Great, now in the HUD numbers we can adjust the wheel plus the modifier key 4 characters - from 1 to 0.001. This is very, very pleasing! Thank you, mabelzile!
However, I will inform you that in the settings panel, Ctrl + Shift + Wheel still does not work. There, as before, the adjustment is only up to 0.01.
Also for information, the sliders in the viewport react to the wheel and modifiers and move, but the objects themselves in the viewport do not react to this in any way.

If we are talking about parameters, then unfortunately ctrl shift = just shift = 0.01. You can't shift the wheel by 0.001 in the parameters. I check on polyextruder.
In the viewport Ctrl + wheel shifts by 0.001 and that's what you need! Very often you need a fine adjustment of the inset and 0.01 is a rough step.

or change the settings in the subdiv so that the edges are not smoothed

Hooray, guys! The HUD has become a little useful in 321! Now the mouse wheel in the numbers window changes tenths, Shift + wheel - hundredths and Ctrl + wheel - thousandths! Excellent!
Thanks, mabelzile, this is just an amazing speed of improvements! Let's like it, guys, don't be lazy, applause to the developers for caring about our convenience!
And now let me talk a little about the remaining shortcomings.
1) The sliders are still useless, they just take up space, I would prefer to remove them. Shift and Ctrl do not work on the sliders, so their "precision" makes them useless and clutters the screen. Try to make a polyexestrude and adjust something with a slider - it's pointless. I can adjust the mouse wheel much faster and much more accurately. Sliders are not needed in this form.
2) The traditional lack of unification of the interface, shocking beginners. Ctrl + wheel on the slider in the parameters shifts by 0.1, on the slider in the viewport - nothing. Ctrl on the number in the parameters shifts the whole number, in the viewport shifts the thousandth part.
Personally, I am not afraid of this, but for beginners......
In any case, for adjusting the numbers with the wheel - a huge thank you!
If you also pushed the change of numbers with the wheel in the drop-down list 0.0001 - 100, which is used in all inputs - that would be just super!

compare the vector from the ground point to the fence with the fence normal vector. For points on one side, the dot poduct will be positive, for the other side, it will be negative. Voila.

MarquisDeSang
I don't see a future for Houdini in 10 years.

Is anyone forcing you to pay for Houdini? Nobody cares!
We think completely differently than you. It is pointless to talk about decades in such a rapidly changing world. If blender has not caught up with Houdini in 20 years, where did you get the idea that it will catch up in the next 20 years and what is its plan anyway? Can a motorcycle replace a truck?
Nobody can stop it from doing so, but today there are no such plans even in embryo. Are you planning to live forever? Relax, as PHENOMDESIGN correctly said - Houdini, by its design, facilitates learning. I started with Cinema, but it is just a set of black boxes, then blender - already better, then Houdini - this is even better in design. All the same, for the final result, and everyone needs the final result, you always need several programs. Always. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course, if you need to quickly make a simple model - Houdini will be slower. But it's like driving a truck to a bakery. Inefficient. Efficient on a motorcycle, right? But you can do a lot on a truck that would be much more expensive to do on a motorcycle. Is a truck worse than a motorcycle or should it cost as much as a motorcycle? Even if you're a teenager and just need to ride girls. Yes, you can do it on a truck, but for this particular case, a motorcycle is better. And in other cases, a truck is more useful, although it costs 10 times more and requires a lot of maintenance.
So take Houdini's place correctly - it's a heavy truck. Whether you need it or not is a completely different question.
I model in Houdini and just have fun. If the developers fixed a number of shortcomings in the tools - it would be a super bomb, tearing everyone apart.
Unfortunately, poor documentation does not tell about many very cool things in the interface and in the pipelines, which are used in very unusual ways, but are incredibly useful. And few people know about them, I myself spent years to discover obvious things that made my life incredibly easier. And I didn't know about them. It's a Houdini interface flaw, yes. But if you knew all of Houdini's subtle tricks, you'd laugh at your own words.

$20 a month or the need to rewrite several nodes once in your life - it's just ridiculous that this puts you in a quandary against the backdrop of Houdini's enormous capabilities (and shortcomings).

For information, the share of OS in the world:
Windows OS (68.15%), macOS (21.38%), Chrome OS (4.15%), unknown system (3.23%), Linux (3.08%) and FreeBSD (0.01%).
Ha, even if all Linux users flew to the moon, no one would notice.

you are confused.
Primitives are polygons - there should be many of them.
Pieces are a set of polygons/primitives that are united by one name in the attribute "name", "piece" or some other. Accordingly, some nodes create these attributes as a result of their work, or you create them yourself. Other nodes expect that you specify such an attribute by which they will determine what is a piece.
Packed is used to hide all the geometry behind one point. This is a completely different opera for other purposes.

MarquisDeSang
Kids don't learn Houdini, Maya or 3DS Max, they simply use Blender and now they are beginning to use AI.
AI empowers everyone to be a movie director with infinite budget and ressources.

You are deeply mistaken. There are many brands of cars and phones on the planet. There is no universal device that would displace the rest. It is impossible.
And yes, everyone has free pencils, which does not make everyone a great artist.
Let me explain to you about blender, which I personally deeply respect for its excellent interface. Money plays little role here. If you do not have $ 20 a month to pay for software - do at least some work. How much can you earn $ 20 for? For half an hour of work as a taxi driver? Is this a problem for you?
So about blender. Houdini has an absolutely fundamental difference - it is parametric modeling with nodes. And this and in such quantity and quality is not found anywhere else. Blender has only a pitiful likeness in geonodes, very limited and so far poorly connected with the rest. And there are no prerequisites for changing the situation even in the project. Houdini's parametrics provide significant advantages in certain scenarios. Therefore, for those who know how to use these advantages, blender is absolutely behind in these scenarios. Where you are searching and need to try many options and choose, or make edits - Houdini is at its best, and blender is absolutely useless. That is why we see all the tutorials on blender, where people outline something or make very simple figures. And no amount of money can change the situation here. If blender is enough for some task for you - that's great. This does not mean that 3D is dead because you don't have $ 20 a month. It's ridiculous.
And if you need a scene with many hundreds of objects that you need to constantly make edits to - you will cry bloody tears in blender. You can make an excellent model in plasticity, but I will demand to make it thicker here, thinner there - and you will cry again, because you will have to redo everything from scratch.
As for AI. The same problem - make edits. It will give you something. Either accept it as is, or cry. That is, you will not be able to make an exact model/scene for me as a customer. You will waste your life trying to get the AI ​​to meet my requirements, and I will most likely not accept your work. So it all comes down to the speed of obtaining a specific result in a specific situation. Somewhere one program will be more effective, somewhere another. Houdini's problem is its high bug content and inconvenient interface, but not $20 a month. Houdini's fundamental advantage in the form of working parametrics is simply priceless. It is unique. All the others, due to convenience in one or another, select some simple parts of the process where parametrics are not needed - libraries, interface, hotkeys, animation, specific areas. Yes, this is there. But the fundamental advantages of parametric modeling have not gone anywhere. If Blender ever turns into Houdini #2, it will be many years later, I do not see this even in projects.

Library content doesn't work either...

Yes, it is very funny and revealing.

And I'll support sidefx. At first I was also angry, but then I thought, damn, such a powerful software is so cheap in the Indie version! How would I separate free and paid? The idea of ​​different formats is probably the best. Yes, you will lose something, but I think it's highly unlikely that you did anything important while you were in apprenticeship, right? Well, you'll spend an hour to type all the nodes in the Indie version again and copy the wrangles, my God, it's such a trifle.

For a practical solution to this problem, you should use the enumerate node and enable chunk numbering. Then you will immediately get indexes 0,1,2 for 3 names.
As for your code - 1) you have syntax errors, fix them, they are written in the information panel. Duplicate variable declarations. A string variable must be initialized = "".
2) The main problem is that you misunderstood how the find function works and assumed that it returns -1 in case of failure. The help says that it returns a negative number, i.e. any negative. Therefore, the condition should be "<0", and not "==-1".
3) The meaning of the lines "append(uniqueNames, currentString); index = len(uniqueNames) - 1;" eludes me.
You take the first point of the first group, there is no match for it and assign it a word length number (len(uniqueNames) - 1), for example 7 (I don't remember what names you had). The second point of the same group - there is a match, so you assign index = find(uniqueNames, currentString); which is 0 (this is the number of the first character of the match), all the following points will get 0. For the second group, the situation is repeated - the first point of the second group will get the number of the end of the word, the other points - the number of the beginning of the word.
The algorithm is strange and meaningless in my opinion.

For the staff.
Guys, one of the reasons why HUDs are of little use is that using shift for a small step does not work on sliders, there is not enough precision, and scrolling with the mouse wheel does not change the numbers in the input field. So for accurate changes it is more convenient to go to the parameters and adjust there.

And by the way, it would be much more convenient than any HUD for everything to change the numbers with the mouse wheel in the drop-down list (0.001 - 100). So often you just need to add/reduce one step at some level, but carefully moving the mouse a little for this is already inconvenient and stressful.

Unreal ?

As far as I understand, pivot is not a property of geometry. It is just an arbitrary point that you use for calculations when rotating. That is, it must be calculated at the final location according to your requirements. But if you want to calculate it in advance in Houdini, then in fact it is just a vector attribute for each point. All points of each cube must have the attribute "my pivot", which you will simply take when calculating rotations in the game engine.
That is, the task comes down to saving a custom attribute of a point in fbx and reading it in the game engine. I do not know if Houdini can save attributes in fbx, but I was not able to do this and transfer it to blender.
But if you use usd export, then the attributes are saved and read in blender. Perhaps the same is true for your game engine?
If someone explains why Houdini does not transfer attributes via fbx - that would be great.

A quick question, guys.
In SOP, on the bevel lines in the viewport, you can see such stripes, I underlined them on the screen. When switching to o obj, the shading becomes normal. What is the point of them? This makes me nervous, because because of these stripes, I constantly and in vain search for broken geometry in SOP.

I took your settings, only made the default material brighter. I don't like the dark theme, because then Houdin's shading in the shadows merges the model with the background and it's completely unclear where the boundaries are. And for the dark gray theme, you need a brighter material for contrast.
if the background could be made darker than dark gray, but not black, it would be great. Maybe you know where this data is stored?

P.s.I would suggest that developers make such settings by default, it dramatically improves the legibility of the viewport. Now I stopped hating the Houdini viewport.

maybe hda or recipe ?

эдвард

quack_
I personally do not use them at all and I find it super distracting to have floating panels everywhere all the time. I would love an option to simply disable all of them in the preferences.

Try these?

I tried to disable everything - zero effect of this setting. HUDs still appear.

Noise is essentially a gradient, from 0 to 1, right? To get a clear division into white/black, i.e. 0 and 1, you just need to apply the comparison - color = (color> 0.5 (for example)). Color greater than 0.5 will be 1, less - will become 0.