Korny Klown2
I open a new blank scene > TAB key > create a box primitive. Now I want to select some faces of that cube, so I press 4. Suddenly my viewport changes. I realize, my viewtool was active (WHICH IS COMPLETLY ANNOYING AND NEEDLESS!), so I wanna change to the select tool and press the s key. Instead of now just changing to the select tool, the infobar on the bottom says “Select geometry and choose an operation to perform” (I know how a select tool works, thanks! *rolleyes*). Now I have to press enter, to finaly get to my select tool.

I don't mean to derail your original point here but this example can be a lot smoother. For a viewport-ish workflow, it would probably be smoother to invoke the TAB menu from the viewport, esp. for SOP type operations.

Here's what I just tried:
- In the viewport, hit TAB > Box.
- Now you're in the Handle tool. This allows for selections, no need to explicitly hit S.
- Hit 4. This puts you in component selection (in the Handle tool still)
- Click on a face to select it
- In the viewport, hit TAB > PolyExtrude.
- Use the handle to pull it scale, etc.
- Click on a different face to select it (in the Handle tool still)
- Hit Q to extrude this new face
- etc.

edward

Korny Klown2
Here's what I just tried:
- In the viewport, hit TAB > Box.
- Now you're in the Handle tool. This allows for selections, no need to explicitly hit S.
- Hit 4. This puts you in component selection (in the Handle tool still)
- Click on a face to select it
- In the viewport, hit TAB > PolyExtrude.
- Use the handle to pull it scale, etc.
- Click on a different face to select it (in the Handle tool still)
- Hit Q to extrude this new face
- etc.

Ok, first of all thanks for that advice but still I wonder why the software that claims to be so versatile and flexible always forces one through these kind of workflows, instead of just doing some minor changes to the frontend, cleaning it up a little so that people can work more freely and according to their workflows.
Just the other day I was watching this review of Softimage ICE and I was impressed. Procedural modeling particle simulations, crowd simulations and what not with the look and feel of an Autodesk product. Procedural modeling, particle simulation and so on have been long time the unique characteristic of Houdini….and then came Softimage ICE.
I'm thinking a bit into the future. I wanna come away from Maya because I'm working with Nuke for comp, I'm looking for a procedural nodebased 3D software that gives me the same amount of flexibility, as Nuke. At the moment I still like the idea of Houdini bit more but depending on the direction Autodesk will develop Softimage in, I see serious competition for Houdini. Beyond that, considering that it is an Autodesk product, with the look and feel of an Autodesk product, with the shortcuts of an Autodesk product but with the nodebased procedural power similar to Houdini, what do you think, the studios and the Autodesk users will choose when it comes to switching software. Probably something they are already used to. I just hope that Side Effects will realize that they are facing serious competion and since I am a fan of Houdini I hope that they can keep pace with that.
Waving the “fully procedural nodebased” sign and resting on these laurels is not enough anymore. And if it is not Softimage, someday some software will come that completly replaces Houdini, in all aspects, so if Side Effects would ask me for advice (which they wouldn't do, I know), I would say: Stop sticking too much to the old paradigms, modernise Houdini, the industry doesn't sleep.

Korny Klown2
A Maya users wichlist desperately yearning for Houdini.
Actually it's pretty simple, just minor wishes, keep the core technologie but please change the frontend.

Your post is probably going to be largely regarded as trolling and most would dismiss your points. Work on your attitude, or your presentation if you don't think your attitude is a problem. Trust me. Deal with it.

You do have some points, but as others have said, it seems you still have a bit to learn. I do as well, so this is what I've found when I'm transitioning from Maya/Max to Houdini:

As pezetko said, the Space Bar invokes the View Tool and is pretty interchangeable with Alt from Max or Maya. I actually like a dedicated View Tool option because there are times when I'm only just navigating and the mouse is plenty.

If you switch to the Quad View (Ctrl-2) you can start maximizing and switching views by hitting Space+B, one more key than Maya, but similar to Max's Alt-W. Hitting Space-1 needs to remember where the perspective was previously though!

Key-Down/Up snapping would be great, I agree. It's a Toggle now (X, C, V) similar to Max's global S.

Consistency in the Tab Menu: Agree, there is an Edge Loop when doing Viewport Tabbing, but not in the Network View. Granted the Viewport “Edge Loop” only invokes the PolySplit Node in the network view. Which ties into your Multiple nodes having similar features but different names point. But in this case, it's probably a case of interactive vs. procedural.

Viewcube is a terrible idea. If SideFX were to add a widget to the viewports, I would prefer them to copy the Maya 8.5 and older View Compass. The one that was actually useful. Changing to the proper orthographic view instead of the useless navigation we have with the ViewCube.

Groups makes sense to me. Component Selection sounds temporary, that'd be even more confusing. SubNetwork makes sense. Its a node that contains other networks.

All software have different work flows. You have some valid points but again, you come off as arrogant. You speak of clinging to old paradigms… Sorry, Autodesk is the biggest criminal of this offense.

Gyroscope
All software have different work flows. You have some valid points but again, you come off as arrogant. You speak of clinging to old paradigms… Sorry, Autodesk is the biggest criminal of this offense.

Yes, I agree, due to my disposition I probably sound a bit harsh and/or arrogant, sorry for that. I just want to enforce my argument a little.
I dont see Autodesk as the biggest criminal in this. Technologies changes over time and although this is actually a pretty old topic, the industry clearly leans more and more towards nodebased, more or less procedural, solotions. Realflow has now a nodebased scripting environment and Maya as well comes, in it's latest version (2014), with a new node editor. I already mentioned Siftimages ICE, which is from Autodesk as well. I don't know much about Max abd it's current development state but overall I definately see Autodesks attempt staying up to date.

No software will ever be perfect and yes, of course I need to learn more about Houdini. I'm working a few years now with Maya and I'm still learning. I just wanted to say that the Houdini usercommunity feels, please don't get me wrong, a bit stubborn and that one day can be dangerous. When I see how the industry developed over past few years, think about where it's going to be in a few years. Yes Houdini is great. As I mentioned before, I'm a big Houdini fan but the times where Houdinis fully procedural workflow was unique are soon to be over and when you have a few softwares that work similar, at the end of the day the software wins, that is most “userfriendly” to use. So the day will come where Houdini has to make a decision, wheater it want's to be software that is specifically designed for a few technical directors or technical directors and all other 3D artists as well.

Korny Klown2
Just the other day I was watching this review of Softimage ICE and I was impressed. Procedural modeling particle simulations, crowd simulations and what not with the look and feel of an Autodesk product. Procedural modeling, particle simulation and so on have been long time the unique characteristic of Houdini….and then came Softimage ICE.
I'm thinking a bit into the future. I wanna come away from Maya because I'm working with Nuke for comp, I'm looking for a procedural nodebased 3D software that gives me the same amount of flexibility, as Nuke. At the moment I still like the idea of Houdini bit more but depending on the direction Autodesk will develop Softimage in, I see serious competition for Houdini. Beyond that, considering that it is an Autodesk product, with the look and feel of an Autodesk product, with the shortcuts of an Autodesk product but with the nodebased procedural power similar to Houdini, what do you think, the studios and the Autodesk users will choose when it comes to switching software. Probably something they are already used to. I just hope that Side Effects will realize that they are facing serious competion and since I am a fan of Houdini I hope that they can keep pace with that.
Waving the “fully procedural nodebased” sign and resting on these laurels is not enough anymore. And if it is not Softimage, someday some software will come that completly replaces Houdini, in all aspects, so if Side Effects would ask me for advice (which they wouldn't do, I know), I would say: Stop sticking too much to the old paradigms, modernise Houdini, the industry doesn't sleep.

the sad thing is that Autodesk has mostly dropped the development of Softimage XSI. When you see what type of releases they had in the last 2-3 Years it was just a bad joke. i think last year the main feature from the new XSI was a camera sequencer!

there is also a separation of the other packages. 3DS Max will be more in the Game Industry/Industrial (CAD) and Maya for the Movie Industry.
For the FX stuff there will be the bitfrost part but when it comes out i don't know.

For Houdini a lot of users have wishes for the modeling part (look at odforce.net :-) ). i hope SESI will find time to create a solution that is better then the current stat. but except of the modelling part you have got a near complete software package. there is also a Compositing system it misses some functions to compair it against nuke and yes also speed :-).

the best thing is to make a RFE and maybe a Technical Paper or a Movie how it should look…. your ideal workflow.

enjoy your learning and look at peter quint's tutorial on vimeo they help alot, thank you peter :-)

Korny Klown2

I just wanna say these conversations are not for problems of the Houdini ,They are just for lack of your knowledge my friend :roll:




I has been working with Maya about 10 Years and Houdini for 5 Years .At the first I was roaming in the Houdini exactly like you !
I had too many questions about new words or meaning (like Group) in my head.

For now I think Houdini is really great software and I don't like come back to Maya completely !!! ,Please Trust Me !!!

Of couarse I believe that Learning and working with Houdini is hard at the first ,But it's not problem of the Houdini !

Houdini is Technical/Artistic Software :idea:

Exactly like C/C++.
C/C++ is a little harder than other programming languages (and Scripting) like C# , Python and etc

C/C++ doesn't have some of the standard functions and tools like Dictionary in the python ,But it's not correct to say C/C++ is not the Best !!!

RenderMan doesn't have too many material library and you have to write your RSL materials ,But other renderer has too many materials and working with them is so easy ,But which one is the best !?

You can make every things that you have in your mind with Houdini just with it's own procedural and full node bases system very easier that the other softwares like Maya.
Like Simple Edge/Point Loop node which I made (Check my last post in this topic)

Maybe after many years of the toiling with Houdini ,You will reach to my idea and in this case I'm be sure that you never back to other 3D Softwares completely!!! 8)

If you familiar entirely to Maya(or Others) and Houdini (not simple) , So you can see Limitation of these softwares VS Houdini

Conclusion :
“The Best 3D Software” word is not just for some primary features like Viewcube , Grouping , TAB key ,Volume Collisions and etc ,If you work further with Houdini ,You will find this WORD in the core/heart of the Houdini

mandrake0
the sad thing is that Autodesk has mostly dropped the development of Softimage XSI. When you see what type of releases they had in the last 2-3 Years it was just a bad joke. i think last year the main feature from the new XSI was a camera sequencer!

Well, you'll never know what Autodesk is about to do in the future. Maybe they dropped the development for XSI just to rearrange things and then re-releasing it under a different name.

mandrake0
For Houdini a lot of users have wishes for the modeling part (look at odforce.net :-) ).

I'll check that out.

mandrake0
i hope SESI will find time to create a solution that is better then the current stat. but except of the modelling part you have got a near complete software package. there is also a Compositing system it misses some functions to compair it against nuke and yes also speed :-).

Complete indeed but there are things that can be improved to work easier, faster.
I never tried the compositing part of Houdini but I once saw a Houdini Webinar hosted by Houdinis marketing manager, I guess, and said that the compositing part of Houdini is not intended to be high end professional but rather be used for slapcomps, to check if the overall scene is working out. But that doesn't sound like Side Effects taking the compositing side very serious. Which I think is good because I rather want to have a software that is best in whatever topic it is supposed to be best, instead of having a software that does various things mediocre.

mandrake0
the best thing is to make a RFE and maybe a Technical Paper or a Movie how it should look…. your ideal workflow.

How do I send them a video? What exactly does rfe stand for?….requested feature e…..?

mandrake0
enjoy your learning and look at peter quint's tutorial on vimeo they help alot, thank you peter :-)

Yes, his videos a nice indeed, so is the Houdini fundamentals course from 3D Buzz.

Hello, it could be great to export particles as .prt in order to use it with 3DSmax and Krakatoa like with Naiad

sliverfx
Hello, it could be great to export particles as .prt in order to use it with 3DSmax and Krakatoa like with Naiad

I didn't work with 3DMax ,But You can export your Particles to 3DMax with Alembic format very well (If 3DMax doesn't support Alembic ,So I think we have some plug-ins to do that :? )

The problem with Alembic and 3DSmax for particles is that it doesn't work with Krakatoa, to render million of particles very quickly.
That's why .prt format for krakatoa (max and maya) could be interesting

By example a lot of Naiad users used .prt export to render with Krakatoa in max.

PRT exporter:
http://forums.odforce.net/topic/17218-prt-export-from-houdini-12/ [forums.odforce.net]

Thank you pezetko, I'm using this export which works perfectly, but it's more friendly when it's directly implemented in Houdini.
Because it's not fun and easy for everybody to compile it for each build.

Sorry, it's seems like I missed this reply, so now here is my answer.

Joker386
Of couarse I believe that Learning and working with Houdini is hard at the first ,But it's not problem of the Houdini !

Well, on one hand I admit that is unwise and immature to always blame the others but on the other, as I said before throughout my education I came in contact with a few softwares and never had problems with any of them, exapt Houdini.
You say it yourself “…learning and working with Houdini is hard at first…”
just a theoratically question:
What if it would be possible to design Houdini in a way, so it looses none of it's power but is a lot quicker, intuitive and efficient to use?
Which makes it a lot more attractive to learn.

I'm watching a lot of Houdini trainings and tutorials online and I'm often pretty impressed of Houdinis core technologie and the results it can give you. But when I see the way it took, to get to that result, I'm quite often just shaking my head in disbelief. Which is not because I'm not yet fimiliar with Houdini or I have to learn more about it.

Joker386
You can make every things that you have in your mind with Houdini

Except of snapping to one axis, just to give one example…

Joker386
just with it's own procedural and full node bases system very easier that the other softwares like Maya.

Joker386
Conclusion :
“The Best 3D Software” word is not just for some primary features like Viewcube , Grouping , TAB key ,Volume Collisions and etc ,If you work further with Houdini ,You will find this WORD in the core/heart of the Houdini

Well, I know that this is not what makes a great software. Houdini already is a great software, but it's the little things that can improve it and this way, make it more popular.

Korny Klown2
Except of snapping to one axis, just to give one example…

Does Show XY/XZ/YZ Translate Plane do this? You can then assign a hotkey in the Hotkey Manager for it.

MartybNz

Korny Klown2
Except of snapping to one axis, just to give one example…

Does Show XY/XZ/YZ Translate Plane do this? You can then assign a hotkey in the Hotkey Manager for it.

1. No, it doesn't.
2. If it would work, it would constrain it to two axis.
3. I would have to take care of to many things and the benifit of working fast and easy would simply be gone.

Houdini consists of too many workarounds.

But thanks for the idea anyway.

Korny Klown2
1. No, it doesn't.
2. If it would work, it would constrain it to two axis.
3. I would have to take care of to many things and the benifit of working fast and easy would simply be gone.

Houdini consists of too many workarounds.

But thanks for the idea anyway.

Perhaps there is an misunderstanding here. Can you link to an example or explain what you mean by snapping to one axis?

What do you expect to happen that turning on snapping and moving an object with one axis handle doesn't do in Houdini?

Are you saying that customising Houdini with keyboard shortcuts makes for having too many workarounds? Thanks!

What do you expect to happen that turning on snapping and moving an object with one axis handle doesn't do in Houdini?

Here is a situation:

I have a line with three points, running along the z-axis.
Point 1 and 3 are in y=0, only point 2 is on y=1.
Now I want to snap point 2 to the y value and ONLY the y value.
In Maya I simply hold down the V-key to temporarily activate vertex-snapping, grab the y-axis of that point and just drag it down, so that it is flush with the other points. I release the V-key to get out of vertex-snapping, done!
Super quick, super convinient. I didn't had turn on/off anything, assign any shortcut to something. Everything prettymuch works on the fly. This is not possible in Houdini and is one of many things that makes modeling, for example, with Houdini inconvinient.

Snapping is a pretty glaring area of neglect in Houdini, no question. It's slow, somewhat buggy, and missing some modern features. It is something that we're overhauling for a future version.

Transient keys are also not a well-defined paradigm within the Houdini UI. It currently supports transient (Spacebar/ALT to view) and hotkey-press, but not a key that can be be used either as a tap or transient. Since there seems to be a reasonable amount of interest in quick transient modes, I'll look into it.

Thumbs up twod.

Korny Klown2

What do you expect to happen that turning on snapping and moving an object with one axis handle doesn't do in Houdini?

Here is a situation:

I have a line with three points, running along the z-axis.
Point 1 and 3 are in y=0, only point 2 is on y=1.
Now I want to snap point 2 to the y value and ONLY the y value.
In Maya I simply hold down the V-key to temporarily activate vertex-snapping, grab the y-axis of that point and just drag it down, so that it is flush with the other points. I release the V-key to get out of vertex-snapping, done!
Super quick, super convinient. I didn't had turn on/off anything, assign any shortcut to something. Everything prettymuch works on the fly. This is not possible in Houdini and is one of many things that makes modeling, for example, with Houdini inconvinient.

Thanks Korny, that does help - Fwiw I lodged a similar bug, #57818 “Snap to grid inconsistant/not working properly” some months ago.

It's probably worth putting up some new topics in the forums with your original issues, expand each one in detail like the single axis snapping and we can then drill on down to see if there is a bug, functionality issue or another way to to approach that issue. Thanks!