It depends how you look at it. If get used to use UE as your main layout/lighting/surfacing tool, then yes. You can use Houdini to build all the assets that are not possible to build in UE, bring those over to UE and make the final work there, camera, compositing, rendering. If Houdini is your main tool for layout/lighting/surfacing, then no. UE can be handy because of the nesting sequences, so you can make more intuitive editing choices, tune the camera and all that in the real lighting environment, real time, while working in Houdini requires less intuitive work on previs and spend more time on fine tuning the final render. So, it is also a personal preference of your workflow.

Hi, not sure if I understand what is it you are trying to do (I have no idea what are the pc2 files, sorry) but as in quoted help text

There is no support for exporting to vertex caches nor changing geometry topology.

the fbx rop is not exporting cache, for that we use alembic or USD. (you didn't specify what do you need this cache for, because inside houdini you can also use houdini native bgeo file format)

Happens to the best!! Heads up, Chris, and to the whole team!!

It is indeed bizarre that it doesn't work. I tried to import the exported fbx with the character import, and it has exact the same animation, but in windows viewer it is messed up. Did you report this to the support?

goose7
Hi Wijobu, is there any update about the "must select 1 of 2" problem?

The problem "must select 1 of 2" is solved. Not in the perfect way though, but it works in Unreal. So, when exporting different animation clips you should (for now) always use the workflow from this post [www.sidefx.com] hip file, basically creating the blendshapes as packed prims with the attributes. Hopefully this will be addressed in the next versions. I had asked to address just the exporting the animation with the rop_fbxanimatonoutput because for now it just exports the joint transforms with the skeleton but it doesn't save the animation data of the shapes weights, not that I was able to extract in the Unreal. So, I am using it in the same way, as in the hip file, if I have more clips, I just export the whole character with the rop_fbxcharacteroutput with the new animation in the third input, but when I am importing the asset in Unreal, I don't export the skin. That way you have your project still under control that you don't import a lot of meshes but just the animation data in Unreal. I am just writing this here if anyone stumbles on this forum like I did yesterday. The Sidefx took my request for the rop_fbxanimationoutput and hopefully this issue can also be addressed in some future builds.

Matan_Shilo
Thank you very much.

I don't see a Detail Wrangle node, or u mean to simply use attribwrangle? After I added "v@size = getbbox_size ( 0 );"
to the attribwrangle node, where exactly I can see the detail attribute for the entire geo?

Thank you

Just set the attribute wrangle node parameter "run over" to detail and it will create a detail attribute for you. They didn't make a detail wrangle, but it is easy enough to chose the class yourself.

Could it be a good case of writing to support for this one, Andrew? Maybe the curve node is locked due to the old type of the curve node, just guessing? Still didn't use the python states on that one...
Good luck, I am also curious of how this will play out.

It looks like a problem with the collision there, but I am not the crowd expert, so it might be something else. Did you try to up res the terrain?

It all depends what are you using it for, other than just for classical keyframe character animation. If you are retargeting or using some ways in experiment with joints with other sop tools it can be good in achieving believable body movements, which you would never be able to achieve by simply using IK chains. There are few steps necessary to configure it right, but once you make it work, it does miracles, definitely recommending experimenting with it.

This is not possible with the polybevel because this is not how the polybevel works. Even in the posted example, the tool is creating a new geometry which doesn't have the same topology as original objects. However, it is possible to write such a tool by using existing tools. What you need is to resample, transform and ray project your boolean edge at the A and B object within controllable distance, then make operation like skin and then bevel the central line to the desired number of divisions and then merge that back with your boolean. Another problem you might run into is then smoothing your normals, so it is not visible in your rendering that you are using two different topologies. This can also be solved by some tricks, like, for example, making a sdf, creating normals, then attribute transfer that normals. In the example I can see that there is some time going by before it creates that chamfer, so my guess is that something like this is happening under the hood, resampling, calculating normals with sdf, etc.
Saying that, there has been the third party plugin called Modeler who has something called soft boolean, but I haven't try it, so I am not sure if it can make what you need out of the box.

Sounds like you would need to make your own scripts and custom radial menu for that, I am not aware if someone already wrote those tools.

Justinngjw
Hey Artists!

I'm trying to do some kind of motion graphics stuff and run into this issue, I'm using explode view to animated the geo but is there a way to specify the parts that circle in yellow to be treated as one big piece instead of exploding into multiple small pieces.



Big thanks!!

Yes, the explode view works with the name attribute, so, by giving the pieces the same name attribute should be doing that. You can update name attribute on those pieces by selecting them in the viewport and then group them, and then give that group a new name attribute either with the name node or attribute wrangle on that group in primitive mode @name="newname". Then the explode view will show it as one piece.

Not very clear what you want. If you want to simulate or just flip your normals, can you be more specific with a visual example, perhaps?

Not clear what you want, if you want something partially filled, then why don't you cut it down with the boolean first and then use that as a grain source?

Congrats to everyone, to the winners, other ironhearts, everyone who just tried for a little! It was so much fun. I had my constraints set, aside from the daily prompts, made my life a bit more harder - it had to involve Absinthe Gummy Rabbits, it is a joke from a show I am currently working on. And also it had to have an original soundtrack, the four bar loop, I wrote that day. A lot of insane electronic music ideas, working after hours, instead of real work sometimes, looking with envy other entries and learning tons of new stuff. Discovering Houdini was so important part of my artistic growth, so kudos to Sidefx team for such an amazing engineering, imagination, dedication and inspiration. Also kudos to all the artists out there, scientists and generally creatives who are pushing the boundaries of the computer graphics and human imagination.

This was fun!!!! Day 31! Hop, hop!

Day 30! One more to go!!

Day 29

Day 28

Day 27