$300 a year for a tool that you can use commercially of this caliber is more than fair. It's honestly far more than I was hoping for.
From the looks of it this includes upgrades for the year.
Another question about render resolution, is the size limitations of 1920X1080 in effect when baking texture maps?
Found 61 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » Houdini Apprentice HD no longer being offered?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Houdini Lounge » Houdini for Indie Game Devs
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
This is most excellent! thanks for seriously listening to us and our concerns! I'll be signing up shortly!
Houdini Lounge » Polygon reduction / decimation?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Zremesher does not always create closed edge loops, it will frequently create spirals. That can be a problem for some types of models.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
chevita.
dont forget this “houdini volume modeling”
wala!
in combination volume modeling + sculp modeling. the future of modeling.
This actually a far more interesting approach than I initially thought.
Have you seen ShapeShop? [shapeshop3d.com]
The program is available for download, it's not the most stable software but the ideas behind it are solid. There's also been some extension of this modeling paradigm to include curve based editing:
Warp Curves [webhome.csc.uvic.ca]
After doing a lot of reading it seems like Volumetric and implicit modeling technologies are much more suited towards non-destruction and proceduralism than polygons and Subd's will ever be.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
chevita.
dont forget this “houdini volume modeling”
wala!
in combination volume modeling + sculp modeling. the future of modeling.
If we had a decent quad remesh node that type of modeling would be close to viable, would just need a nice clean and procedural way to get good UVs.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Korny Klown2
I said this once and I will say it again: I think Houdini has the potential to rule the market. When I think of Houdini, I see the best 3D software ever but when I launch Houdini and work with it a few minutes, I see a totally different software. That disappointment leaves a little crack in my heart behind, each and every time again.
I get where you are coming from, went through this myself for years (first started playing with Houdini in 2005), but I learned that the disappointment I felt is just resistance to things not working the way I was used to and assumptions I brought from other packages that traded power for temporary convenience. Once I let go of my attachments to Maya (illusion) and fully embraced Houdini, using it for everything I used to use Maya for I was able to push past the abyss of disappointment and really start to ‘get’ Houdini.
Korny Klown2
Have the guts and the faith to let go of old structures…
Indeed, that is exactly the attitude that is needed for users looking to migrate to Houdini. It's not just a different piece of software, it's a different way of thinking and approaching 3d.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Korny Klown2
So in your oppinion, everyone lacking in the skill of guessing terms is equally lacking the essential skill for creative work like digital 3D?
I'd say that there is a distinct difference between the creativity of guessing terms and the creativity of creating workflows and techniques for a good piece of art.
Functionality gets called different things by different software, that's just they way things are. The information is easily accessible and guess work isn't needed, just humility and patience. If you watch the getting started videos and follow the tutorials you will get the concepts quickly.
Houdini has a very long history and going around just changing the names of operators just because that's what Autodesk calls them isn't a good policy. It's just going to tick off the established user base.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Still kind of new to Houdini myself, and yes traditional modeling tools are lacking in Houdini. I am definately in awe of the modeling tools seen in Softimage, and can only imagine how powerful they would be in Houdini. We have VOPs how feasible would it be to implement Softimage modeling tools into Houdini with VOPs?
Powerful things can be done with VOP's, these old video's still impress me and show the kind of power that is waiting to be realized in Houdini on a wider scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzAVN2Rjrlw [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYCw0yvKZ4 [youtube.com]
Powerful things can be done with VOP's, these old video's still impress me and show the kind of power that is waiting to be realized in Houdini on a wider scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzAVN2Rjrlw [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYCw0yvKZ4 [youtube.com]
Houdini Lounge » Houdini 14 Wishlist
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Yes, obviously it's not production quality work. The people who designed that solution are scientists, not artists. Research papers are rarely aesthetically pleasing.
Yes, Freek's stuff is awesome! it's what helped me renew my interest in Houdini as a game art package. Freek solved a pretty big problem for game terrain systems, and with the Houdini engine initiative his solution becomes even more compelling, which begs the question why isn't there a HDA available that does exactly what Freek shows? What is the point of Orbolt if stuff like that never even makes it up there?
There have been many breakthroughs in procedural modeling and while they are technically feasible in Houdini they are not as easy as they should be. Here's an example of interesting research in procedural modeling, with no official Houdini support Inverse procedural modeling that results in a grammar! [arxiv.org] (pdf)
How awesome would that be? especially when coupled with complementary workflows [pixologic.com] (pixologic video) from other packages like Zbrush.
These are the directions I would love to see Houdini start to move in.
Yes, Freek's stuff is awesome! it's what helped me renew my interest in Houdini as a game art package. Freek solved a pretty big problem for game terrain systems, and with the Houdini engine initiative his solution becomes even more compelling, which begs the question why isn't there a HDA available that does exactly what Freek shows? What is the point of Orbolt if stuff like that never even makes it up there?
There have been many breakthroughs in procedural modeling and while they are technically feasible in Houdini they are not as easy as they should be. Here's an example of interesting research in procedural modeling, with no official Houdini support Inverse procedural modeling that results in a grammar! [arxiv.org] (pdf)
How awesome would that be? especially when coupled with complementary workflows [pixologic.com] (pixologic video) from other packages like Zbrush.
These are the directions I would love to see Houdini start to move in.
Houdini Lounge » Houdini 14 Wishlist
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
The modeling tools in Houdini could be a lot better. They do not play very well to the strengths of procedural modeling, and they don't play to the strengths of more destructive modeling workflows that every other package on the market employs.
While I support the idea of continuing to improve and add to the number of modeling operators in Houdini, especially a procedural bridge tool I think it would be best for SideFX to move quickly in the direction of embracing more fully featured procedural modeling workflows and not worry so much about matching the more destructive non procedural modeling solutions out there.
For example Procedural extrude [peterwonka.net] (PDF)
Procedural terrain by drawing curves? uhm YES! [youtube.com] (YouTube)
Sexy brushes loaded with procedural goodness? [graphics.tudelft.nl] (PDF)
There's more of course. Procedural modeling has made many advances over the years, especially with eyes towards usability by non-programmers. There's a paper [graphics.tudelft.nl] being presented at Siggraph this year rounding up the advances of recent years in the field of procedural modeling. There are lots of things that could be done in Houdini to make procedural modeling more powerful and more accessible.
I would absolutely love it if Houdini 14 became the one stop package for procedural world building.
On other fronts Houdini has some amazing technology that isn't quite presented in a way that makes it obvious what it's for, like the blendpose CHOP. There should be a new blendpose shelf tool (or at least an example file) for transferring one models topology to another, this is the kind of thing RBF's excel at, with a little bit of extra work you can also transfer motion vectors and it becomes even more powerful (blendshape libraries transferable between characters regardless of shape or topology). This is the kind of stuff that has to be more easily accessible.
Being able to easily bake out simulations to bones would great for games and make Houdini FX a more obvious value in game development pipelines. A flow map shelf tool or example file would also be fantastic, too many people paint those in Photoshop.
Houdini has some amazing character setup tools, especially in the realm of deformations, however it's all for film pipelines. If SideFX were to implement an example based skinning system game pipelines could also take advantage of the advanced deformation technology.
While I support the idea of continuing to improve and add to the number of modeling operators in Houdini, especially a procedural bridge tool I think it would be best for SideFX to move quickly in the direction of embracing more fully featured procedural modeling workflows and not worry so much about matching the more destructive non procedural modeling solutions out there.
For example Procedural extrude [peterwonka.net] (PDF)
Procedural terrain by drawing curves? uhm YES! [youtube.com] (YouTube)
Sexy brushes loaded with procedural goodness? [graphics.tudelft.nl] (PDF)
There's more of course. Procedural modeling has made many advances over the years, especially with eyes towards usability by non-programmers. There's a paper [graphics.tudelft.nl] being presented at Siggraph this year rounding up the advances of recent years in the field of procedural modeling. There are lots of things that could be done in Houdini to make procedural modeling more powerful and more accessible.
I would absolutely love it if Houdini 14 became the one stop package for procedural world building.
On other fronts Houdini has some amazing technology that isn't quite presented in a way that makes it obvious what it's for, like the blendpose CHOP. There should be a new blendpose shelf tool (or at least an example file) for transferring one models topology to another, this is the kind of thing RBF's excel at, with a little bit of extra work you can also transfer motion vectors and it becomes even more powerful (blendshape libraries transferable between characters regardless of shape or topology). This is the kind of stuff that has to be more easily accessible.
Being able to easily bake out simulations to bones would great for games and make Houdini FX a more obvious value in game development pipelines. A flow map shelf tool or example file would also be fantastic, too many people paint those in Photoshop.
Houdini has some amazing character setup tools, especially in the realm of deformations, however it's all for film pipelines. If SideFX were to implement an example based skinning system game pipelines could also take advantage of the advanced deformation technology.
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
There is a local space checkbox just above the viewport when using the edit sop. Also there is the peak tab in the edit sop as well.
Also I am curious if anyone here would like to do the polycount.com weekly hardsurface modeling challenge? It would be a good way to give practical results oriented criticism of Houdini's modeling toolset.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132146 [polycount.com]
There is also the environment art focused ‘monthly noob challenge’
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133117 [polycount.com]
Also I am curious if anyone here would like to do the polycount.com weekly hardsurface modeling challenge? It would be a good way to give practical results oriented criticism of Houdini's modeling toolset.
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=132146 [polycount.com]
There is also the environment art focused ‘monthly noob challenge’
http://www.polycount.com/forum/showthread.php?t=133117 [polycount.com]
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » Anyway to test FBX export?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Autodesk has a 30 day trial that isn't crippled in export, same with the student versions. I understand SideFX's reasons for not having it in apprentice, I am just a little dismayed there isn't a time limited trial with more export functionality available.
Thanks I will put in an RFE, even a limited fbx export would be enough, 15,000 vertices or something. I just need to know what kind of work my programmer is in for.
Thanks I will put in an RFE, even a limited fbx export would be enough, 15,000 vertices or something. I just need to know what kind of work my programmer is in for.
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » Anyway to test FBX export?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » Anyway to test FBX export?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
I've been using Apprentice for a few month, doing CMIVFX and SideFx tutorials and I am feeling comfortable and confident with Houdini now. However I am concerned about how well the FBX export works with game engines like Unity. I have not had the best results with FBX import, particularly with blendshapes. This causes me some concern with the FBX pipeline in Houdini as a whole.
Concern over the FBX pipeline is one of the things keeping me from purchasing a license of Houdini. I understand the need to restrict output from the apprentice version of the program to prevent it from being used in production, however rendering out resolution restricted images is not adequate for proper evaluation for doing games work.
Concern over the FBX pipeline is one of the things keeping me from purchasing a license of Houdini. I understand the need to restrict output from the apprentice version of the program to prevent it from being used in production, however rendering out resolution restricted images is not adequate for proper evaluation for doing games work.
SI Users » Any good examples of models built entirely in Houdini?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Keep banging on the tools, make otl's when you spot yourself doing the same thing over and over. Houdini makes spotting patterns in your workflow easy to do so take advantage of that! Don't get hung up on proceduralism (unless it's an obvious solution) and instead focus on just making the model and take advantage of the non destructive nature of Houdini's workflow.
I am by no means cranking out beautiful models with Houdini yet, but I have only been seriously studying the modeling side of it for a month. And in that time I have seen tremendous growth in my knowledge and capability with Houdini as a modeler.
A Houdini modeling contest is a fantastic idea!
I am by no means cranking out beautiful models with Houdini yet, but I have only been seriously studying the modeling side of it for a month. And in that time I have seen tremendous growth in my knowledge and capability with Houdini as a modeler.
A Houdini modeling contest is a fantastic idea!
Houdini Lounge » How about a MODELING module for Houdini?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
Doudini
For an artist procedural modeling seems like an overkill. i dont need the procedural for every single step when modeling something quick. Once you get into complex models it just seems to get overblown and you start to delete history and lock nodes.
Where procedural modeling shines is when you have/want to make drastic revisions to your model. Modeling something in Houdini is certainly more difficult at this point in time than using a more destructive package, but the pay off comes when you have to make changes and variations. The more drastic and severe the change, the bigger the pay off.
Also I find modeling with curves to be much easier in Houdini than taking a box modeling approach. Although that particular style of modeling doesn't seem to be very widespread anymore.
Houdini Lounge » How about a MODELING module for Houdini?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
MartybNz
Do you think procedural can fully replace destructive modelling?
An analogy is that no procedural program has replaced photoshop style programs for pixel editing, yet, there are many vector style programs for vector art. They both exist and serve different styles.
I don't like predicting the future, but with enough attention given to usability I think procedural modeling could overtake destructive modeling for certain types of models.
I really think it all comes down to demand, there hasn't really been widespread demand for less destructive modeling workflows. Therefore there really hasn't been much attention paid to this area of content creation. I think that is starting to change.
Pixel editing is also moving in a non destructive direction, MARI, Ddo, and now Substance and Substance Painter all feature non destructive workflows in varying degrees.
Houdini Lounge » How about a MODELING module for Houdini?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
MartybNz
This brings up the obvious question; Does production level modelling suit a non-destructive modelling pipeline?
In over 20+ years Sesi or anyone hasn't nailed it. Maybe it's time will come, like raytracing compared to Reyes, but Reyes worked very well up to recently and wasn't as pure as raytracing.
I think it comes down to what people can wrap their head around, and procedural, non-destructive modeling is much harder to understand in actual practice than the dominant destructive sculpting and box modeling workflows.
Things are changing though, slowly proceduralism and non-destructive workflows are starting to creep into the collective discussion of the 3d modeling community. Techniques like kit-bashing and modular environment pieces are gaining in popularity as the demands of content creation continue to increase. While kit-bashing and modular environments are typically made in a destructive fashion they are actually well suited to being modeled procedurally. The demand for a procedural modeling pipeline is finally starting to emerge.
Houdini Lounge » How about a MODELING module for Houdini?
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
I am currently learning Houdini, love it so far, even the modeling.
If SideFX abandoned the non-destructive procedural nature of Houdini for a quicker on the surface modeling module, I would be highly disappointed. There are plenty of other apps out there that do that already and do it better than the first several versions of a Houdini modeling module would.
That isn't to say the modeling tools don't need work, they do, but any improvements to the modeling workflow and toolset must be procedural and non-destructive.
If SideFX abandoned the non-destructive procedural nature of Houdini for a quicker on the surface modeling module, I would be highly disappointed. There are plenty of other apps out there that do that already and do it better than the first several versions of a Houdini modeling module would.
That isn't to say the modeling tools don't need work, they do, but any improvements to the modeling workflow and toolset must be procedural and non-destructive.
Houdini Lounge » Houdini 14 Wishlist
- Lyr
- 66 posts
- Offline
It would be fantastic if the rail sop would just internally resample point orders on the rails to be equal.
-
- Quick Links