McNistor
Softimage is better than 3dsMax when it comes to poly modeling. I've worked with both (Maya as well, but irrelevant in this case) - modeled lots of stuff in both. 3dsMax was my first s/w when I got into 3d and it was the only one for about two yrs.

Ergo, if we need to get inspiration from somewhere (and we do for many things) then we'd better adopt as much as possible from Softimage in this area.

I have to agree with Mcnistor here. I have worked in SI, Max and Maya and when it comes to modeling there is only on application to look at and that is SI.

MartybNz
For the selection vs groups - it's simply a matter of moving from concrete to abstract reasoning…

You seem to miss my point. It's not about that specific “group” example it's about proper naming in general.

MartybNz
…a skill that is essential for all creative work. If one looks for “A” and it's not there, what else could this functionality be called?

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.
How much “essential skill for all creative work” is someone missing who is not able to get to those abstract reasonings, that turn “deleting components” into “blast” or a “boolean operation” into a “cookie(cutter)”.
Let's see, what else could be renamed?…
Let's call the copy node “paper doll chain”. Abstracly thinking that's more or less what it does. You model/cut one doll and as it get's cooked/unfolded it is copied several times. Or let's call the file node “beam me up scotty” or “teleport”. Abstractly thinking that's what it does. It transfers something from one place (HDD) to another (Houdini). Let's call a sphere a bubble, a box a block and a grid a paper.

Korny, I don't think you'll find a better ally among establish H users when it comes to proposing changes and improvements in Houdini than Marty, even when those changes are bound to make a few old H users unhappy.

p.s. BTW, I'm not asking you to “tone it down” as it's not necessary at this point and besides, your points are spot on and funny on top of that.
“beam me up Scotty”

No, there is indeed no need to tone down, it's all friendly and I'm happy that you recognized the big in-between the lines. I just wanted to ease the discussion about naming in Houdini, I hope no one minds.

Korny Klown2
I just wanted to ease the discussion about naming in Houdini, I hope no one minds.

That's wishful thinking my friend.
There have already been a few reactions at just the question of why are polygons called primitives and the answers, as far as I'm concerned, have been unsatisfactory, but I really don't care about naming that much, a lot more about the tools/workflow.

SESI might have to care though, there are enough people out there that base their decisions on their first impression of the software and you might say that those are most likely not going to matter in the industry in the long run and it would probably be true, but one thing they do matter in is popularity. A thing which Houdini really needs and would really benefit from.

I can already hear “but whatever makes a s/w popular makes it bad at the same time by dumbing everything down” which is not entirely baseless, but I'm 100% sure this can be avoided with some well thought ideas and concepts added or replacing current problems in Houdini as far as interface/easiness goes. Besides, what really makes Houdini a power-horse for TDs is going to stay and only get better with time.

McNistor
but I'm 100% sure this can be avoided with some well thought ideas and concepts added or replacing current problems…

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. Have the guts and the faith to let go of old structures…

McNistor
…Besides, what really makes Houdini a power-horse for TDs is going to stay and only get better with time.

Exactly my words.

Werner Ziemerink
I have to agree with Mcnistor here. I have worked in SI, Max and Maya and when it comes to modeling there is only on application to look at and that is SI.

Cool - it's probably a good time to start delving into the modelling toolset then.

We've so far looked at the Bevel tool, there was a post on the extrude tool. Does the Houdini Extrude toolset do everything you're used to or want to? Thanks!

MartybNz
Cool - it's probably a good time to start delving into the modelling toolset then.

But we didn't finish discussing about viewport interaction. At least I didn't.

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.

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.

Lyr, by the logic of what you're saying we should pack up, close this and all similar threads and embrace Houdini as is because it's perfect.

Leaving aside some weird choices the devs. have made a long time ago about a few namings (and again, about which I don't really care but SESI might have to, for reasons I've mentioned earlier), there's a lot to improve in Houdini and that means discard some things not embrace them.

It's not just a different piece of software, it's a different way of thinking and approaching 3d.

I don't think anybody here is talking about that way of thinking which is really proceduralism. We're talking about things, at least in this thread, modeling and interaction which are in a much needed overhaul.
SESI themselves expressed the wish to hear people out about how should Houdini be improved in certain areas.

P.S.

changing the names of operators just because that's what Autodesk calls them isn't a good policy

Generally true, but I don't think Autodesk are the only ones calling polygons polygons and many other examples I care not mention.

What do you all do when you go from Windows to Mac or Linux and the naming is different i.e. Directories are Folders , The Console is the Terminal. The Start is named differently in Linux and not there in Mac. Mac you don't install graphics drivers, others you do… etc

Or go to another country and the language is different but the functionality is the same.

Aren't you asking for Homogeneity. The great killer of diversity?

McNistor
I don't think Autodesk are the only ones calling polygons polygons

Polygons are called polygons in Houdini, though. However, a polygon may also be a primitive in some cases, in much the same way that an apple is an apple but also a fruit. Houdini has many different primitive types, such as a NURBS surface, volume, VDB, sphere, etc.. And a polygon can also be one of many in a single PolySoup or Tristrip primitive. I think that might be where some of the confusion comes in, especially if you're looking strictly at polygon modelling.

While a “Face” or “Polygon” selection mode could be added to just strictly pick individual polygons, a Primitive selection mode is still necessary in order to pick other non-polygonal types, like volumes or NURBS curves. As there are 20+ primitive types in Houdini, adding a selection entry for each one isn't really feasible or useful, IMO.

As for other workflows that are different, many date back to the early days of Houdini (it's coming up on 20 years old, now). They could probably use a bit of updating

When you're modeling a polymesh object and you go to the left menu you see points, edges and primitives and this has to do mostly with modeling which is what you see first when you're a new user.

But I don't care about these names. Really, I don't.
The reason I've even mentioned them was as an example as to why it would appear as if someone is trying to make Houdini unintuitive and different for the sake of it.
If you as a company don't think it's something that might reflect in the bottom line that's cool, as far as concerned, they could be called bunnies or cats and I would do the same: point out the weirdness of it and then roll with it.

What I can't roll with is other things I've mentioned here and on my page which has nothing to do with naming.

McNistor
When you're modeling a polymesh object and you go to the left menu you see points, edges and primitives and this has to do mostly with modeling which is what you see first when you're a new user.

Yep, fair point. It just seemed like a statement needing a bit of clarification, is all.

MartybNz
What do you all do when you go from Windows to Mac or Linux and the naming is different i.e. Directories are Folders , The Console is the Terminal. The Start is named differently in Linux and not there in Mac. Mac you don't install graphics drivers, others you do… etc

Or go to another country and the language is different but the functionality is the same.

Aren't you asking for Homogeneity. The great killer of diversity?

Aw, come on Marty! I know from other discussions that you are way smarter than this statement, this is a poor and very far-fetched comparison. It has nothing to do with the actual topic and you know, no one intents to kill diversity here.

twod
…the same way that an apple is an apple but also a fruit…

Thinking this way, we could also call everything binary data.
With the binary data tool I select binary data and call a binary data SOP to binary data the binary data.
Sorry, just kidding

As McNistor said, naming isn't the biggest problem. It doesn't make working with Houdini significantly harder or inefficient (as soon as you got to know the terms), it just creates an unnecessary obstacle for Houdini newbies….and even if you have a bit longer expirience you can never be quite sure that something you are searching for isn't right in front of you and you don't find it, because of “bad” naming.

The comparison between Linux, Mac and Windows functions is far fetched? You don't remember one of the reason Open Source is big because Microsoft was stopping diversity.. Lol.

Naming is of lesser concern but the discussion has ceased in all other areas.

Edit: ahh, whoops my mistake.. probably forget this about conversation - I just remembered that you don't infer KK2, unfortunately that's what most of posts do.

What is that “KK2”?

Well, this subject (naming) has eaten a much bigger chunk out of this thread than it deserves so I'm proposing to move along.

I'm bringing forward another matter (about which Marty said that he's anxious/curious to see what I have to say) - the View tool.

Let's consider a scenario most modelers and not only (mostly people that work more in viewport than in editors) will often find themselves in:
you're modeling in the persp. viewport and want to check the model in an orto-view (right, front, top) for some reason (check for dimensions, errors, etc.).
Now, if you're in XSI/Maya you hit a key and you're in four views. You see something you want to address in say top view, you point your mouse cursor over that view and hit again the key (defaults for XSI/Maya - F12/Space) and bam! you're in that viewport.

Let's recap:
- hit F12/Space and look around
- point mouse to wanted view and hit F12/Space
Time to do this (excluding looking around) is a fraction of second.

For the same problem, in Houdini one would have to:
- ctrl+2 to go in four views mode; look around
- crtl+1 to go back in one view mode
- space+2 (or 3 or 4 if you want the other views)
Needles to say (it is needles, isn't it?) this is a PITA.
Imagine having to do this countless times in a modeling session.

Now, if there's a easier way to do this I very much like to hear it - I didn't find it while studying the interface by myself nor did I see something else in the tutorials I've watched so far and truth be told, the only modeling involved in these are boxes and cylinders.

The solution I'm proposing is pretty simple.
I've already mentioned the crazy, unnecessary number of ways to access the View tool in Houdini as of now so take that Esc key and assign it to the “not so revolutionary, to be introduced concept” maximize/minimize viewport.
What I'm basically saying here is that there hasn't have to be two modes “single view” and “four views” as it currently is. Just get rid of the “single view” mode (and obviously its icon), leave “four views” add a small icon outside the “view modes” icon next to it or below, to the right of the blue question mark, “maximize viewport” for whoever wants to click instead of hitting Esc key.
Make it work like in XSI/Maya is what I'm saying

p.s. While in “four views” mode it would also be sometimes useful to be able to click&drag on the views separators in order to resize them.

The “b” key toggles from quad view to single view (or RMB in the viewport, bottom entry in the menu is toggle single/quad). When going quad to single, it expands the one that is under the mouse. If you aren't in the View Tool you'll need to hit Space-b.

Sadly Alt-b can't be used because that is a separate hotkey that opens a dialog that, I must confess, I've never seen before… You learn something new every day.

Mark

Yep, that's exactly what I was looking for.
It amazes me how could this elude me after I've watched several lengthy tutorials. In retrospect none of them used more than one viewport since the instructor dealt with the nodes and occasionaly with the viewport.
Day-to-day work in Houdini I guess. Looking forward to the day a robot or a car is tackled in a tutorial. Is there a tutorial like this made in Houdini?

Since we're discussing viewports, I'd like to see a feature similar to XSI's x y z icons in the top left bar for each viewport, unless again there's already something similar to this in Houdini.
Some Softimage user please explain what they're for.