Can someone please share a type of workflow, that can reach atleast close to this shape ( i can sculp it for fine detail if so).
Would you do it with a simple curve then revolve sop or some workflow like that? If that can please work without vex because for know becasue i only can do extremly simple things with it, such as calling and recalling attributes, setting variable, ramps and channels…that stuff, not so sophisticated.
Anyone has some workflow to share?
(( image: the one to the left ))
Full Version: Info help with modeling a flower.
In Houdini there are dozens of ways of doing this sort of model. One could start with some primitive and add an edit node. One could start with a line and programmatically or manually adjust this and then do a sweep. The list goes on. But, depending on complexity desired, I would start with a topobuild node within a geo, and make the basic shape of a petal. Attached is a typical quick model. UV mapping would also be very easy, but I just added some colors to show that this can be done without UV's. If you add a couple mountain nodes, your pedal shape will get more interesting (see render image).
I should have mentioned, just before the polyextrude node in the petals network, you could add a sculpt node and sculpt your petals. Alternatively, you could right click the node before the polyextrude and select “save” and name the file “petals.obj”. You could import that in Blender and sculpt there and export as an obj file. Then in Houdini, you could replace everything above the polyextrude node with a file node, and select your Blender exported obj file.
The steps for modeling this are almost the same as I would do in Modo, Maya, C4D, or Blender or even zbrush. What is different in Houdini is that not only can you go back and alter a node like the polyextrude, you can also replace nodes with a file node as discussed above. That makes nodes much better than a history state or modifier stack. If you were in other programs, you would have to do a lot more remodeling.
The steps for modeling this are almost the same as I would do in Modo, Maya, C4D, or Blender or even zbrush. What is different in Houdini is that not only can you go back and alter a node like the polyextrude, you can also replace nodes with a file node as discussed above. That makes nodes much better than a history state or modifier stack. If you were in other programs, you would have to do a lot more remodeling.
Thank you Island on the valuable information!
I was wondering, looking at your network in the file you provided, why did you have to do polyslpit two times at the start, just after you set the curve? Did you do it so that when you subdivide you have more resolution to the sides? If that is the case, i tried it without the polysplits and the outcome was not worse, maybe even better? Why did you used polysplits? Does it have to do something with the topology
?
I was wondering, looking at your network in the file you provided, why did you have to do polyslpit two times at the start, just after you set the curve? Did you do it so that when you subdivide you have more resolution to the sides? If that is the case, i tried it without the polysplits and the outcome was not worse, maybe even better? Why did you used polysplits? Does it have to do something with the topology
?
It is true that subdivision gives more resolution, but it essentially cuts edges in half rather than putting sharpness just where you want them (near the edges). If you omit the edge loops, the edges will look smoother but you will lose the points in the petals.
It is a little annoying that there is not more control over edge loops in Houdini. In most programs, 90% of the subdivision polymodeling is moving points, inner and regular extrudes, and edge loops. Edgeloops are important if you want to subdivide your model and keep some sharpness of the edges (like pointed petal ends). As an example, if you start with a box and add a subdivide node, it will change the box into somewhat of a sphere. If you added two edge loops near the sides in the front, top, and right viewports, a subdivide would give you a box but with a little roundedness of the edges. Usually that is what I am going for. You could do that with a bevel, but generally I try not to add bevels until the model is mostly completed, as subdivisions, bridging, etc. can be harder after a bevel.
In Houdini, I usually add an edge loop by pushing the “C” key in the viewport (not the network view) and going up and to the right to select “edgeloop”. That actually adds a polysplit, but it is a bit easier to select the edge you want to split by doing it in the viewport rather than the network view. The polysplit node is a bit cryptic, as it gives a designation of the edge and a percentage along the edge, but in a not very helpful way. The polysplit can add multiple edge loops, but unlike other programs (like Modo), you can't add just two edge loops at a 5% and 95% position simultaneously. That is why I find it annoying, but in the end, it works.
For your purposes, do what looks best. The edge loops are not necessary. You will have to add enough subdivisions to sculpt, but so long as you start with quads and limit spiders (which is easy with the topobuild node), it should be fine. If you want to change the topobuild, make sure you select the “show handle” tool, not the select tool. If the leaf shape were more complicated, I would probably have modeled just half a leaf and added a mirror node.
Sculpting does not generally cause bad topology, as it doesn't add or subtract polygons, edges, or points. It just moves them around (unless you are talking about voxel sculpting or dynamesh). BTW, I am not an expert in Houdini, and the example I gave makes little use of procedural modeling (but you could alter the mountain nodes if you wanted to scatter these flowers over a hill). People with more experience could probably give you a more complicated procedural flower, and you could learn a lot from them. The materials were deliberately very simple in the example, but materials themself can add color gradients without UVs.
It is a little annoying that there is not more control over edge loops in Houdini. In most programs, 90% of the subdivision polymodeling is moving points, inner and regular extrudes, and edge loops. Edgeloops are important if you want to subdivide your model and keep some sharpness of the edges (like pointed petal ends). As an example, if you start with a box and add a subdivide node, it will change the box into somewhat of a sphere. If you added two edge loops near the sides in the front, top, and right viewports, a subdivide would give you a box but with a little roundedness of the edges. Usually that is what I am going for. You could do that with a bevel, but generally I try not to add bevels until the model is mostly completed, as subdivisions, bridging, etc. can be harder after a bevel.
In Houdini, I usually add an edge loop by pushing the “C” key in the viewport (not the network view) and going up and to the right to select “edgeloop”. That actually adds a polysplit, but it is a bit easier to select the edge you want to split by doing it in the viewport rather than the network view. The polysplit node is a bit cryptic, as it gives a designation of the edge and a percentage along the edge, but in a not very helpful way. The polysplit can add multiple edge loops, but unlike other programs (like Modo), you can't add just two edge loops at a 5% and 95% position simultaneously. That is why I find it annoying, but in the end, it works.
For your purposes, do what looks best. The edge loops are not necessary. You will have to add enough subdivisions to sculpt, but so long as you start with quads and limit spiders (which is easy with the topobuild node), it should be fine. If you want to change the topobuild, make sure you select the “show handle” tool, not the select tool. If the leaf shape were more complicated, I would probably have modeled just half a leaf and added a mirror node.
Sculpting does not generally cause bad topology, as it doesn't add or subtract polygons, edges, or points. It just moves them around (unless you are talking about voxel sculpting or dynamesh). BTW, I am not an expert in Houdini, and the example I gave makes little use of procedural modeling (but you could alter the mountain nodes if you wanted to scatter these flowers over a hill). People with more experience could probably give you a more complicated procedural flower, and you could learn a lot from them. The materials were deliberately very simple in the example, but materials themself can add color gradients without UVs.
You comments means a lot, as you can see, i only got your comment and noone else. Maybe someone could post a more procedural/complicated setups, but really, i really do learn new info from your comments!