Found 65 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Lounge » which is the best
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Everyone gets mad when you compare 3d programs because no one wants to think of one as better than the other, that's why you haven't gotten a real response. All 3D programs can be used for all things, but each have their specialty. If you're into character animation, use XSI. If you're into architecture, use Max. If you want to be a 3D generalist, use Maya or Lightwave. If you want to do complex particle effects, learn houdini and C. Once you learn one, it only takes a few weeks to convert to another so it really doesn't matter which one you choose.
Houdini Lounge » Intel Graphics Chipsets
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Um, from previous experiences, the definitive rule is: do not get an intel video card if you want to run any 3d apps. Ati is a hell of a lot better than intel, and not all nvidia laptops are “expensive”, do more research [shopping.hp.com].
Houdini Lounge » Houdini vs. XSI - Is Houdini really Better?
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » i3d twister
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Hi Alex, (sorry for the long post)
I think I know what you're saying, and in the case of my modeling toolset suggestions, I can understand that that toolset may not be in the best interest of sesi. However, there is no way that that is true in this case. If houdini has one specialty, what is it? particle effects right? So why not have a full volumetric particle tool? They already have i3d in place, ready and working, so it can't be _that_ hard to make it easier and more powerful for vfx. Mantra already renders volumes perfectly, and there's already an interface for static volumes, there's just nothing for particle based volumes. In other cases, I can understand sesi not wanting to develop xxx toolset for this or that, but in the case of houdini's most powerful feature, I think it would be beneficial at the very least. And again, I can't imagine that it could be very hard seeing as there is already an interface for most of what's needed.
I understand that specialized tools don't always fit in sesi's plan of having a procedural 3D application, but there's a problem with this: Specialized tools are necessary for 3D production. A good example of this is the character toolset, which, from what I heard through the grapevine, is making houdini a hell of a lot more popular than DOPs or possibly even POPs, as it has made way for entire movies to be made with houdini (again, this is just what I heard, could be wrong). So if anything, I think a specialized toolset in this case, is what sesi wants, especially when it will increase the power if its main feature, particles.
Of all of the 3D programs out there, houdini is by far the best candidate to integrate specialized toolsets because it is so perfectly organized. If you don't need xxx tool, you never have to even see it at all. This is clear with the character tools: they're not going to get in the way of any particle people. That being said, I think if anything, houdini needs more specialized tools than other applications. Especially because of the “niche” market that houdini is in. It is clearly a program that does not dominate the 3d marketplace, therefore, it's chances of being purchased and integrated into an effects house rely solely on the strength of its specialties. Obviously, many 3D houses that currently use houdini would not use it if it weren't specialized for particle effects.
And one last note about sesi being brilliant -
I truly hope that you're right about sesi's brilliance. But it scares me that you describe them as such. My brother is brilliant, he has a 170+ IQ. He's also completely psychotic and cannot communicate like a normal human being. Guess what, he's a hacker too, sound familiar? If sesi needs anything, it's not brilliance, it's communication and socializing (so to speak) with the rest of the 3D world. Someone at sesi had the _truly_ brilliant idea to bring houdini into the mainstream, and I am with that person 110%. I think houdini kicks ass… But in order to fully walk the mainstream walk, houdini must make some changes. My modeling toolset suggestions were very good ones in the “mainstream” sense. They may not be popular with houdini users (aka most people reading hehe), but just about every non-houdini user would love what I asked for, and that would only help houdini as a whole. This is exactly what I'm doing now… I don't know why I waste so much time with this crap though, again, I'm thinking too much about the future of a program that I don't even own… I really should focus on getting a Fing job <sigh> =/
I think I know what you're saying, and in the case of my modeling toolset suggestions, I can understand that that toolset may not be in the best interest of sesi. However, there is no way that that is true in this case. If houdini has one specialty, what is it? particle effects right? So why not have a full volumetric particle tool? They already have i3d in place, ready and working, so it can't be _that_ hard to make it easier and more powerful for vfx. Mantra already renders volumes perfectly, and there's already an interface for static volumes, there's just nothing for particle based volumes. In other cases, I can understand sesi not wanting to develop xxx toolset for this or that, but in the case of houdini's most powerful feature, I think it would be beneficial at the very least. And again, I can't imagine that it could be very hard seeing as there is already an interface for most of what's needed.
I understand that specialized tools don't always fit in sesi's plan of having a procedural 3D application, but there's a problem with this: Specialized tools are necessary for 3D production. A good example of this is the character toolset, which, from what I heard through the grapevine, is making houdini a hell of a lot more popular than DOPs or possibly even POPs, as it has made way for entire movies to be made with houdini (again, this is just what I heard, could be wrong). So if anything, I think a specialized toolset in this case, is what sesi wants, especially when it will increase the power if its main feature, particles.
Sometimes, having a super-specialized tool might just not fit in super well… Remember tho, that SESI is very small compared to all other major 3D software companies out there. But SESI has really brilliant developers/engineers there.On this last note, I'd just like to say a few things -
Of all of the 3D programs out there, houdini is by far the best candidate to integrate specialized toolsets because it is so perfectly organized. If you don't need xxx tool, you never have to even see it at all. This is clear with the character tools: they're not going to get in the way of any particle people. That being said, I think if anything, houdini needs more specialized tools than other applications. Especially because of the “niche” market that houdini is in. It is clearly a program that does not dominate the 3d marketplace, therefore, it's chances of being purchased and integrated into an effects house rely solely on the strength of its specialties. Obviously, many 3D houses that currently use houdini would not use it if it weren't specialized for particle effects.
And one last note about sesi being brilliant -
I truly hope that you're right about sesi's brilliance. But it scares me that you describe them as such. My brother is brilliant, he has a 170+ IQ. He's also completely psychotic and cannot communicate like a normal human being. Guess what, he's a hacker too, sound familiar? If sesi needs anything, it's not brilliance, it's communication and socializing (so to speak) with the rest of the 3D world. Someone at sesi had the _truly_ brilliant idea to bring houdini into the mainstream, and I am with that person 110%. I think houdini kicks ass… But in order to fully walk the mainstream walk, houdini must make some changes. My modeling toolset suggestions were very good ones in the “mainstream” sense. They may not be popular with houdini users (aka most people reading hehe), but just about every non-houdini user would love what I asked for, and that would only help houdini as a whole. This is exactly what I'm doing now… I don't know why I waste so much time with this crap though, again, I'm thinking too much about the future of a program that I don't even own… I really should focus on getting a Fing job <sigh> =/
Houdini Lounge » i3d twister
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
wolfwood: Thank you for clearing that up, you've answered basically my and pld's questions. And on that note, I'd love for you to relay this to the sesi developers. I was just talking to a developer the other day and I was trying to get him to realize how great the specialized (aka non-prodedural) additions are to houdini. It's great that houdini wants to be a fully procedural application, but the vfx world requires customizations for common problems, like the character tools. This developer didn't seem to realize the importance of specialized toolsets for common problems, but rather assumed that it was because I have no production experience with houdini. So it looks like it's up to the seasoned peeps to yell at sesi for me. I can only wish that there will be more additions included, or even optional in houdini over the years hehe.
Houdini Lounge » Mental Ray
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
wolfwood and jason: I agree with both of you on all points. I don't think that houdini should come with mental ray at the expense of sesi nor at the expense of its users. But at the same time, I think the current renderplus cost is only appropriate when applied to renderman. However, offering two renderplus versions may not be worth the confusion. What I think would be best for sesi is to allow the current mental ray interfacing to be free with houdini, but not include a mental ray license. I can't imagine that this would cost sesi much and might make up for any small costs by added appeal from large places that use mental ray (I heard ILM is using mental ray largely now?). Mental ray's user base has been growing for a while, and houses that use mental ray primarily seem to be more and more common. Maybe sesi will do what they did with halo, charge for it at first to make up for the production costs and then include it in the main program. If not include it for free, maybe they could charge very little for it to make it more appealing to big houses that already use mr, to integrate houdini more as their main 3D app.
jesta: You work at a vfx house? holy crap, that's surprising and scary. Okay, jokes aside, quality was not the issue I was concerned with, I'm asking for mental ray for the sake of houdini. Sesi wants it to be more popular than it is, and so do I. That's my only concern here.
jesta: You work at a vfx house? holy crap, that's surprising and scary. Okay, jokes aside, quality was not the issue I was concerned with, I'm asking for mental ray for the sake of houdini. Sesi wants it to be more popular than it is, and so do I. That's my only concern here.
Houdini Lounge » i3d twister
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
jesta: DD uses i3d? lol, so how do you explain storm and voxelB? And what exactly works fine for you? Are you saying that you can control the things I asked about that are easy to control in ab and hv? Density, noise attributes, particle size? If you can, tell me how. If not, stop posting.
wolfwood: so i3d _can_ be used with particles? I mean, you can actually ramp things like particle point size, and density based on life or position or something? When I looked, it seemed to me that some things were controlled by the shader, but others were controlled by the renderer, and didn't give any other options otherwise (except as always with the coding method). I'm just asking here, I'm not criticizing. I know that most of houdini can be powerful with coders on site, but that can be said with anything, as I've stated before. Mental ray can render volumes too, but I don't see anyone flocking to xsi or maya to do volumetric particle work with it because there's no real interface for it. And if we're in the realm of $$$ and time, I'd just buy renderplus and get air or prman.
wolfwood: so i3d _can_ be used with particles? I mean, you can actually ramp things like particle point size, and density based on life or position or something? When I looked, it seemed to me that some things were controlled by the shader, but others were controlled by the renderer, and didn't give any other options otherwise (except as always with the coding method). I'm just asking here, I'm not criticizing. I know that most of houdini can be powerful with coders on site, but that can be said with anything, as I've stated before. Mental ray can render volumes too, but I don't see anyone flocking to xsi or maya to do volumetric particle work with it because there's no real interface for it. And if we're in the realm of $$$ and time, I'd just buy renderplus and get air or prman.
Houdini Lounge » i3d twister
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
dude, jesta, if a developer is saying that it's not really meant for particles, guess what, it's not really meant for particles. Feature light? What features _does_ it have is more the question. Rendering static volumes you say? Yes, that is one feature, correct. But to me, it doesn't even look like it has your standard ramp controls. I don't doubt that you could get color mapped to a ramp, but what about size, density, noise settings? I'm not saying it's terrible, don't get me wrong, it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Still, when comparing it to afterburn or hypervoxels, what _is_ there is the correct question. It's not a matter of rendering and tweaking to get the correct results if you can't control anything no matter how many tweaks you do.
Houdini Lounge » Mental Ray
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
(I wanted to post this somewhere else but didn't really find anywhere else to post it)
Why isn't mental ray part of the standard version of houdini? I know that everyone here loves mantra n all, but mental ray's a good renderer, and has a very good staple in the effects industry. It's almost the default renderer for the 3 main 3D programs, so wouldn't it make sense to have mental ray as an _included_ optional renderer in houdini? Yes, I know that you can pay $2,500 to have it included, but that sounds too pricey for mental ray, plus you'll still have to pay for mr on top of that. For renderman, I understand paying that much but for a renderer that's included with 3 of the 5 main 3D programs, that's high to me. And I haven't yet mentioned the quality and depth of mental ray vs mantra. Yes, I know mantra is good, but some places think that mental ray is better, so why not have mental ray as well? It has its reasons to be included alongside mantra if not only to make houdini a bit more of a mainstream 3D program. So does anyone know why it's not included or atleast optional for less $?
Why isn't mental ray part of the standard version of houdini? I know that everyone here loves mantra n all, but mental ray's a good renderer, and has a very good staple in the effects industry. It's almost the default renderer for the 3 main 3D programs, so wouldn't it make sense to have mental ray as an _included_ optional renderer in houdini? Yes, I know that you can pay $2,500 to have it included, but that sounds too pricey for mental ray, plus you'll still have to pay for mr on top of that. For renderman, I understand paying that much but for a renderer that's included with 3 of the 5 main 3D programs, that's high to me. And I haven't yet mentioned the quality and depth of mental ray vs mantra. Yes, I know mantra is good, but some places think that mental ray is better, so why not have mental ray as well? It has its reasons to be included alongside mantra if not only to make houdini a bit more of a mainstream 3D program. So does anyone know why it's not included or atleast optional for less $?
Houdini Lounge » Houdini v9?
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
jestaI don't understand, the model sop was in version 6?
And the reflection of the 9 is a very clear indication that we're actually going to revert back a few versions.
This undoubtedly means the model SOP will be returnig.
Houdini Lounge » i3d twister
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
pld: I did the exact same thing about a year ago, and had the exact same result hehe . Good looks in a single frame, but nothing good in an animation, no matter how hard I tried. Since that time, I've talked to a few houdini people about i3d and I also talked to a developer who said that i3d isn't really meant for particle work. It's possible of course, but i3d is more meant for static volumes (I guess ?). I heard that odforce.net has some i3d shaders meant for particles, but I haven't looked. However, even with complex shaders, I get the sense that i3d cannot match the power or ease of afterburn for max or hypervoxels for lightwave, so if you've used either of these I think you'll still be unsatisfied with the final result.
Houdini Lounge » a good editor
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
I don't code for nothin but I like dev C++ as a general text editor, it's free, high quality and customizable. It's meant for c/c++, but I like it for all the little 3d stuff that I write. www.bloodshed.net
Technical Discussion » bug (?): Splitting panes = no controls
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Ok, so I talked about it a little more with some people, and here's some more info:
The build I was looking for was the OS's build. So I should stated:
Houdini: 8.1.666
Build: Windows i686
and some steps to reproduce this are:
1) Start houdini with four panes, as the pics above show, or split houdini into 4 panes, as the pics show.
2) Close the two bottom panes (it can actually be any two panes)
3) Split the right pane
4) Split the left pane, and notice that it creates a dead pane.
These steps are actually not necessary at all, closing and splitting panes randomly creates these dead panes all over the place for me. But the steps do create the dead panes, 100% of the time for me atleast.
The build I was looking for was the OS's build. So I should stated:
Houdini: 8.1.666
Build: Windows i686
and some steps to reproduce this are:
1) Start houdini with four panes, as the pics above show, or split houdini into 4 panes, as the pics show.
2) Close the two bottom panes (it can actually be any two panes)
3) Split the right pane
4) Split the left pane, and notice that it creates a dead pane.
These steps are actually not necessary at all, closing and splitting panes randomly creates these dead panes all over the place for me. But the steps do create the dead panes, 100% of the time for me atleast.
Technical Discussion » bug (?): Splitting panes = no controls
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
ahh, thank you twod, that explains a lot more . If Ondrej just told me that, I would've already posted the build number. But on a side note, this number looks nothing like wolfwood's example =/. Yea, I wanna get 8.17 soon, maybe tonight.
Technical Discussion » bug (?): Splitting panes = no controls
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Choose Version under the main Help menu to see the version in the bottom message bar. Alternatively, you can run “version” in a textport.I said I can't find the build, not the version number. How could you miss that, it was less than a sentence away from where I said that I can't find the build…?
Using houdini 8.1.66, it says in the second pic, but for some reason not in the first. I would post the build, but I don't know how to check that.In the thread: What to do if you've found a ‘bug’ in Apprentice, Wolf's example includes a build number… so I looked around to try to find it and couldn't. Hence my original statement. I was only trying to conform to the rules on the forum, but if it's not important…nm.
Technical Discussion » bug (?): Splitting panes = no controls
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Below is the same desk with the same scene. Notice the fact that I can't see my vex shader, in the first pic, but in the second I can, and both have “Toolbars and Controls” turned on, but in the first pic, the controls aren't actually there.
The difference between these two pics is that I restarted houdini to get my controls, and to get my vex surface preview to work. This bug happens for me when I split a pane. Even if it's a viewer pane, or a network pane, a lot of times splitting panes seems to create a “dead” pane like the pane in the lower left hand corner of the first pic. It's supposed to be a viewer, but nothing's on the screen, and there're no controls, even though they're turned on. I searched the forums and help but couldn't find anything… seems to be a pretty general thing, maybe this is a known bug, I dunno.
Sorry about the image size, but I wanted to show that the lower right pane works fine, and it was split from the upper right network view. But the lower left pane doesn't work, and it was split split from the upper left viewer pane.
Edit: Using houdini 8.1.666, it says in the second pic, but for some reason not in the first. I would post the build, but I don't know how to check that.
The difference between these two pics is that I restarted houdini to get my controls, and to get my vex surface preview to work. This bug happens for me when I split a pane. Even if it's a viewer pane, or a network pane, a lot of times splitting panes seems to create a “dead” pane like the pane in the lower left hand corner of the first pic. It's supposed to be a viewer, but nothing's on the screen, and there're no controls, even though they're turned on. I searched the forums and help but couldn't find anything… seems to be a pretty general thing, maybe this is a known bug, I dunno.
Sorry about the image size, but I wanted to show that the lower right pane works fine, and it was split from the upper right network view. But the lower left pane doesn't work, and it was split split from the upper left viewer pane.
Edit: Using houdini 8.1.666, it says in the second pic, but for some reason not in the first. I would post the build, but I don't know how to check that.
Edited by - Sept. 5, 2006 23:38:41
Houdini Lounge » How would I make houdini a better modeler? Oh, I'm so glad..
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » How would I make houdini a better modeler? Oh, I'm so glad..
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Ok, maybe I over-reacted. I get a little protective, when you wade in here with barely a handfull of posts to your name telling oldtimers their comments are ourageousOoooooh no, I'm the one that's way over-reacting, especially with my last post. Now that I look back at what I've said, I feel like a total ass. I forgot how polite, civil and mature everyone is on this forum, so if anyone's still reading, I sincerely apologize for talking like I know you guys. Although I do feel strongly about everything that I've said on the subject of the “model sop”. So here's a calm explanation of the benefits/drawbacks that I think this node will bring:
Benefits:
The most important benefit here is that you will have a single node which can be very easy for any new houdini user to access most (if not all) of the modeling tools that they've been using for years, or in the case that they're completely new to 3D, you have an area with all important polygon functions. Perhaps it could even have all of houdini's polygon functions(?). Mostly people have been saying this is a bad idea because they're not new to houdini and don't think they need a change in the modeling system but there's a problem, you've been already using houdini for years, of course you don't mind the way it is now, you have to be able to remember how you felt first using the tool… that is, if you were using it on your own, as most people don't have the benefit of having someone to instruct them through each step.
The second most important thing here is that you have an option to model with the procedural approach or you have the option to model with the “standard” approach. I would never think of replacing houdini's modeling system, I simply want to make it better. There's nothing wrong with that. This will only strengthen houdini as a whole as it would welcome tons of new users from all other 3D programs.
The last benefit is that if we get the “custom modeling” hotkeys button, we will fully have an all inclusive modeler inside of houdini that would take the shape of just about any 3d modeler that we like. Think about this clearly. Everyone on this channel could have their customized hotkeys, only when it comes to modeling with this sop. So even if you hate the idea of this sop entirely, you can still have a nearly “different program” within houdini that's specifically for the non-procedural modeling approach (the non-procedural approach to modeling has its perks too…you may even begin to like it ). For new houdini users, the benefits of this custom hotkey idea is off the scale. You could still have all your favorite hotkeys from your previous program, and never know you switched. And for those who still use a different modeling package to model things for houdini, they would definitely appreciate this feature, if not drop the other modeler entirely.
Drawbacks:
The ever popular idea of “it will take too long” was at first a thought of mine. However, when I was sitting around being pissed off, I thought to myself, wait a minute, how is this our problem. If it's going to take too long, then it's up to sidefx to decide whether it's worth it them to devote the amount of resources needed. And still, they've already got almost all of the features I explained in node form, as well as a delete history option. So theoretically it's not hard at all, in fact, it may be feasible to see this whole thing done and good to go within a week or two. But that all depends on sidefx and how the houdini code is written. Honestly, now that I think about it, it does not seem like it will take that long, it may be a matter of a lot of cutting and pasting, but only the developers can say for sure.
…That's the only drawback I could think of, and it's only a possible draw back. Anyone who doesn't like the node doesn't have to use it, but anyone coming from a different 3D package or no modeling experience at all will probably love the node with a passion, as much as I love the idea of having this node.
Perhaps a return of the model SOP would be an answer to this, but I don't know if that requires a re-write of the code and how like ly that'll be.Please remember, I am not trying to re-write or remove anything that is already there. I'm trying to make houdini better for all of us.
Anyway, a lot of the tools/functionality you mention are already thereYes, I know that most of the functionality is there. But as they are right now, they are not very helpful to anyone that doesn't use houdini day in and day out. Even seasoned experts from other programs find it hard to switch to houdini in this particular category. No one really complains about the difficulty of houdini's particle systems (pops or sops) when they come from these programs, so that should be a good indication that something is wrong in the modeling world…… And it could still be that I'm a newb, but what about some of the features that are not there, like the knife tool as its called in lightwave or the quickslice in 3d studio and the cut faces tool in maya (don't know xsi)? Some of features mentioned still don't seem to be there to me, but maybe I'm just a newb. And please remember, I'm not asking for every feature in every program, what I'm asking for is the major features in a “no history” modeling node.
Houdini Lounge » How would I make houdini a better modeler? Oh, I'm so glad..
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
Dajuice:
Wolfwood and Dajuice:
If you want my ideas on making houdini better, first of all, scroll up. I guarantee you, those are very good ideas if they are implemented well. They are tried and true by other, better, easier (complain all you want, I don't care) modelers. However, I will add some detail to my above comments though, based on one thing you've said.
Edit: dajuice explained on IRC that I was reading shift+l and l wrong, I was thinking those were both upper case I's.
For example, you were unaware that switching between points, edges, primitives etc can be done with the 1, 2, 4 keysWhere do you get that from? I was simply asking for _usable_ buttons. There is a difference between a button and a hotkey. They even say the hotkeys on the very buttons that I was complaining about.
…that you can quickly repeat the last operation with ‘q’Yes, I know this, and in my speedy typing, I should've said you have to have an operator for each one. Yes, I know that maya has the same thing, but the speed at which multitudes of operations can be done in maya is completely different, and performance is never an issue.
…or that the Dissolve SOP is there…It's still not the same as simply hitting delete, or clicking a button, again it's an operation that you need to find/remember/know of. I saw the dissove sop used before, but I haven't invested a lot of time in houdini in the last 6 months, so I completely forgot about it, so I apologize for forgetting. But really, don't you see that this “workflow” requires too much time to learn in your spare time, while you're using another 3d app. How do you think that sesi is going to get new users? Okay, forgetting was a mistake on my part, but this does not make the workflow much different, what I'm asking for is not the ability to do something, it's the ability to do something better/faster/easier. I know it's all possible, but where do we draw the line?
Wolfwood and Dajuice:
You can select point/edge/face rings in Houdini by hitting “l”. (Or f to move a single element at a time, “r” to reverse)You got me on the inexperience thing on this one feature because I have never heard of this before. However, I think this is another example of the user-unfriendliness of the modeling tools in houdini. Two people have explained how to do this now, and yet, for the life of me, I cannot select an edge loop. In edit mode, shift I while having an edge selected doesn't do anything. Shift I doesn't bring up an operator that will help, and r doesn't seem to do anything either.
I know you suggested some, but a lot of those suggestions are already implemented. If you find the implemenation poor, then explain why.hahahha, I don't find them poor. Remember I wasn't looking for a way to make houdini a better modeler, atleast one sesi guy was. If you were to ask me, I would say that they're more than poor. But to be honest, there are a bunch of other good modelers that I would use first. But I'm trying to help sesi in their quest to become a bigger force in the 3D arena. And if you ask me, I'm in the right here.
If you want my ideas on making houdini better, first of all, scroll up. I guarantee you, those are very good ideas if they are implemented well. They are tried and true by other, better, easier (complain all you want, I don't care) modelers. However, I will add some detail to my above comments though, based on one thing you've said.
Almost all the operations can be bound to keys. Open up the Hotkey Manager, search for “Dissolve” then bind it to the delete keyOh come on, give me atleast a little credit. I know that much already . But in maya I have 16 modeling specific commands on a marking menu that I can access almost immediately without thinking, reading or typing anything. This makes for a gigantic leap in productivity when compared to houdini. Even if I were to bind 16 hotkeys, that would do two majorly bad things: 1) I would have to work around or remove any of houdini's default hotkeys. 2) I would have a large amount of keyspace to avoid when using every single houdini category aside from modeling. What's my solution? My genius idea is this: custom hotkeys specifically for this polyObject/model SOP. Probably with a checkbox on the model sop that says, “override default hotkeys with custom modeling hotkeys”. This way, we get the best of both worlds. We can't get maya's marking menus, but we don't necessarily want to steal a patented menu from autodesk . However, we do get a very flexible modeling sop that anyone, coming any other 3D package can coordinate with what they're comfortable with. This is absolutely perfect for a new user if you ask me. Plus they won't have any fear of ruining the standard hotkeys in houdini. As well, seasoned houdini experts can have all of what they want in a flexible modeler in one sop, hotkeys included, without making half of the keyboard specific to modeling alone. This idea kicks ass imo, if it still pisses you off, you're getting the wrong impression and there's no need to respond. Thanks.
Edit: dajuice explained on IRC that I was reading shift+l and l wrong, I was thinking those were both upper case I's.
Edited by - Aug. 17, 2006 16:49:55
Houdini Lounge » How would I make houdini a better modeler? Oh, I'm so glad..
- ReggieFourmyle
- 68 posts
- Offline
mlesin, jesta and Cylibral, need I remind you of the topic of this conversation. It was not me that brought up the idea of making houdini a better modeler. It was the idea of SideFx itself. The developers were looking for a way to make houdini a better modeler, not I. So don't get mad at me for helping them.
mlesin: I know there's history in maya, but it's not just history, it's the entire workflow in houdini. For example, where are tools in houdini? You have to do each operator separately. Twenty split polygon operators in houdini and one split polygon tool in maya is a huge difference in workflow. Especially when you consider the fact that you have to hit tab for each extra operator, while in maya, it's as simple as clicking the split polygon tool once and adding as much detail as you want. And the workflow problems don't stop there. There are common features of different modelers that I don't see here. For example, how do you remove an edge or vertex in houdini (without deleting faces)? This is simply a matter of hitting delete in maya, and hitting the “remove edge” button in max, but in houdini? How do you select an edge ring in houdini? The list goes on…
My point is this: It's not simply a matter of getting used to houdini. If it were, sesi wouldn't be looking for a way to make it more like maya/max/xsi. And remember, those are the words from inside SideFx. Trust me, they're used to the modeling workflow, and I'm trying to help them see what they don't see.
mlesin: I know there's history in maya, but it's not just history, it's the entire workflow in houdini. For example, where are tools in houdini? You have to do each operator separately. Twenty split polygon operators in houdini and one split polygon tool in maya is a huge difference in workflow. Especially when you consider the fact that you have to hit tab for each extra operator, while in maya, it's as simple as clicking the split polygon tool once and adding as much detail as you want. And the workflow problems don't stop there. There are common features of different modelers that I don't see here. For example, how do you remove an edge or vertex in houdini (without deleting faces)? This is simply a matter of hitting delete in maya, and hitting the “remove edge” button in max, but in houdini? How do you select an edge ring in houdini? The list goes on…
My point is this: It's not simply a matter of getting used to houdini. If it were, sesi wouldn't be looking for a way to make it more like maya/max/xsi. And remember, those are the words from inside SideFx. Trust me, they're used to the modeling workflow, and I'm trying to help them see what they don't see.
-
- Quick Links