Hm, is it actually possible to store channel aliases in OP definitions?
Or are they just “glued” on instances of the node, at the scene level?

ID=86366
Now I'm gonna dig for the Python way

Is there a visual/direct way to keep the Channel Aliases when promoting parameters at HDA level?
In my particular case, I have a Blendshapes node for a character, with around 100 shapes.

The channels were named using the Update Channel Names From input button, which actually doesn't change the channel names but creates aliases for them.


Problem is that when I create the interface for the character and promote the Blendshape channels, the Aliases are not coming with the channels (see screenshots below).



I guess there is a Python solution for this, but in character scenarios this should be a pretty useful feature.

Mirko Jankovic
workflow wise and a lot of stuff in there it will still be best option for another couple years

Which shows why these chats are always so complicated.
While you think the above, IMO Houdini was always a superior overall package to XSI (and a great source of inspiration, especially for ICE), with a much better fundamental approach and workflow. Yes, in some key areas XSI was much better (interactive modelling and char anim), but overall it felt to me like an inept mess with a nice shell (and an over enthusiastic marketing team). I guess personal history plays a big role in all these discussions, that's why I don't take these arguments so seriously.

Mirko Jankovic
It wasn't meant to be critique of Houdini character animation state but more of exploring where is it now, what is missing and is it on the way to become viable character animation package.

I can only repeat what I was saying: it's already a competent (even if not a “leading”) character package, that is improving fast. It also has workflow and architectural features that help enormously with character projects.
And the company is listening, so you have a much bigger chance to get involved in the development of the character tools and workflows (it's not clear to me that people realise how important this is).

Pretty much what I was saying.
Not clear what “In lot of other fields” might mean.

amm
Even with all that, playback is not great, which imho tells what is main problem in H : still not existent chicken. Too slow playback, that's it. And Side Effects won't be able to change that with current architecture I'm afraid, because they already spent the all dirty tricks with these rigs.
For comparison, in Maya is not big deal to have literally everything constantly alive (guides, controllers, initial hierarchy, transform processing, several deformer carriers), having something conceptually similar to modern general purpose shader, where is matter of interface to have a certain set of controllers exposed.

By this criteria, nothing should ever be done, in any area.
One can get back in time when DOPs made their appearance. Various comparisons with established (or emerging) solutions (Real Flow, Naiad) appeared, and in lots of areas, they were not necessarily favorable. Still, there were advantages (the architecture was superior, flexibility etc) and a constant evolution.
You have to start somewhere and right now Houdini is a competent character animation solution that is evolving. Yes, it still has to play catch-up in many areas when compared with the established solutions, but it also offers some big advantages, especially for small studios and teams.
And I agree with some of the stuff from Fabric, I do hope (and I think it will happen) that SESI should move some parts of the rigging stuff in SOPs and make it more generic.

http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/pypanel/_index [www.sidefx.com]

http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/ref/panes/pythonpanel [www.sidefx.com]

Mirko Jankovic
If it is possible to jump into it, have some nice rigs and just start animating and using it, it would be a start at least. Checking out animation tools and what is missing, giving some feedback hoping to get them more polished (and hopefully close to Softimage level)

That being said, I still don't get what's wrong with the included rigs and autorig toolset, to do exactly what you're saying above?
And if you feel there's something wrong with those rigs/tools, you could use your exploring to feedback on those. SESI are listening.

So it's actually the riggers that are missing in the first place
I had chats with quite a number of riggers at various studios and somehow the exchange was pretty similar: “Oh, you're a Houdini guy! I really want to get into Houdini, I hear it's very flexible etc etc”
Being technical, riggers are immediately attracted by Houdini. Yet, somehow, they don't seem to make the jump.
A pro level rigger versed in Houdini is something I could use at my studio as well

Mirko Jankovic
I was wondering if there could be some insight on this matter.
How's the current state of character animation in Houdini.

“Evolving”, that's the current state.
Thing is, I don't think it's realistic to expect Houdini to just drop on the scene with everything fully ready for character animation.
If there's interest, it will come. They (SESI) are doing a lot of effort, some stellar, some hit-and-miss (the new constraints, amazing in features but lacking in design, IMO). And the only way to improve on this is people using it, getting involved. If SESI are not making money from people doing animation, then at some moment they might stop trying to sell to them.
Studios that are willing to use Houdini because of its amazing flexibility and workflow features, for which they are willing to accept that some of the character features are a bit of WIP (still, the character and rigging toolset is solid at the moment).
Like we do, for example (we use Houdini exclusively for character animation, but then our projects and pipeline are not necessarily the typical ones), or like @Werner does at Luma.
A good point about this is that, if someone gets involved at this moment, they have a chance to actually help shape the tools and workflows, which is something unthinkable when it comes to other packages.

So this thing is not working for you?
https://www.sidefx.com/tutorials/webinar-houdini-16s-game-shelf-tools-luiz-kruel/ [sidefx.com]

I know that if you export an FBX that has blendshapes from Houdini, those come into UE with editable animation curves. No idea if this helps in your case.

edward
The Bone Deform SOP doesn't support vertex normals, only point normals.

Just ran into this recently, reported as Bug #82070

What you want is to use the Pivot Painter shader functions in UE, and to emulate the PivotPainter toolset they offer for MAX.
We just RFE's that, RFE ID 79888.

https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Rendering/Materials/Functions/Reference/PivotPainter/ [docs.unrealengine.com]
https://docs.unrealengine.com/latest/INT/Engine/Content/Tools/PivotPainter/ [docs.unrealengine.com]

Houdini 15.5.675 FBX export now supports Blend Shapes nodes.
Added an option to force Blend Shape export:

if unchecked, blend shapes nodes will only be exported if no modification
to the geometry is done after them.
if checked, blend shapes nodes will always be exported, and any modification
done to the geometry after them will be ignored.
Added an option to force Skin Deform export:

if unchecked, Deform SOPs found in geometry nodes will only be exported
if no modification to the geometry is done after them.
if checked, Deform SOPs will always be exported, and any modification
done to the geometry after them will be ignored.

https://www.sidefx.com/changelog/ [sidefx.com]

Houdini 15.5.675 FBX export now supports Blend Shapes nodes.
Added an option to force Blend Shape export:

if unchecked, blend shapes nodes will only be exported if no modification
to the geometry is done after them.
if checked, blend shapes nodes will always be exported, and any modification
done to the geometry after them will be ignored.
Added an option to force Skin Deform export:

if unchecked, Deform SOPs found in geometry nodes will only be exported
if no modification to the geometry is done after them.
if checked, Deform SOPs will always be exported, and any modification
done to the geometry after them will be ignored.

ndickson
although not many have actually been made to so directly replace things like trim curves yet by trimming in uv space.

Nice RFE suggestion you got there.

DASD
Also I think you should be able to work around this with Unreal 4.13 pose system (although you really really should not have to).

The Unreal pose system deals with bones.

ajz3d
I downloaded the FBX SDK and will play with it a bit. I'll drop a word when I come up with something that is worth mentioning.

Great to hear. Following with interest.

One way to do it.