Anyone know if its possible to take the results of your lighting look dev work in LOPs and somehow use them elsewhere in Houdini say for instance to render in OUT context?

The whole lighting look dev workflow is to me the only compelling new LOPs-USD feature for the solo artist.

Yes, with USD the lookdev can be saved in with the model or the entire scene. There it can be passed to other USD aware applications.

Rendering with old ROPs that use SOHO for obj scene translation is a nonstarter. Mantra will never render from a USD scene.

Thanks. For full USD compatibility with other USD apps is an FX or Core license required?

Yes

To be more explicit here, Indie will only write out “.usdlc” files, and Apprentice will only write out “.usdnc” files. Like .hiplc and .hipnc, if you open these files in a full commercial Houdini, they will downgrade that Huodini session to Indie/Apprentice licensing.

Apps outside of the Houdini family (which include hython, and therefore standard USD tool like usdview that ship with Houdini) will not read .usdlc or .usdnc files at all.

The goal here was that apprentice/indie users should be able to use Solaris for look development, lighting, and rendering, and use the full power of USD, as long as they stay within Houdini (and any supported third party renderers). Indie and Apprentice licenses cannot be used as generic USD processors/glue inside a more complicated, multi-package USD-based pipeline.

Ouch! Is there a lite USD available that we can replace alembics with, or are we stuck with .ABC for inter package exchange?

Even MacOS has native quicklook USD viewing that we can't current ustise then IIRC

goat
Ouch! Is there a lite USD available that we can replace alembics with, or are we stuck with .ABC for inter package exchange?

If you have a commercial version of Houdini, you can write .usd files that can be consumed by other applications outside the Houdini family.

Hi, I am houdini indie user and in current project I use houdini 17.5 as a part of pipleline for creating usdz for iOS AR usd viewer. Since houdini 17.5 only produces well usd geometry (usdpreviewsurface is present but unfortunately doesn't work in h17.5), I attach this shader to generated by houdini geometry-only usd using usdtools and then I convert it to usdz. I expected that with introducing solaris to houdini I will be able to produce usdz files in more intuitive way, in single step and with less pain (as we the users usually expect from new versions of software). But today after installing h18 I was disappointed since the new houdini not only doesn't give me extra features for my pipeline but even looses existing functionality compared to previous version.
I don't understand why I don't have a right anymore to export simple usd models for AR from houdini. If solaris is the main and perhaps the most waited new feature and since usd is first-of-all an inter-software exchange format, why do you cut the core idea of usd itself away from your indie users? Can anyone explain the motivation behind this decision?

mtucker
To be more explicit here, Indie will only write out “.usdlc” files, and Apprentice will only write out “.usdnc” files. Like .hiplc and .hipnc, if you open these files in a full commercial Houdini, they will downgrade that Huodini session to Indie/Apprentice licensing.

This is a dreadful decision. Hope you rethink this.

Maya Indie + their USD plugin offer no such restrictions.

liberalarts

mtucker
To be more explicit here, Indie will only write out “.usdlc” files, and Apprentice will only write out “.usdnc” files. Like .hiplc and .hipnc, if you open these files in a full commercial Houdini, they will downgrade that Huodini session to Indie/Apprentice licensing.

This is a dreadful decision. Hope you rethink this.

Maya Indie + their USD plugin offer no such restrictions.

I agree with liberalarts. While I have not and do not yet know anybody who uses USD so this separate file format doesn't yet mean much to me, I thought the whole point of USD was that it would be an interchange file format and designed to be used between applications. Is USD only designed to feed directly into a render engine like a rib file or is supposed to be more broad and you can import and export a USD into something like a texturing app? If SideFX don't want to give Indie users access to USD to limit interoperability, it seems backwards looking but as a company that seems fair for you to make. However if it is designed as more of a general file format like an alembic and USD actually becomes a thing why would you want the version for independent artists not to be able to use other applications and Houdini gets a reputation for not playing well with others?

A few words that I hope would explain why I support views of my Indie colleagues about the .usdlc limitation introduced in Houdini 18.

I was very enthusiastic when I first heard about Solaris with its comprehensive USD support. I was hoping that this open interchange format would make importing scenes and models into Unity or UE4 a little less painful, than doing so using the proprietary Filmbox format, which I learned to dislike for many reasons. There was so much hype around Solaris-centered features(1), that you can only imagine my disappointment when I first read the official statement regarding USD and Indie licensing (.usdlc). It was heartbreaking, to say at least. It's like someone told you that he's making a delicious cake, boasted about how he used eco-friendly ingredients donated by a prestigious shop (Apache License of USD and Pixar), in general guaranteed rainbow ponies and all that, and then, when the cake finally arrived to the party, he said to you: “Hey you! Yes, you! You're not allowed to eat it! Touch, lick, smell and admire. But do not eat!”.

Nowhere, before the release of H18, I could find an information about plans of limiting USD export that much for Indie licensees. It pretty much came out of nowhere, and struck like a devastating lightning from a clear and sunny sky. Suddenly all those colorful rainbows turned into ugly dark clouds.

Of course, you could repeat the mantra about Indie users, who should be happy with being allowed to use Solaris in LookDev (providing they don't leave, the otherwise very neat and comfy, premises of Houdini). But how exactly this idea benefits Indies that are doing real-time stuff, which always requires 3rd party software? I read some theories (on Discord, I think) that it was decided to be so, because some studios like to mix Indie and HFX pipelines in a way that violates the license agreement. But if it's true, then why do we, Indies, always have to pay for sins of such studios? I can't help but imagine this short sketch taking part in an office room, with a beautiful expensive oak desk in the center, and wooden shelves in the background, full of books with titles suggesting infinite wisdom:
“Boss, did you hear that those multibillion studios A, B and C have our license agreement in a place where the sun never shines? What are we going to do about it?”
“Duh! Punish those goddamn starving artists who have our Indie license!”

So that, is the story of my enthusiasm turning into a total depressive letdown. With Solaris at its current state having almost zero value for me, and Karma for the time being not working outside of Solaris, I can only cheer the minor(2) changes done to other parts of the program. I had never thought I'd say this, but this must be the most wonderful, but at the same time, and for two completely different reasons, the absolute worst major release of Houdini that I had installed since the beginning of my Houdini adventure.

I can only hope, that in time, you guys will give this terrible .usdlc idea a second thought.

Thanks for reading.

(1) It is the key feature of Houdini 18 after all.
(2) When compared to the work required to develop Solaris.

Any other company would have stuck to their guns and just let the Indies eat it. I agree, with Alembic, FBX already being open anyway, and with most other software that support it not having it closed it would have been a travesty to fostering growth. SideFx has again showed me they are not any other company. The released the restrictions as of the new build.

eldiren
Any other company would have stuck to their guns and just let the Indies eat it. I agree, with Alembic, FBX already being open anyway, and with most other software that support it not having it closed it would have been a travesty to fostering growth. SideFx has again showed me they are not any other company. The released the restrictions as of the new build.

Big fan of that. Impressed with the speed of the response too.

Fixed the USD ROP in Houdini Indie/Apprentice to allow it to save out USDNC/USDLC files that compose in existing USD files from disk (rather than only being able to compose in other USDNC/USDLC files).

Does this mean that to USD will need to be authored first within another software package in order for it to be used in both other packages and houdini? And is it possible for USDNC/USDLC to be able to save out in ascii format?

kgoulding
Does this mean that to USD will need to be authored first within another software package in order for it to be used in both other packages and houdini? And is it possible for USDNC/USDLC to be able to save out in ascii format?

In case you've missed this
https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/71019/ [www.sidefx.com]

Which means the only limited version nowadays is apprentice, which is expected. And I doubt that .usdnc will support ASCII as then what would be the difference from .usd?