Modeling primarily in Houdini

   4425   44   7
User Avatar
Member
10 posts
Joined:
Offline
What software does it offer at any time in the modeling, send only a fragment of the modeling to any operator for the particles to happen or any other madness? I think that is the essence of Houdini. I do not think they change to make it parametric, Houdini has what it takes to model, in his own way.
User Avatar
Member
70 posts
Joined: June 2013
Offline
GoetzingerC
trying to make Houdini similar to other applications in this regard would probably lead to horrible Frankenstein workflows

This! Because everyone has their pet ways of doing things from other packages. Packages that were developed to do different aspects of 3d animation, some very narrow in scope, with the highest fidelity and efficiency. How are you going to make them all work in a system that has at its core a different philosophy and therefore resulting structure? IMO this is what is what happened to Maya, where Autodesk is just throwing everything they can buy into the package to keep up with the times without any consideration to how those different tool sets connect to its core.

(edit: watched video and I was saying too much too soon… Maybe Houdini could expand to embrace different workflow, but with care not to lose focus on what works so well.)
Edited by Rebus B - Sept. 11, 2018 18:36:55
User Avatar
Member
206 posts
Joined: Nov. 2010
Offline
Grimwolf
I've finished the video, and the tool looks kind of… limited?
I'm glad for more modeling tools, and I can see it helping a bit with some tasks here and there, like more easily filling holes and cutting in edges. But the demonstration, plus the name “polydraw” gives the impression that it's focused on actually drawing vertices in an isometric view. Which is a very archaic and niche workflow. I was actually kinda shocked to see the presenter doing that at all. So having the tool focused on that just seems bizarre.
It sounds like the hotkeys for switching modes are kinda messy as well. I doubt I could use it for a long while without having the hotkeys listed on a second monitor at all times.

There is a fundamental issue with having an all in one tool without a history and that is not having a history. In houdini having a history means nodes. having everything in one tool is basically having no history, at least not as granular as SI users are used to. So what you want is not one tool that does it all, but a set of highly efficient tool that can be combined seamlessly and without having to manually drop nodes while retaining a relatively clean network.
Edited by OneBigTree - Sept. 13, 2018 19:29:17
User Avatar
Member
70 posts
Joined: June 2013
Offline
This may be a problem with the language being used. Instead of calling the network “history” think of it as “structure” which is much more in keeping with Houdini's philosophy and power.
User Avatar
Member
86 posts
Joined: Aug. 2014
Offline
Fco Javier
What software does it offer at any time in the modeling, send only a fragment of the modeling to any operator for the particles to happen or any other madness? I think that is the essence of Houdini. I do not think they change to make it parametric, Houdini has what it takes to model, in his own way.

A bit of nit picking, it is possible in Softimage ICE to some extent, however I don't remember that people were so excited by multiple dependent networks all around. On contrary, built in ICE particle system was allowed to do as much possible from single network, even it will be more ‘natural’ for ICE to use something like at least two, similar to Houdini SOP-DOP relation.
Have a personal experience here, was running a few free systems based on ICE, it always been demand for as much compact structure, despite the complexity of ‘one network for all’ solution.
Perhaps because users were animators or modelers, focused on final result, not on ‘beauty of code’ or network structure. Houdini user base seems to be somehow different…
On positive side, widely used procedural approach was a post process of direct modeling, relying on Softimage ‘construction modes’, things like shrink wrap executed after modeling, as an effective re-topology method, or custom symmetry options based on ICE ops, finally a ‘clone’ option, as end result of construction history of one object used as starting point in another object. In Houdini that's a full ‘object merge’, while option is possible and reliable in other apps as well, like ‘instance reference’ in Max.
One really nice implementation of post process is Blender's ability to do non destructive beveling by keeping the bevel modifier at top of stack, based on edge properties created in ‘edit’ mode, before any modifier stack.
And, even nicer example of effective, viewport based procedural approach, IMO is Autodesk Fusion 360 [www.youtube.com] around 8.00 they showing how it's possible to jump into various stages of NurbS construction.
Now back to Houdini, while it's possible to setup probably everything mentioned, in practice is different story. ‘Object merge’ is prohibitively slow when used as post process of direct modeling, Edit node behaves rigidly, it's always added on end of tree, Houdini is not recognizing the existing Edit node in middle of three and proceeding with that one (or at least this was last time I've tried in first H 16 or so).
In short, when it comes to direct (viewport based) modeling, seems to be similar story with Maya, where existing network is actually too wide, too general to allow imposing the effective viewport based rules and control over it. In same time, framework is already adopted by facilities, so they can't change it (that is, simplify it), just for sake of something almost not existing in H, like direct modeling. So only way seems to be Maya path, to implement something simple like Silo in Maya today, basically unrelated to rest of app, except a plain in-out connection somewhere in network. Better than nothing, but also not competitive to free app like Blender, today. (Long time ago when Maya started its long journey toward polygonal modeling, Blender was a way behind commercial apps).
Anyway just personally, I don't see problem there. I'm already feeling confident with three polygonal modelings in other apps, don't see any reason to put fourth one in mix, actually I'm trying to reduce that number. Houdini alone is able to keep live connection with imported geometry, so that's it, model in something else, import or reload in H.
Edited by amm - Sept. 18, 2018 17:20:30
  • Quick Links