply them by the percentages, and to do averages just set them to different chains and math operations.
Would anyone be interested in a digital asset for this?
Houdini Lounge » Houdini for "Mainstream-Users"
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
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.
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.
Houdini Lounge » Helpful DOPs data tips
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
actually thats funny I'm trying to make sounds with DOPs too, not important production work but it could be once I have my systems worked out.
Anyway .. I'm currently trying to combine stamped/generated wires, with wire glue constraints, and also a force feild instead of collisions to make the wires not go through the wall, since the collisions on the inside of a cylinder were bringing it to a hault.
The feild works great until I apply it to my real system that's being automatically generated, something isn't working … and while everyone says how great the details view is I'm still pretty mystified by it .. is there a flow diagram anywhere to explain exactly how a dop is constructed and how the subdata interacts with the objects?
Anyway .. I'm currently trying to combine stamped/generated wires, with wire glue constraints, and also a force feild instead of collisions to make the wires not go through the wall, since the collisions on the inside of a cylinder were bringing it to a hault.
The feild works great until I apply it to my real system that's being automatically generated, something isn't working … and while everyone says how great the details view is I'm still pretty mystified by it .. is there a flow diagram anywhere to explain exactly how a dop is constructed and how the subdata interacts with the objects?
Houdini Lounge » need dynamically created wire sims advice
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
wow, that's amazing, wire glue constraint has everything I need. The wire objects point attributes just need to be set to constrain to the correct points, which can be set using near point expressions in sops
Houdini Lounge » need dynamically created wire sims advice
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
well, there are a lot of these wire formations so I certainly wouldn't want to set up all the constraints etc by hand, and they are stamped so I would have to lock down the geometry beforehand which I don't want to do.
These are going to generate other effects as well as musical notes with their movements so I need to put off the desision of how many legs, how many creatures etc until I've addressed the other issues, then I may need to adjust quite a few factors.
The purpose of the simulation is very simple however, merely to have the legs etc react to the surrounding tube and have residual bounce. I've got this completely working except for the constraints so far. So, I'm going to have to dive into the constrains stuff there is surely a way to make and dynamically add them.
These are going to generate other effects as well as musical notes with their movements so I need to put off the desision of how many legs, how many creatures etc until I've addressed the other issues, then I may need to adjust quite a few factors.
The purpose of the simulation is very simple however, merely to have the legs etc react to the surrounding tube and have residual bounce. I've got this completely working except for the constraints so far. So, I'm going to have to dive into the constrains stuff there is surely a way to make and dynamically add them.
Houdini Lounge » View Port problem
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
yeah I was really weirded out by Houdini's view stuff at first too, it's strange if your used to Max etc. I really appreciate it now since you can much more easily move through the scene and look on the bottom or tops of objects.
One thing to do is if you're in the habit of arc rotating in Max from an angle, you'd really want to use more of a side swipe sort of rotate to do the same thing in Houdini; and keep the CTRL+space bar handy to compensate when needed.
One thing to do is if you're in the habit of arc rotating in Max from an angle, you'd really want to use more of a side swipe sort of rotate to do the same thing in Houdini; and keep the CTRL+space bar handy to compensate when needed.
Houdini Lounge » need dynamically created wire sims advice
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
well, I have a simple method worked out where the geometry inherits the $LIFE of the particles they are copied onto as a point attribute, then a delete operator deletes everything that doesn't have a $LIFE of zero; ensuring that only the first frame of whatever wires are copied will exist in the wire object DOP.
From there it is creating on every frame $F … so as new wires are created they just get fed into the simulation.
This method seems to work but seems unusually slow, maybe it's just because I have lots of wires … is this a common way to do this stuff?
Next issue is to dynamically generate constrains for each chunk of wires (in the middle of the spiders) I'm guessing I'll be able to do some type of distance based attribute but we'll see … is there any obvious approaches for bringing in dynamically created constraints to wires?
From there it is creating on every frame $F … so as new wires are created they just get fed into the simulation.
This method seems to work but seems unusually slow, maybe it's just because I have lots of wires … is this a common way to do this stuff?
Next issue is to dynamically generate constrains for each chunk of wires (in the middle of the spiders) I'm guessing I'll be able to do some type of distance based attribute but we'll see … is there any obvious approaches for bringing in dynamically created constraints to wires?
Houdini Lounge » need dynamically created wire sims advice
- andrewlowell
- 537 posts
- Offline
Ok, so I have a copy-stamp crowd that also creates wires which will eventually be simulated and then used for wire-deforming the geometry.
This crowd/wires needs to be dependent on a particle system with a variable number of particles, created at different times. I'm wondering how to dynamically get the wires into DOPs.
First off, I see lots of options in Dops for copying objects etc but not much for wires, so what's best of copying unique wires?
The major issue is of course the fact that I just want to get in the wires whenever they are first created by the particle/system/copystamp … I don't want to create new wires on every frame. Then these wires need to be constrained to constraints which corrispond to the particles as well, so I'll need to dynamically constrain the wires to the appropriate constraint.
So, any tips to get me off the ground? Basically advice for copying wires into Dops.
This crowd/wires needs to be dependent on a particle system with a variable number of particles, created at different times. I'm wondering how to dynamically get the wires into DOPs.
First off, I see lots of options in Dops for copying objects etc but not much for wires, so what's best of copying unique wires?
The major issue is of course the fact that I just want to get in the wires whenever they are first created by the particle/system/copystamp … I don't want to create new wires on every frame. Then these wires need to be constrained to constraints which corrispond to the particles as well, so I'll need to dynamically constrain the wires to the appropriate constraint.
So, any tips to get me off the ground? Basically advice for copying wires into Dops.
-
- Quick Links