No you are not restricted to numeric … You use it if you want precise modelling, but everything else is just moving mouse.

Example, you want to extrude something (face, edge, vertices whatever) hit E, move mouse and left click if you are done. But if you want to restrict to specific axis you could, before left clicking, hit X, or if want to restrict to specific plane, do Shift X to restrict movement to YZ plane… Or if you NEED you can also use numeric to specify value, like scale this 25%. Also when moving component, hit G, or double G to slide… So fast when you get used to it.

I am with Filip with recommending Blender as modelling sidekick to Houdini, free and really really great, with Alembic support coming soon.

But I do not think that we will see much of these in Houdini soon, it is just different type of modelling approach. Not much viewport centric, so I would rely mostly on other app for modelling and just bring that in Houdini. Even though I model a lot in Houdini, this project http://forums.odforce.net/topic/22070-construction-visualisation/ [forums.odforce.net] I entirely modelled in Houdini, I would recommend (for character modelling) to use ZBrush for example or Blender or what ever you get used to.

And I do appreciate your efforts McNistor, full support from my side!

SreckoM
Example, you want to extrude something (face, edge, vertices whatever) hit E, move mouse and left click if you are done. But if you want to restrict to specific axis you could, before left clicking, hit X, or if want to restrict to specific plane, do Shift X to restrict movement to YZ plane… Or if you NEED you can also use numeric to specify value, like scale this 25%. Also when moving component, hit G, or double G to slide… So fast when you get used to it.

The first part sounds pretty straight forward and I can get behind that. The 2nd part about restricting axis/plane is far from optimal IMO. Why would I want to use a shortcut when I could a lot more conveniently grab an axis or plane in the viewport?
I don't know what G for slide is, so pictures would be great.

SreckoM
I am with Filip with recommending Blender as modelling sidekick to Houdini, free and really really great, with Alembic support coming soon.

We're here to improve modeling in Houdini not recommend apps to complement Houdini in the modeling department. Most of us are already doing this.

SreckoM
But I do not think that we will see much of these in Houdini soon, it is just different type of modelling approach. Not much viewport centric, so I would rely mostly on other app for modelling and just bring that in Houdini. Even though I model a lot in Houdini, this project http://forums.odforce.net/topic/22070-construction-visualisation/ [forums.odforce.net] I entirely modelled in Houdini, I would recommend (for character modelling) to use ZBrush for example or Blender or what ever you get used to.

And I do appreciate your efforts McNistor, full support from my side!

I'm having a semi-deja-vu. I don't recall to whom I've said this and I'll say it to you as well:
architectural modeling is far from being the best modeling benchmark one can use to test a 3d app.

Zbrush is still not that great for hard-surface. I know you're tempted to contradict me here by pointing out lots of cool work done with it and I agree they look great, however from functionality PoV they're flawed most of them. What I mean by “functionality” is their ability to move/be animated. One has to use some basic rigging tools and modeling something that has solid articulations (like a robot or a character that has solid pieces which could interpenetrate if not tested with some limb bending in the modeling stage) in Zbrush is difficult, it hardly supports this workflow. As a consequence, whenever you see a cool looking robot/exoskeleton character made with Zbrush if you think about bringing into an animation app for film, you'll have to redesign a lot because it simply can't move.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to belittle arch-viz work (your renderings are very cool BTW) but I can see why you'd prefer a certain style of work (more akin to a CAD) if arch-viz is the main type of work you do.
Current Houdini use is film (with exceptions like yours and I'm guessing a few others like I already saw) and games here and there (likely for the trailer part which one can put it in “film” category, not so much for the in-game RT stuff) therefore what is more relevant, is a certain workflow that is more in tune with modeling vehicles (real or sci-fi), characters (robots, creatures, etc) and other complex stuff and for this kind of modeling one needs viewport interactivity with great gizmos along with keyboard support to complement the gizmos.

I'm currently working in my free time on something that's in the “film” category and the use of gizmos is crucial for me to be efficient. Using the keyboard to constrain translation to an axis or a plane was something H13 had (ctrl on an axis to activate its perpendicular plane) and only that and it was a major PITA and thankfully SESI listened to our concern and removed it replacing with a sane, working gizmo. I care not for this “feature” Blender has.
I would however like to hear about other things you think Blender got it right, preferably with pictures (gifs).

I am not proposing to get rid of gizmos - not at all. Blender has them as well and you can work just like you would in Maya or Max.

My main point is to give the option to do stuff by context-aware modifier hotkeys, and mouse actions, that allow a mostly menu-and-button-free modeling experience. So instead of clicking in the bar over the viewport, or a parameter window, you can (don't have to) press a single key or use the mouse wheel.

None of this would interfere with the classic Houdini experience, since it isn't a replacement of anything.

A picture is worth a 1000 words, so I recorded a quick demo of what I mean. Sorry, it isn't realtime and Blender doesn't work well with my GPU, so it's a bit messy:

https://vimeo.com/121449017 [vimeo.com]

Filip Tarczewski
I am not proposing to get rid of gizmos - not at all. Blender has them as well and you can work just like you would in Maya or Max.

That's very good to hear.
You must however acknowledge that you said that you don't use them and you described a style of modeling in which you don't even have to use your mouse. I don't dismiss this as a all around bad workflow - there could be instances where using a few keyboard combos are all you need - but I don't think you can model like this complex shapes.
At the moment I'm writing this, your link doesn't work and I use this opportunity to make a prediction: the geometry you're using there are primitives or geometry which is suited for this kind of operations (walls, stairs, doors, etc.) rarely rotated in relation to the world (sometimes at 30, 45, 90 degrees on one axis). Having to work in local spaces in which moving points with the keyboard would require you to input values like 23.254, 54.365, 82.361, is hardly an easy task.

Filip Tarczewski
My main point is to give the option to do stuff by context-aware modifier hotkeys, and mouse actions, that allow a mostly menu-and-button-free modeling experience. So instead of clicking in the bar over the viewport, or a parameter window, you can (don't have to) press a single key or use the mouse wheel.

This is something I've been advocating since I'm around here. I too dislike having to type in a PPG the number of subdivs for a bevel or edge split (would want to keep an eye on the number though) that you currently have to do in Houdini and Softimage and many others.

Filip Tarczewski
None of this would interfere with the classic Houdini experience, since it isn't a replacement of anything.

Agree.

Filip Tarczewski
A picture is worth a 1000 words, so I recorded a quick demo of what I mean. Sorry, it isn't realtime and Blender doesn't work well with my GPU, so it's a bit messy (also it's still being processed):

https://vimeo.com/121449017 [vimeo.com]

Like I said, I think you're going to model something that's not challenging and doesn't require a gizmo that's oriented in a local space (of the component, not only the object) and in which you're going to need a gizmo for achieving that and also help you translate in reference spaces of other components/objects

edit: I saw the video. Just like I predicted - extrudes, bevels, insets and the like on a non-rotated (world aligned) object. You don't need gizmos for those (Softimage doesn't have gizmos for those either, it has the annoying necessity of using sliders in a PPG, just like Houdini) and the way Blender handles them on the fly is something I'd very much like to see in Houdini.
As for transformations (translate, scale and rotate) please don't touch my gizmos

This is a bit of a misunderstanding. Apart from the specific situation when you type in the precise amount to transform, (G, X, 5) and you're done, Blender's workflow relies on mouse just as much as it relies on keyboard.

You use the mouse distance / angle from the center of operation to set magnitude of things. So the further you move the mouse from the center, the more you scale, rotate, etc. You move the mouse all the time. What you don't do is click on the interface itself - buttons, menus, gizmos. In effect you don't click much at all.

I should have started this whole discussion by posting a movie. My apologies.

McNistor
Like I said, I think you're going to model something that's not challenging and doesn't require a gizmo that's oriented in a local space (of the component, not only the object) and in which you're going to need a gizmo for achieving that and also help you translate in reference spaces of other components/objects

It works the same for local axis though. Your object / polygon can be oriented any way you like in world space, you just use local coordinate system then (XX, YY, ZZ instead of X, Y, Z), just like in XSI (if memory serves me right, it's been a while). As for the simplicity - isn't that what you do 90% of the time? Select polygons, extrude, inset, bevel, scale, rotate, translate.

Also, inset works along normals as expected, so no need to do anything fancy there.

Well, it's good to have that sorted out.

Now, the next step would be to have SESI tackle these tools, one by one, but of course not before laying down an overall workflow for all the tools, one that hopefully will take into consideration the main points that have been discussed here.
Of equal importance (if not greater) is to deal with the algorithms some of them currently have - the results they produce is far from optimal.

Filip Tarczewski
It works the same for local axis though. Your object / polygon can be oriented any way you like in world space, you just use local coordinate system then (XX, YY, ZZ instead of X, Y, Z), just like in XSI (if memory serves me right, it's been a while). As for the simplicity - isn't that what you do 90% of the time? Select polygons, extrude, inset, bevel, scale, rotate, translate

Yes, the operations you've enumerated can be easily performed on objects with “random” rotations.
My main concern was about the fact that (in retrospective probably misunderstood) transformations without gizmos is most of the time unrealistic. I say “most of time” because you can do that in the rare situation in which you need to set the length of a cube to a certain size using only the keyboard. For anything else as far as transformations go, gizmos is the way to go.

Agreed. Especially bevel is very far from perfect IMO. Judging by H14 though I am confident Houdini is headed in the right direction Interface-wise, and I hope it will also happen to the basic modeling tools.

McNistor
My main concern was about the fact that (in retrospective probably misunderstood) transformations without gizmos is most of the time unrealistic. I say “most of time” because you can do that in the rare situation in which you need to set the length of a cube to a certain size using only the keyboard. For anything else as far as transformations go, gizmos is the way to go.

Just to make sure we're clear now, because I'm not sure if this is clear in the video I posted: everything in the vid all lengths, depths etc were set interactively with the mouse, not by typing values from the keyboard.

The only difference is with gizmos you click on an axis and drag the mouse while holding the left mouse button, while in Blender you don't click on anything, you choose the axis from the keyboard, then move the mouse without pressing or holding buttons, and click when you're done.

I got you Filip

I'm not adamant about gizmos and in fact, I don't care that much if for these ops (extrude, bevel, etc) gizmos are used or an approach similar to Blender (hotkey to activate tool, drag mouse for length, LMB for commit).
What I really care about is that we no longer use numeric input into a property tab/box (but obviously keeping that option) but a gizmo or a similar approach to Blender. BTW, one can use a gizmo to set the number of subdiv in a bevel not just for an extrude length.

Personally I'd like something like this for say an Extrude:
- hotkey to activate extrude for the selected faces
- drag mouse to set length
- shift (or ctrl or just MMB / RMB) + drag to set # of subdiv
- LMB (or MMB or RMB) to commit

and a Bevel would go:
- hotkey to activate bevel for the selected edges
- drag mouse to set width
- shift (or ctrl or just MMB / RMB) + drag to set # of subdiv
- LMB (or MMB or RMB) to commit

Other modifier keys + mouse combos for setting other options, less used, in the said tool.

Ok.

McNistor
Personally I'd like something like this for say an Extrude:
- hotkey to activate extrude for the selected faces
- drag mouse to set length
- shift (or ctrl or just MMB / RMB) + drag to set # of subdiv
- LMB (or MMB or RMB) to commit

and a Bevel would go:
- hotkey to activate bevel for the selected edges
- drag mouse to set width
- shift (or ctrl or just MMB / RMB) + drag to set # of subdiv
- LMB (or MMB or RMB) to commit

Cool. Perhaps I'd choose slightly different methods for input (mouse wheel for setting number of subdivs), but the specifics aren't that important. Having a system like this would really help to make interactive modeling in Houdini convenient.

Filip Tarczewski
mouse wheel for setting number of subdivs

But what will the Mac users do?

I'm obviously kidding

McNistor

Filip Tarczewski
mouse wheel for setting number of subdivs

But what will the Mac users do?

I'm obviously kidding

They'd figure something out. Buy a proper mouse perhaps Sorry, couldn't help myself ;] Replacing the mouse was the first thing I did when I started working on a Mac. I have no idea how to use the one without the wheel.

As I said, it isn't as important to me if it's rigged this way or the other, as long as it's convenient enough. The simpler the better.

Also, while we're at it, allowing user defined hotkeys and mouse actions some day could be nice.

McNistor

Filip Tarczewski
mouse wheel for setting number of subdivs

But what will the Mac users do?

I'm obviously kidding

Use + or - on keyboard

this sounds cool!
I honestly like the way blender makes use for shortcuts. I have to agree with Filip. I also like the way Cinema4D does it. in Houdini you often have to move the mouse around to set parameters etc.
its far from good atm.