… you asked

I was on #odforce the other day, and a developer named wde was asking around to see how to make houdini a better modeler. While I love the idea of making houdini better in this category, we kept hitting dead ends with no major conclusive feature that would help houdini. However, since that time, I have thought of this feature! . Check this out:

There should be a SOP, which I will refer to as “polyObject” with similar polygon modeling tools as 3D Studio Max's poly object tools, shown here [oman3d.com] and Maya's polygon modeling tools. In the parameters for this polyObject, it could have different sections for different operations, just like the new (and might I say awesome!) sculpt modeling tool. The key to this modeling object is that, like the sculpt tool, it should have no history similar to the sculpt tool, although it doesn't need to be exactly the same (maybe you'd need to convert your model to a polyObject, I think that would be best).

Also, it could have different tabs or sections for different categories like the sculpt tool. The categories I came up with were: Selection, Operations and Tools. I've outlined my ideas for the items that I think should be part of these sections:

Selection:
- Vertex / Edge / Face / Object
- Grow / Shrink
- Edge Ring / Edge Loop
- Move loop up / Move loop down
- Select outline
Operations:
- Extrude Edge / Extrude Face
- Smooth Lvl 1 / Smooth Lvl 2
- Delete Vertex / Remove Vertex
- Delete Edge / Remove Edge
- Bevel Edge / Chamfer Vertex
- Merge Vertices / Merge Object
- Duplicate Faces
Tools:
- Knife Faces
- Split Polygons
- Draw Faces
- Split Edge rings
- Merge Vertices

Okay, that's enough stuff for one post, let me comment on some of the items here, going down from “selection”. The vertex, edge, face, object buttons are pretty important. I don't know what you call those tiny, indistinct pixels, errrr, buttons, on the left hand corner but to me those things are ridiculous to use in a fast paced workflow such as modeling. The polyObject should have its own big, distinct, Vertex/Edge/Face buttons and they don't necessarily need to be in the “selection” tab, they could even be visible in all tabs. Smooth Lvl 1 and 2 are just different buttons for subDividing with a depth of 1 and 2. It actually helps a lot to have two buttons for this, rather than one button with options, that's not gonna make sense to some, but the experienced will know what I mean. The “remove” and “delete” edges and vertices don't necessarily need to be there, but we should have the functionality of both somewhere with this polyObject. These meanings are taken from maya: removing completely takes away an edge or vertex and all vertices/edges that are connected. While deleting leaves behind any of the connected edges/vertices. The duplicate faces operation is actually pretty important, it allows you to duplicate any faces selected, which makes sense for repititious models like teeth, fingers, etc… At the end we see a merge vertices operation and a merge vertices tool. This is quite important, as many times you want to merge multiple vertices at once, and define a threshold to “limit the merging” and other times, you want only a few vertices to merge, and you don't want to fiddle with the settings for your threshold. The balance is separating them into a tool and an operation like in 3D Studio. With the merge vertices tool, you select one vertex, then you select the vertex that you want it to merge too. It helps quite a bit to have these separate… Again, this makes a lot more sense in practice, but I don't want to go into any more detail at this moment… but I can, if you ask.

Before maya 8 was released I was skeptical that maya would go downhill because of Alias' buyout. Now that maya 8 has come out and confirmed these fears 110%, I really really want to migrate to Houdini, but modeling is without a doubt the biggest fear of mine. I can still model in maya, but I don't necessarily want to do all of my models in maya. Please integrate this polyObject idea, if not only for me and my tired typing fingers .

Before any of you developers stop reading this I want to say three things. One: if you're thinking, “I dunno, it might be a useless feature, what if no one likes it” You're wrong! . People will like it, I can guarantee, that. Any maya/max/xsi/lightwave modeler will like this a lot once it's in place. Two: If you're thinking, “that's gonna be hard to integrate, I don't know if we can do it” You're wrong! . You can do it, it doesn't have to be exactly like this, but the basic premise should remain the same. And three: …where's my check? :p

Before Houdini 3 or 4, most aspects of modelling were a black box, ( the Model SOP), but after a large amount of work SESI deprecated the Model SOP in favor of the current *mostly* procedural approach. If you come from another 3D application, Houdini's approach to modeling can be quite fustrating but once you get used to it you can model at roughly the same speeds as people in other packages. The great thing is once you start to use the procedural approach to your advantage it can be a huge time saver. For example, just the other day I made a mistake modeling and my edge loop was a few units away from where it should have been. The problem was I had done about 100 modeling operations since then based on that edge loop. I was able to go back to operator that made the edge loop and adjust the position of it without breaking any of the subsequent operations.

As for the selection points, edges, faces etc. (Use the 1,2,3,4,etc hotkeys )

The one thing that *would* be nice is some Viewer support for the Add SOP (draw faces).

Woooooooow! Wolfwood. Just wow. You could not have put out a better example of why Houdini is Not a good modeler. Nor could you have been any more ignorant to what does make a good modeler. Let me explain.

…I made a mistake modeling and my edge loop was a few units away from where it should have been. The problem was I had done about 100 modeling operations since then based on that edge loop. I was able to go back to operator that made the edge loop and adjust the position…

Oh my god, that's an outrageous remark on every single front. First of all, the concept of a Mistake!!! in modeling!?!? Ahhhhh!, what!?!? Have you ever modeler anything? It's an extremely iterative process! For my models [yobadoba.itgo.com] I routinely delete entire regions of edge loops and start again, possibly 10-15 times every single day. And you say, the edge loop was a few units away , and this was a problem!? Yet, in any other modeler, repositioning edge loops is never, ever a problem. Ever. What I think is hillarious is that you say it was okay, because you found the edge loop and adjusted it, lol. You had to dig through 100 operations, and yet in every single other modeling package, you don't have to look or even think about changing an edge loop at all. And you think 100 operators is a lot? Imagine a commercial model with thousands of operators… clearly this procedural approach would be useless at this point, even though I think it's useless for most all models… but that's okay, with just one “black box” modeling SOP, that can be changed, and that's what I want to happen.

There's one more thing I want to comment on:

If you come from another 3D application, Houdini's approach to modeling can be quite fustrating but once you get used to it you can model at roughly the same speeds as people in other packages

Wow. So just ignore the thousands upon thousands of people that model 100x better/faster with other packages right? I was frusterated with Houdini's approach to modeling 3 years ago, when I first tried it. Now, there's no more frusteration, and the speed at which I model anything in houdini is so slow and cumbersome compared to maya that I can't even think about modeling anything complex in houdini. And another thing about your statement is that you ignore what actually does make a good 3D program in general. For example: technically speaking, anything that can be done in houdini's POPs can eventually, with enough time, programming, investment, research, plug-ins, $$$$, can be done in any other 3d program. The very reason why houdini's particles are so great is because you don't need these extra days/months/years to do what you want. There are POPs that could take days of programming and research in other packages, but in houdini it's simply one operator. Houdini's approach to modeling is almost a complete reversal of this ideology. Technically speaking, you have the same capability as other modelers. But technically speaking, anything is as good as anything so there's no point in technicalities is there? The fact of the matter is, people can use other modelers much faster and easier. I teach people with no experience at all in 3D and within 2-3 days, we have a modeled, animated basic character in maya. The simplicity and ease of maya's modeling tools is soooo far beyond the power of houdini's modeler, it makes my head spin just to think about it.

On an almost unrelated, but very very important note: I started out with houdini right when apprentice came out because an ex-digital domain TD and houdini pro since the day of prisms had stopped using houdini around version 5, and he was bummed out (I could tell) by this. I asked, why did you stop using it? He said, they've just gone in the wrong direction. At the time, I was a modeler at the company we were at, and he said (and I quote) “You're never gonna change something after you model it, that's just dumb”. Up until now I had no idea that houdini usta have a “black box” modeling method. And with absolutely positively no prior knowledge of this, I have asked for it after years of maya/max modeling experience. Sesi should take this somewhat seriously. If a completely random guy asks for something, and seasoned experts ask for that very same something, then some action needs to be taken.

Edit: I forgot to mention: I know that my models are lame, but I just put these up for reference .

First of all, count down. I understand that you think your opinion is the best, but let's have a respect to each other.
You're mentioned maya modeler as an example, but there IS exactly the same concept of building a history as you model. The only difference is that it's not in side window there by default, so in order to see it, you'd have to go to hypergraph. There are exactly the same nodes (mostly). You're just become accustomed to regularly delete that history there to speedup your work.
But why you can't do the same in Houdini? Just close the network editor, leaving the viewport alone and model like in maya without a single thought of nodes. When you'll need to delete a history, just put the “lock” sign on last node and delete all the others. Thats all.
I modelled in maya, and modelled in houdini, and i found their conceptions as the same. The difference is only in force of habit and different names of the same nodes.

Ah Reggie. Your soapbox is a little creaky. Please spend a little more time playing with it before you start asking SESI to turn Houdini into a 3DsMaya-like.

It's a fundamentally different paradigm and there's plenty of folk out here in the 3d badlands that have no issue with it. It's perhaps your lack of experince in the package that is the root of your frustrations.

And whilst you may be an expert modeller, perhaps we may be allowed to do things our way, instead of yours. crazy idea i know!

What you see as a drawback is seen as others as an advantage.
You say it ain't so, but once you've spent more than 5 minutes in front of it you just might begin to see.

Cheers

How more ignorate can You be with fake sud d's in maya and the some what retarded way of doing alot of things in max… Modeling you can do in maya or max and houdini same concept different way to do it..
I know a guy who can blow out a ,model in houdini and maya faster and better then most. He left both for a great product called Zbrush… you can use what ever you want and inport it to there scupt it like a real sculpter and then bring back to your weapon of choice and then bang iut out…
With version 2.5 you can do a billion more stuff then you can with maya hands down with out it crashing on 20 million poly model… layers apon layers of modeling techniques with out ever mesing with the original model brought into the package.. Plus Even xsi is a better process to modeling then maya ..

As far as Maya 8 there have been a rehalll of most modeling tools sets from the user group meeting .. But as one Steve Williams said many hardcore MAYA artisains have convered to Houdini and will never want to go back….. for anything for animation or modeling lighting and most diffienctly VFX and RBD,… as it blow the hell out maya right now.. as to say HOudini has been King of VFX for over 10 years… Maya has had to play catch up since maya came out…

SO i would think u are or could be more educated in your stuff on modeling then you can be.. to make your life easier and more productive then to ask SesSi to waste time on this sort of request… WHich could be more of a better deal … for you and everyone here… SO i sugest you go get a hold of zbrush see if you can pick it up then be one with your self on modeling ….
That;s if you don;t use it already.. But never try to come and put down something you can;t comprehend unless you have been there and done it… it;s another level of thought that is released with Houdini that will never come with MAYa unless your a mel guru coder… but then again even with that you can;t touch houdini…. defualt.. heheh… stright from a guy i met at Siggraoh from ILM….

mlesin, jesta and Cylibral, need I remind you of the topic of this conversation. It was not me that brought up the idea of making houdini a better modeler. It was the idea of SideFx itself. The developers were looking for a way to make houdini a better modeler, not I. So don't get mad at me for helping them.

mlesin: I know there's history in maya, but it's not just history, it's the entire workflow in houdini. For example, where are tools in houdini? You have to do each operator separately. Twenty split polygon operators in houdini and one split polygon tool in maya is a huge difference in workflow. Especially when you consider the fact that you have to hit tab for each extra operator, while in maya, it's as simple as clicking the split polygon tool once and adding as much detail as you want. And the workflow problems don't stop there. There are common features of different modelers that I don't see here. For example, how do you remove an edge or vertex in houdini (without deleting faces)? This is simply a matter of hitting delete in maya, and hitting the “remove edge” button in max, but in houdini? How do you select an edge ring in houdini? The list goes on…

My point is this: It's not simply a matter of getting used to houdini. If it were, sesi wouldn't be looking for a way to make it more like maya/max/xsi. And remember, those are the words from inside SideFx. Trust me, they're used to the modeling workflow, and I'm trying to help them see what they don't see.

ReggieFourmyle
For example, where are tools in houdini? You have to do each operator separately. Twenty split polygon operators in houdini and one split polygon tool in maya is a huge difference in workflow. Especially when you consider the fact that you have to hit tab for each extra operator, while in maya, it's as simple as clicking the split polygon tool once and adding as much detail as you want.

This is true, Houdini doesn't have the concept of a tool like in Maya. You can get a similar effect by doing all the operations in the viewport. If you don't need the operator history in Houdini you can simply lock the chain from time to time and delete all the parent nodes. Personally when working in the viewport I find the PolySplit SOP and Split Edge Tool in Maya are quite similar. With the one execption being I have to hit “q” every now and then in Houdini to start an unconnected PolySplit.

And the workflow problems don't stop there. There are common features of different modelers that I don't see here. For example, how do you remove
an edge or vertex in houdini (without deleting faces)? This is simply a matter of hitting delete in maya, and hitting the “remove edge” button in max, but in houdini?

Dissolve SOP.
Deletes points, primitives, and edges from the input geometry and repairs any holes left behind.

Almost all the operations can be bound to keys. Open up the Hotkey Manager, search for “Dissolve” then bind it to the delete key.

How do you select an edge ring in houdini? The list goes on…

You can select point/edge/face rings in Houdini by hitting “l”. (Or f to move a single element at a time, “r” to reverse)

My point is this: It's not simply a matter of getting used to houdini. If it were, sesi wouldn't be looking for a way to make it more like maya/max/xsi. And remember, those are the words from inside SideFx. Trust me, they're used to the modeling workflow, and I'm trying to help them see what they don't see.

As a community we love input that would help make our application better. For example Houdini doesn't have a easy way to build polygons, like the Build Polygon Tool in Maya. (You can do it with the Add SOP but its a pain to use in the Viewport.) Please provide comments, its good to hear them from an experience modeler, but at the same time those comments need to apply to the current paradigm within Houdini. The odds of SESI implementing a Model SOP solution anytime soon are quite slim. So with that said, given the current way of working what improvements would you make. I know you suggested some, but a lot of those suggestions are already implemented. If you find the implemenation poor, then explain why.

For example, how do you remove an edge or vertex in houdini (without deleting faces)?

I am not a pro-modeler, but removing an edge shouldn't the face, which that edge belongs, be deleted?

Also, SESI never tried to make Houdini look like other packages, but make it better: ie DOP and POP. 8)

Quickly skimming your post, it seems like at least some of your problems come from inexperience with Houdini. For example, you were unaware that switching between points, edges, primitives etc can be done with the 1, 2, 4 keys, that you can quickly repeat the last operation with ‘q’ (for example laying down a bunch of edge-loops can be done in seconds), or that the Dissolve SOP is there, or that you can select edge-loops (example: holding l+shift allows you to quickly select loops).

As far as the procedural nature of it… once you get used to the fact that you DO have access to this paradigm (oh no, I used a buzzword) you begin to use it in ways that you probably can't think of yet, coming from other packages. It really is a luxury to have, that's I guess one way I would put it. That's what keeps me from using other modelers, even though I have my beefs with Houdini for modeling (mainly performance issues, especially with larger models).

I do like the idea of having a quick shortcut for toggling L1 and L2 subdivision, I'd like to see that. Still, I don't get the feeling that you've given the modeling tools in Houdini a decent spin…

I think all this really boils down to is user workflow and ui improvements. Maybe sesi can learn a thing or two about how users interact with selection tools and subd cages and so on. But that doesn't mean to say they need to change the tools that are already there or start packaging them all back in one node.
What I think would be cool though would be a simple ie one keystroke way to collapse a whole heap of nodes into an edit style node. This way you wouldn't need to lock a node or write out the bgeo but everything you just did would be stored in one node and would still allow data to pass through. This would have one additional method that the edit sop doesn't have - it would allow the point and prim numbers to change too so that it could store the functions performed by the removed delete, blast and dissolve sops.

After all if you could entirely work in the viewport and could even delete the history with a keystroke how would you know you weren't working in a single black box sop?

At the same time those of us who *very* often use the procedural approach to build *very* complex models would be happy too.
Keep the completely unique feature of proceduralism add more usuability and surely you have the best of all worlds?

Now if you can think of tools that Houdini doesn't have then yes adding them may very well make Houdini a better modelling package.
I often roll my own and put them “out there” in the hope that if I hit on something useful Sesi will take note and roll something in.

Ok, maybe I over-reacted. I get a little protective, when you wade in here with barely a handfull of posts to your name telling oldtimers their comments are ourageous. do you realise how arrogant that looks?

Anyway, a lot of the tools/functionality you mention are already there. It does help to know your way around Houdini (no dig intended). Sure, I can see when you come from other packages it all looks and feels a bit arse about tit. It's never been the easiest package to get into when you come from a standard GUI. But patience pays.

Houdini is in fact a very strong and robust modeller. Perhaps a little awkward to newcomers, and its poly tool set has limitations but it has a power and flexibility unparalleled anywhere as an overall package.

It is a tricky thing to get a balance between the nodeless freedom of modelling in say Maya, and yet retain the procedural paradigm. It is altogether a different way of working.

When processing geometry sequences, that come from other packages, for effects it's great to be able to edit the geometry to better do the effects and have that just trickle down the pipe.

Honestly, if modelling is an issue to folk, they do it in what they know best, be it Zbrush, Mirai, Max, or whatever. Sure it's nice to have all the best tools from all the packages all bundled up in houdini. I can think of a few I've seen in XSI.

Perhaps a return of the model SOP would be an answer to this, but I don't know if that requires a re-write of the code and how like ly that'll be.

Educated suggestions = good.

Attitude = bad.

My .02 cents anyway. Plus too much verbosity makes for tedious reading.

Cheers,

J.C.

hahaha

JC is bang on the money here.

Dajuice:

For example, you were unaware that switching between points, edges, primitives etc can be done with the 1, 2, 4 keys

Where do you get that from? I was simply asking for _usable_ buttons. There is a difference between a button and a hotkey. They even say the hotkeys on the very buttons that I was complaining about.

…that you can quickly repeat the last operation with ‘q’

Yes, I know this, and in my speedy typing, I should've said you have to have an operator for each one. Yes, I know that maya has the same thing, but the speed at which multitudes of operations can be done in maya is completely different, and performance is never an issue.

…or that the Dissolve SOP is there…

It's still not the same as simply hitting delete, or clicking a button, again it's an operation that you need to find/remember/know of. I saw the dissove sop used before, but I haven't invested a lot of time in houdini in the last 6 months, so I completely forgot about it, so I apologize for forgetting. But really, don't you see that this “workflow” requires too much time to learn in your spare time, while you're using another 3d app. How do you think that sesi is going to get new users? Okay, forgetting was a mistake on my part, but this does not make the workflow much different, what I'm asking for is not the ability to do something, it's the ability to do something better/faster/easier. I know it's all possible, but where do we draw the line?

Wolfwood and Dajuice:

You can select point/edge/face rings in Houdini by hitting “l”. (Or f to move a single element at a time, “r” to reverse)

You got me on the inexperience thing on this one feature because I have never heard of this before. However, I think this is another example of the user-unfriendliness of the modeling tools in houdini. Two people have explained how to do this now, and yet, for the life of me, I cannot select an edge loop. In edit mode, shift I while having an edge selected doesn't do anything. Shift I doesn't bring up an operator that will help, and r doesn't seem to do anything either.

I know you suggested some, but a lot of those suggestions are already implemented. If you find the implemenation poor, then explain why.

hahahha, I don't find them poor. Remember I wasn't looking for a way to make houdini a better modeler, atleast one sesi guy was. If you were to ask me, I would say that they're more than poor. But to be honest, there are a bunch of other good modelers that I would use first. But I'm trying to help sesi in their quest to become a bigger force in the 3D arena. And if you ask me, I'm in the right here.

If you want my ideas on making houdini better, first of all, scroll up. I guarantee you, those are very good ideas if they are implemented well. They are tried and true by other, better, easier (complain all you want, I don't care) modelers. However, I will add some detail to my above comments though, based on one thing you've said.

Almost all the operations can be bound to keys. Open up the Hotkey Manager, search for “Dissolve” then bind it to the delete key

Oh come on, give me atleast a little credit. I know that much already . But in maya I have 16 modeling specific commands on a marking menu that I can access almost immediately without thinking, reading or typing anything. This makes for a gigantic leap in productivity when compared to houdini. Even if I were to bind 16 hotkeys, that would do two majorly bad things: 1) I would have to work around or remove any of houdini's default hotkeys. 2) I would have a large amount of keyspace to avoid when using every single houdini category aside from modeling. What's my solution? My genius idea is this: custom hotkeys specifically for this polyObject/model SOP. Probably with a checkbox on the model sop that says, “override default hotkeys with custom modeling hotkeys”. This way, we get the best of both worlds. We can't get maya's marking menus, but we don't necessarily want to steal a patented menu from autodesk . However, we do get a very flexible modeling sop that anyone, coming any other 3D package can coordinate with what they're comfortable with. This is absolutely perfect for a new user if you ask me. Plus they won't have any fear of ruining the standard hotkeys in houdini. As well, seasoned houdini experts can have all of what they want in a flexible modeler in one sop, hotkeys included, without making half of the keyboard specific to modeling alone. This idea kicks ass imo, if it still pisses you off, you're getting the wrong impression and there's no need to respond. Thanks.

Edit: dajuice explained on IRC that I was reading shift+l and l wrong, I was thinking those were both upper case I's.

You got me on the inexperience thing on this one feature because I have never heard of this before. However, I think this is another example of the user-unfriendliness of the modeling tools in houdini. Two people have explained how to do this now, and yet, for the life of me, I cannot select an edge loop. In edit mode, shift I while having an edge selected doesn't do anything. Shift I doesn't bring up an operator that will help, and r doesn't seem to do anything either.

Its the “l” key, not “i”. (“l” as in loop). You can also Ctrl+Right Click on an edge and it will bring up a list of the different options.

Ok, maybe I over-reacted. I get a little protective, when you wade in here with barely a handfull of posts to your name telling oldtimers their comments are ourageous

Ooooooh no, I'm the one that's way over-reacting, especially with my last post. Now that I look back at what I've said, I feel like a total ass. I forgot how polite, civil and mature everyone is on this forum, so if anyone's still reading, I sincerely apologize for talking like I know you guys. Although I do feel strongly about everything that I've said on the subject of the “model sop”. So here's a calm explanation of the benefits/drawbacks that I think this node will bring:

Benefits:
The most important benefit here is that you will have a single node which can be very easy for any new houdini user to access most (if not all) of the modeling tools that they've been using for years, or in the case that they're completely new to 3D, you have an area with all important polygon functions. Perhaps it could even have all of houdini's polygon functions(?). Mostly people have been saying this is a bad idea because they're not new to houdini and don't think they need a change in the modeling system but there's a problem, you've been already using houdini for years, of course you don't mind the way it is now, you have to be able to remember how you felt first using the tool… that is, if you were using it on your own, as most people don't have the benefit of having someone to instruct them through each step.

The second most important thing here is that you have an option to model with the procedural approach or you have the option to model with the “standard” approach. I would never think of replacing houdini's modeling system, I simply want to make it better. There's nothing wrong with that. This will only strengthen houdini as a whole as it would welcome tons of new users from all other 3D programs.

The last benefit is that if we get the “custom modeling” hotkeys button, we will fully have an all inclusive modeler inside of houdini that would take the shape of just about any 3d modeler that we like. Think about this clearly. Everyone on this channel could have their customized hotkeys, only when it comes to modeling with this sop. So even if you hate the idea of this sop entirely, you can still have a nearly “different program” within houdini that's specifically for the non-procedural modeling approach (the non-procedural approach to modeling has its perks too…you may even begin to like it ). For new houdini users, the benefits of this custom hotkey idea is off the scale. You could still have all your favorite hotkeys from your previous program, and never know you switched. And for those who still use a different modeling package to model things for houdini, they would definitely appreciate this feature, if not drop the other modeler entirely.

Drawbacks:
The ever popular idea of “it will take too long” was at first a thought of mine. However, when I was sitting around being pissed off, I thought to myself, wait a minute, how is this our problem. If it's going to take too long, then it's up to sidefx to decide whether it's worth it them to devote the amount of resources needed. And still, they've already got almost all of the features I explained in node form, as well as a delete history option. So theoretically it's not hard at all, in fact, it may be feasible to see this whole thing done and good to go within a week or two. But that all depends on sidefx and how the houdini code is written. Honestly, now that I think about it, it does not seem like it will take that long, it may be a matter of a lot of cutting and pasting, but only the developers can say for sure.

…That's the only drawback I could think of, and it's only a possible draw back. Anyone who doesn't like the node doesn't have to use it, but anyone coming from a different 3D package or no modeling experience at all will probably love the node with a passion, as much as I love the idea of having this node.

Perhaps a return of the model SOP would be an answer to this, but I don't know if that requires a re-write of the code and how like ly that'll be.

Please remember, I am not trying to re-write or remove anything that is already there. I'm trying to make houdini better for all of us.

Anyway, a lot of the tools/functionality you mention are already there

Yes, I know that most of the functionality is there. But as they are right now, they are not very helpful to anyone that doesn't use houdini day in and day out. Even seasoned experts from other programs find it hard to switch to houdini in this particular category. No one really complains about the difficulty of houdini's particle systems (pops or sops) when they come from these programs, so that should be a good indication that something is wrong in the modeling world…… And it could still be that I'm a newb, but what about some of the features that are not there, like the knife tool as its called in lightwave or the quickslice in 3d studio and the cut faces tool in maya (don't know xsi)? Some of features mentioned still don't seem to be there to me, but maybe I'm just a newb. And please remember, I'm not asking for every feature in every program, what I'm asking for is the major features in a “no history” modeling node.

Sorry I still don't understand the difference in speed between having a sop with 28 tabs on it with every single possible modelling operation on it and just having seperate nodes for each one? From what you are saying it sounds like your only issue is that you can't easily identify the modelling tools from all the other possible nodes, yes? It also sounds like Maya have solved this problem by having a custom menu that you can bring up, yes?
So here's a suggestion Houdini already has a menu you bring up by hitting tab, you'll need to explain why bringing up Maya's is quicker, but the trouble with the Houdini one is it doesn't come by default with a subsection for all the tools you are talking about, right. If it did and perhaps you could open it directly without having to hit tab and mouse through all the other entries you'd have exactly what you are asking for, no?

One final thought you say you are only trying to pick up Houdini in your spare time and everything you want to do isn't exactly how you would have it if you'd designed the program. Well I think that is usually how everyone feels about ever new piece of software. I remember trying out Maya just in my spare time and gave up after 1 day because it didn't work like Houdini I frankly I couldn't be bothered to figure it all out, it was no more intuitive to someone who hadn't spent real quality time trying to learn it.
Something that will help you a lot is realising there is a little help line at the bottom of the gui that gives useful hints on how to use the tools as you select them and apply them.

Ditto on the poly building sop by the way, that is one huge hole that polyknit just cannot fill - pun intended.

Simon
Ditto on the poly building sop by the way, that is one huge hole that polyknit just cannot fill - pun intended.

I would love a hybrid between the Curve SOP and the PolyKnit SOP. I like how I can create new geometry anywhere with the Curve SOP, but I also like how easy it is to build off geometry with the PolyKnit. Taking the some of the interactive elements of both of these and applying them to the Add SOP would be great. (I only say the Add SOP because it supports adding new points, and also building polygons based on new and old points. Of course the Add SOP would need tools to handle reversing the face, etc.)

Forget I said anything… Mods, can you delete this thread please?