Not finding any hard facts on this subject, i thought i'd ask here. Is it set? Does anyone know anything?

And about the new interface, is there any images or demonstrations besides those flashy icons?

Tell me the future! P

There's no hard facts to be found because the information simply doesn't exist. If I could tell you the future, I'd buy a lottery ticket instead. Sorry, but you'll just have to be patient.

I just hope that sesi takes their time with h9 and makes a statement to the 3D community. The direction they've been taking houdini has really been impressing me for the last few years, but I still don't see studios picking it up unfortunately. Sesi's latest price drop and houdini select feature improvement has really gotten my attention personally, as it includes Cops, Chops and renderman/mental ray output, but I still feel that it will take a really really impressive h9 release to draw people in.

I've used Houdini for quite a while now. H9 is the version I've been most excited about. Even more impressed by the fact that the sheer amount of stuff SESI did with only the small team that they have.

Mantra and PRman access is great, but don't overlook the unlimited mantra tokens…

That's a HUGE benefit…

Cheers,

Gene

ut I still don't see studios picking it up unfortunately

Your kidding right ? every major studio of any note uses Houdini, if you bothered to read 3d world this month you would see it kicking 3d ass


Monkey

circusmonkey
Your kidding right ? every major studio of any note uses Houdini, if you bothered to read 3d world this month you would see it kicking 3d ass

Houdini has been in every major studio for years but only as a specialty program, not the program. I still see maya as the standard for most studios, followed by Xsi, max and I'd bet that even lightwave has more studios using it as their main program. Sure, they could all have 1-2 houdini licenses if they get into a bind, but that's just in case they need it and btw, part of the reason why I'm saying sesi should make a statement with h9. Studios keep houdini around specifically for the real tricky stuff, but as a whole 3d package houdini has a lot to offer, especially with their latest price drop. But to get studios to consider using houdini primarily would require them to think of it as a valid competitor in all aspects of 3d. Not as some alien program that's only useful for the hard stuff.

I would say something which is not very popular on this forum and I will be bitten as silly boy I'm affraid. Story goes like this: newbies start to learn Houdini, than they find it difficult and start screaming, than one of gurus tries to explain that problems go from habits of previous packages and Houdini is not as difficult as it's looks like. And this can be even true…

But in my opinion the truth stays in between: Houdini is more difficult to use and understand then other packages so it will never be so popular as others. It simply needs different kind of qualification from a user. And there is much less CG artists capable to handle it. And the most important part of my statment is that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT (i think SESI would agree )

So as we all try to give courage newbies and help them with troubles still Houdini is much more demending software then LW let's say and will always interest less people. It expects more and it gives more…. much more.


ok, bit me than ops:

sy.

SYmek
ok, bit me than sy.

You're stating the obvious, why do you expect any kind of bashing?
I have no problem with Houdini demanding more from the user, I only have problems with the areas of the software which *can* and *should* be more efficient to use and are not at this very moment (like shading/lighting etc, everybody knows them). It a difference between being harder to use because it offers more power (like the procedural nature of SOPs) and being harder to use and inefficient without any real benefit, in an area where everybody else found straightforward solutions.

Dragos

digitallysane
You're stating the obvious, why do you expect any kind of bashing?
Dragos

O, sorry for a triviality. My point was that the fact that Houdini is not a main tool in most studios even if it used there, as mentioned before, is not a problem of superstitions but its real nature. It is a different kind of software and most people intuitively choose other apps. because they feel uncomfortable with proceduralism and math. So whenever I hear: “add nice shaders, write a books, make GUI beauty and you will have app like others”
or vice versa: “it really easy even easier then you think, just learn this and this…”, I feel we miss the point. Houdini will stand aside as individuals who likes its nature are in minority. Good minority is not so bad, you know…

but yes, you're right, after all it's trivial

I'm not sure if an app like Houdini could have it both ways … I would think it would either be an app that most people don't know, and used for technically difficult/procedural things, or it could be a standard like maya/max that no-one thinks anything differently about.

I was drawn to Houdini because not everyone and their brother was using it and I thought it might have some special things to offer, which it does. To compete as a studio's main application it wouldn't just be a matter of making Houdini “easier to use” it would also be

a. price point, coming down but still way higher than the standards
b. talent, building the main modeling/materials/animation departments would require a lot more staffing than specialty FX and Dynamics people, and they would need cheaper rates as well.
c. onslaught of promo and marketing, trying to complete with Autodesk on this would be a huge undertaking
d. more plugins / renderers, and this would take a lot of time and is a result of more studios/people using it.

I'd personally rather they just keep making Houdini better/faster/more flexible, keep the market specialized and keep the price-points high on employment. More and more studios will use it as a result of things like increased product awareness and education, and also because of features other programs don't/can't offer like Digital Assets, Procedural Modeling, Controllable Particles, and High-end Dynamics … and of course the alien chops.

andrewlowell
a. price point, coming down but still way higher than the standards

Really? I see the price point at exactly the standards in the film market. Or are you talking about the broadcast market?

looks like Houdini master is around $1,000 more than Maya unlimited, and around $4,000 more than Max. Also the Max/Maya prices are for unlimited rendering, the floating for Houdini is $3,000 more than Maya unlimited

http://estore.autodesk.com/dr/sat3/ec_Main.Entry16?SP=10024&PN=29&xid=19515&V1=31047593&V2=31047593&V3=1&V5=&V4=10&S1=&S2=&S3=&S4=&S5=&CUR=840&DSP=0&PGRP=0&ABCODE=&CACHE_ID=0 [estore.autodesk.com]

And that's still too high? What about a compositor? What about unlimited mantra tokens?

andrewlowell
looks like Houdini master is around $1,000 more than Maya unlimited, and around $4,000 more than Max. Also the Max/Maya prices are for unlimited rendering, the floating for Houdini is $3,000 more than Maya

Generally you need a handful of commercial plugins to get Max up to par which eats away at that $4,000. Besides the default renderers for Max and Maya are useless, which leaves Mental Ray but when you buy a cut of Maya you don't get unlimited Mental Ray licenses.

well, I'm not a studio owner, so I don't know what's too expensive and what isn't .. I was just pointing to a few reasons why studios might not want to use it as their main app … it might be too high it might not but it is more expensive than the other ones so that isn't a good reason to switch,

Also while mantra might be great there again is the issue that a lot of people might not intimately know Manta, and Houdini doesn't use a lot of other 3ds party renderers, so even though mantra might be better than Mental Ray / other stuff studios might stick with what is in their pipeline.

Generally I think people do value more what they pay more for, so a more expensive Houdini would be a benefit to Houdini users/freelancers, probably not to studios though.

andrewlowell
Generally I think people do value more what they pay more for, so a more expensive Houdini would be a benefit to Houdini users/freelancers, probably not to studios though.

Feature Film render farm with 1000 CPUs running PRMan. Each PRMan token is $3,500.

$3,500 x 1000 CPUs = $3,500,000

Render licenses are a huge expense. Getting unlimited use of a high quality renderer is a great deal. I suspect Side Effect's pricing changes are aimed directly at studios.

How many plugins do you need to buy to make 3D Max an interesting studio program? How many plugins do you need to buy to make Houdini an interesting studio program?

Pagefan
How many plugins do you need to buy to make 3D Max an interesting studio program? How many plugins do you need to buy to make Houdini an interesting studio program?

How many commercial plug-ins exists for Houdini besides Martian Labs and 5x5?

not trying to start a software debate here … both ways have their advantages but the studio I freelance for uses Max as thier primary application, then mental ray and VRay, then Afterburn .. and a few other plugs only on specific stations.

I would think that for serious particle stuff the PFlow boxes would be all necessary as well, and/or Real-flow, but the main part of a studio might not be particles, it would be more along the lines of modeling / texturing / animation.

My main gripe with Max is the fact that it does not have a built in Compositor … and while it works good with Combustion render passes are a huge pain.

I would think most people however would see this as an unnessesary feature in a 3D app and better done in a stand-alone application … but this was one of my main “wow” moments when getting into Houdini. Both applications are interesting.