I think I found the cause of the problem: snap to points wasn't enabled.
In Softimage, even if snap to points is disabled, creating new polygon faces would snap the point of the new face to the surrounding faces.

https://vimeo.com/124320824 [vimeo.com]

aty84122
https://vimeo.com/124320824 [vimeo.com]

Not sure exactly why you link to Modo 901 - it's unfortunately looking really cool as a marketing exercise but is in reality a buggy non-performer for a lot of people.

The Advanced viewport is really only at v1 and need v2 to bring in good features and speed, SP1 hasn't fixed all the bugs and SP2 is yet to be released.

grendizer
I think I found the cause of the problem: snap to points wasn't enabled.
In Softimage, even if snap to points is disabled, creating new polygon faces would snap the point of the new face to the surrounding faces.

Snap to points should be activated. I mean not exactly snap, but point will be highlighted when mouseover.

This shows how to use the Polyknit in Houdini. Video by Glen Debello

https://vimeo.com/103820306 [vimeo.com]

I personally see no reason to use Houdini as your primary modeling app, especially if you're already an XSI user. At least not yet. The time will hopefully come soon, but until then stick to XSI if you want to work 10x faster when you're modeling.

Hello Mc Nistor, thanks for your opinion.

That's what I was doing before: always going back to XSI when modelling was too rough in Houdini.
However some days ago I thought: if I don't force myself to model in Houdini, I'll never get its workflow. I don't know how long I will last like that. Perhaps Houdini 15 will be my savior? 8)

It is true that a lot of tools and fluency is missing from Houdini's modelling tools. And Polyknit is probably the worst hair puller one. Sometimes the edges will keep crossing themselves in a new quad, and I simply don't get how to get out of that, despite a lot of tries!

Werner , The video you posted is nice. It is great to see a bunch of new polygon faces created over a lot of points, and see all these points connect automatically through edges.
However:
- The mesh does not seem correct. Many times the guy creates new planar polygone faces that are connected to closed boxes (the first time he does that is at 00:16). Do Houdini polygon modelling tools care for valid meshes?
- For individual faces, it can get very complicated, see what I said above.

The more people testing modelling and sending in feedback to Sesi will help Halfdan achieve the goal that we all want - great modelling in Houdini!

Please submit the Polyknit feedback via the Support menu above ‘Submit Bugs and Rfe’.

In the end Houdini will never resemble the workflow exactly of other apps, which is good, so it's worth getting stuck into it, so when the tools do land you'll be flying.

Thanks!

MartybNz

aty84122
https://vimeo.com/124320824 [vimeo.com]

Not sure exactly why you link to Modo 901 - it's unfortunately looking really cool as a marketing exercise but is in reality a buggy non-performer for a lot of people.

The Advanced viewport is really only at v1 and need v2 to bring in good features and speed, SP1 hasn't fixed all the bugs and SP2 is yet to be released.

00:25 fill quads tool

I agree that the Polyknit tool is hideous to work with, but the mentioned video helped me to make it more useful. It does large areas well as it connects with internal edges automatically , but the point picking is terrible (as can be seen in the video).

For smaller areas you have to think before you pick, but it is possible. I hope Polyknit and the Poly Loop tools can have some love in the future.

Werner Ziemerink
I hope Polyknit and the Poly Loop tools can have some love in the future.

Remember hoping is 10% as good as Rfe, above in the Support menu. The devs much prefer to have tickes to work with than hunting down random forum posts on what users want.

grendizer
That's what I was doing before: always going back to XSI when modelling was too rough in Houdini.
However some days ago I thought: if I don't force myself to model in Houdini, I'll never get its workflow.

Learning an app's workflow makes sense when the said app is usable. For modeling Houdini is not. Sure, we can debate for days what is “usable” and ultimately that's for everyone to decide.
I personally don't think you can take it for much longer

MartybNz
The more people testing modelling and sending in feedback to Sesi will help Halfdan achieve the goal that we all want - great modelling in Houdini!

This is true for the tools that will be written. I have tested them all and neither of them works as it should i.e. they produce buggy/undesired results and/or are lacking in features.
I'd argue there's no point to keep testing the current ones, let alone use them if you have a choice in that.
As you know, I have made a few threads regarding a few tools, comparing the results they produce in Houdini vs Softimage and what features I personally like to see. To this day those tools have not been addressed - just stating a fact, I'm sure they will in the future as time will allow.
My point is again, let's wait for those tools before splitting 1000 hairs with the current ones which will be rewritten.

MartybNz
In the end Houdini will never resemble the workflow exactly of other apps, which is good, so it's worth getting stuck into it, so when the tools do land you'll be flying.
Thanks!

It's true that each app has its workflow and that's a good thing, but getting stuck with an app that can't be used productively (modeling in this case) is not something I'd call desirable. Wrestling with the current tools just so you'll be more familiar with those that will be developed seems (for me) like an unacceptable waste of time, especially since some things could be radically changed. Much better to learn something that which you actually use IMO.

Can you describe what you have modeled in the last month?… it seems to me that your definition of modeling is retopologizing sculpted geos from z brush…. if that is the case, then yes Houdini (until H15) blows…
as to modeling from scratch in Houdini…you are just talking nonsense. IMHO

McNistor
It's true that each app has its workflow and that's a good thing, but getting stuck with an app that can't be used productively (modeling in this case) is not something I'd call desirable.

It's analogies to camera tracking in NukeX and SynthEyes. NukeX is junk and slow compared to Syntheyes but the being integrated into the compositing does provide some advantages, so it's worth learning.

I see no reason to tell other people not to learn, do as you please, but if one already knows SI, then why not learn all the other benefits of Houdini. You can expand your skill set into Fx and at the same time become familiar with it. Getting proper feedback from experienced users of both apps, i.e. Jordi, has had much great value.

MartybNz
I see no reason to tell other people not to learn, do as you please, but if one already knows SI, then why not learn all the other benefits of Houdini. You can expand your skill set into Fx and at the same time become familiar with it. Getting proper feedback from experienced users of both apps, i.e. Jordi, has had much great value.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not talking anyone out of learning, quite the contrary. What I'm doing is tell this Softimage user that he's better off doing his modeling in XSI as Houdini is not up to par yet. The argument brought against that was that one can benefit from struggling with it because learning its modeling it's beneficial. I have a problem with that argument because one can learn Houdini with its mantra (pun intended) without doing traditional modeling, which, contrary to what the user above said, sucks big time and would be a waste of time.
I'm also pretty sure that whatever I'm saying users can decide for themselves.

I'm not receiving any prizes for when I'm praising Houdini for its strengths (which are many) so why the flak when criticizing it? Need I remind that the criticism came with a ton of feedback for improving? I'm saying this for anyone tempted to point out that only constructive criticism is worth anything, which BTW it's true.
This year I've submitted a lot of RFEs as well in the hope that some of them will see the light some time in the future.

Marty, I hope I didn't come off as confrontational. Tone and mood are very hard if not impossible to put into text…
I will continue to learn Houdini and give feedback and this can sometimes seem like nonconstructive criticism and at times it probably is, but I'm doing my best to stay above it.

OK I read your conversation and I see your points both of you so before I go further with Houdini modelling, I need to know:
- Are all current modelling tools going to be re-written?
- Has SideFX started to re-write these imperfect tools in Houdini 15?

grendizer
- Are all current modelling tools going to be re-written?

All those that they will deem necessary. A while back I've started with the first few showing how they're performing (poorly that is), but I've tested them all privately and they all need improvements (whether a rewrite is needed or not, only the devs can know).

grendizer
- Has SideFX started to re-write these imperfect tools in Houdini 15?

You'll have to wait for a while longer and see for yourself. AFAIK Houdini 15 is still in beta and at this time no info about it can be shared. Otherwise, you'll probably receive an answer from someone else.

On a related note, halfdan (a developer) said at some point that they will bring Houdini into 21st century (not with these words) and that means on par with Softimage (better if you take into account the already available procedural modeling, which you should get into).

Thanks Mc Nistor!

I think what I'll do is wait to check H15. if it's still difficult for modelling perhaps I'll evaluate other box modelling apps like Modo and Maya.

I don't think it's a good idea to keep using XSI while Houdini catches up : if Houdini needs several years to improve its modelling tools, I would stay with a stagnating software for too long. And it's better to use modern apps. The video that aty84122 posted is very nice.

XSI was outstanding for organic box modelling and had so many other advantages. Its workflow is still very competitive compared to nowadays' other apps. But it won't evolve anymore :cry:

Cheers.
-G

grendizer
I think what I'll do is wait to check H15. if it's still difficult for modelling perhaps I'll evaluate other box modelling apps like Modo and Maya.

Improving a modeling toolset can't be done in one version unless the development of said version takes a few yrs. The work on making Houdini artist friendlier and a better modeler began with H14 and I'm sure H15 will bring another wave of improvements, but you shouldn't expect radical improvements after just one more version.

grendizer
I don't think it's a good idea to keep using XSI while Houdini catches up : if Houdini needs several years to improve its modelling tools, I would stay with a stagnating software for too long. And it's better to use modern apps. The video that aty84122 posted is very nice.

I can't agree with this one. Obviously you do what you think it's best, but IMO staying with Softimage while Houdini catches up makes the most sense. That is if you really intend to become a Houdini power-user and use it for everything at some point. Learning another app just for modeling, you're going to spread yourself thin.

grendizer
XSI was outstanding for organic box modelling and had so many other advantages. Its workflow is still very competitive compared to nowadays' other apps. But it won't evolve anymore :cry:
Cheers.
-G

I agree, but I have to make an addition: XSI is outstanding for hard-surface modeling too. Whoever is saying that it is not, I'm betting that they don't know Softimage's modeling tools very well.