I'm stumped on this one.
I ctrl-click Box to make a box at the origin.
I make sure the camera icon is selected on the left & the box is still active.
I press either shift + on my keyboard or the numeric keypad + key to turn on “View selected objects as subdivision”.
I get a message in the main window saying “Turn On Viewport Subdivision”.
Nothing happens.
I went in and renamed my houdini16.5 folder in Documents to houdini16.5-BAK and allowed it to be recreated in case I'd messed up the preferences somehow, but I get the same results.
Does Indie not have the ability to view objects as subdivisions?
I can add in a subdivide node to actually subdivide the geometry, but that's it.
I'm sure this is a newbie question, but I'm pulling my hair out & just can't figure it out.
-Paul
Found 73 posts.
Search results Show results as topic list.
Houdini Indie and Apprentice » Is viewport subdivision disabled in Indie?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
SI Users » SI style reference images?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
I've searched the forums and only found a single question related to this issue, so hopefully this isn't a FAQ…. How do you set up Softimage-style reference images in Houdini?
I know you press D and then can pick a background image, but the image doesn't remain stuck to the background grid the way it does in Softimage.
I saw someone on YouTube had a script that would create a grid based on an input image (Softimage has an addon called Imageplane that does this) but the person didn't release the script.
I also found the Navigator Python script, but that seems to only work with a scene camera, which is not what I'm looking for either.
So, is it possible to do Softimage style reference images in Houdini? Not a grid with a UV map. Just a background image that scales with the background grid.
I've finally got an excuse to move from Softimage to Houdini & I'm anxious to get started (I've gone back to grad school at nearly age 50…).
Thanks!
-Paul
I know you press D and then can pick a background image, but the image doesn't remain stuck to the background grid the way it does in Softimage.
I saw someone on YouTube had a script that would create a grid based on an input image (Softimage has an addon called Imageplane that does this) but the person didn't release the script.
I also found the Navigator Python script, but that seems to only work with a scene camera, which is not what I'm looking for either.
So, is it possible to do Softimage style reference images in Houdini? Not a grid with a UV map. Just a background image that scales with the background grid.
I've finally got an excuse to move from Softimage to Houdini & I'm anxious to get started (I've gone back to grad school at nearly age 50…).
Thanks!
-Paul
SI Users » Can you work quickly in Houdini?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Thanks guys.
I really would like to have a face-to-face talk with Carl Bass. He's left me pretty stuck at the moment.
I suppose I'm just going to keep my eye on Houdini and continue using Softimage for now.
I really would like to have a face-to-face talk with Carl Bass. He's left me pretty stuck at the moment.
I suppose I'm just going to keep my eye on Houdini and continue using Softimage for now.
SI Users » Can you work quickly in Houdini?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
First of all, thank you Jordi for all your work on the guides & thanks to SideFX for creating this section on your forum.
Personally, I have still not decided where to go. Houdini 14 looks like a big step in the right direction, but I still have one major concern.
I need to be fast in whatever software I'm using. And, although I realize no matter what app I end up switching to it'll take a while to get up to speed, I'm hesitant to switch to Houdini because I have this gut feeling that Houdini isn't designed to be “fast” but instead it's designed to be flexible.
What I mean is, my feeling is that working in Houdini is like trying to do absolutely everything with ICE in Softimage. I feel like, you can't just quickly slap something together for a rush job because everything in Houdini requires a LOT of initial setup.
I hope I'm being clear enough. I suppose an analogy would be this.
If I was a woodworker and a client asked me to build a birdhouse, the Softimage version would be that I already have all the pieces of wood, pre-cut to the proper measurements to build the birdhouse. But, I also have a toolbox full of tools that will allow me to totally customize the birdhouse if necessary.
The Houdini version would be, I have an enormous toolbox, but in order to build the birdhouse, I have to first go out and cut down a tree, drag it to a sawmill, design, measure, and create all the pieces I need for the birdhouse, then I can start to build the birdhouse. And, some of the tools I need might not exist in the toolbox, but instead I have been given the components necessary to build the tools from scratch. The great news for the client is, this birdhouse is a procedural birdhouse, so even after it's “done” the client can still request changes.
I sort-of feel like a lot of Houdini users are brilliant object-oriented coders who spend an enormous amount of time building things so they can show how customizable and flexible their setup is. But while it's really neat when a staircase can grow or shrink based on a slider, or a bunch of trees can be manipulated based on a random seed number, or a building can have new floors added & windows changed procedurally, 90-95% of the time I go into a project with all that stuff designed and agreed upon before the production started, so adding all those gee-wiz controls is just a waste of my time.
That's what's frustrating about losing Softimage. Softimage isn't perfect, but it combines a lot of the best features from all the packages on the market. It allows me to jam through rush jobs, but still has the power tools ready to go if I need them.
Wow, what a long and rambling post this has become! I sincerely hope you guys don't take what I'm writing as an insult. Houdini is freaking amazing. But, while I realize the trend is towards specialized packages, I still need a core application that handles the majority of my workload.
I personally don't think it makes business sense to spend the amount of money SideFX is charging to use Houdini only in the cases where I need ICE-like power. It needs to be able to do all the generalist stuff Softimage can do (quickly) AND have the muscle to tackle complex procedural stuff as well.
Does that make sense?
-Paul
Personally, I have still not decided where to go. Houdini 14 looks like a big step in the right direction, but I still have one major concern.
I need to be fast in whatever software I'm using. And, although I realize no matter what app I end up switching to it'll take a while to get up to speed, I'm hesitant to switch to Houdini because I have this gut feeling that Houdini isn't designed to be “fast” but instead it's designed to be flexible.
What I mean is, my feeling is that working in Houdini is like trying to do absolutely everything with ICE in Softimage. I feel like, you can't just quickly slap something together for a rush job because everything in Houdini requires a LOT of initial setup.
I hope I'm being clear enough. I suppose an analogy would be this.
If I was a woodworker and a client asked me to build a birdhouse, the Softimage version would be that I already have all the pieces of wood, pre-cut to the proper measurements to build the birdhouse. But, I also have a toolbox full of tools that will allow me to totally customize the birdhouse if necessary.
The Houdini version would be, I have an enormous toolbox, but in order to build the birdhouse, I have to first go out and cut down a tree, drag it to a sawmill, design, measure, and create all the pieces I need for the birdhouse, then I can start to build the birdhouse. And, some of the tools I need might not exist in the toolbox, but instead I have been given the components necessary to build the tools from scratch. The great news for the client is, this birdhouse is a procedural birdhouse, so even after it's “done” the client can still request changes.
I sort-of feel like a lot of Houdini users are brilliant object-oriented coders who spend an enormous amount of time building things so they can show how customizable and flexible their setup is. But while it's really neat when a staircase can grow or shrink based on a slider, or a bunch of trees can be manipulated based on a random seed number, or a building can have new floors added & windows changed procedurally, 90-95% of the time I go into a project with all that stuff designed and agreed upon before the production started, so adding all those gee-wiz controls is just a waste of my time.
That's what's frustrating about losing Softimage. Softimage isn't perfect, but it combines a lot of the best features from all the packages on the market. It allows me to jam through rush jobs, but still has the power tools ready to go if I need them.
Wow, what a long and rambling post this has become! I sincerely hope you guys don't take what I'm writing as an insult. Houdini is freaking amazing. But, while I realize the trend is towards specialized packages, I still need a core application that handles the majority of my workload.
I personally don't think it makes business sense to spend the amount of money SideFX is charging to use Houdini only in the cases where I need ICE-like power. It needs to be able to do all the generalist stuff Softimage can do (quickly) AND have the muscle to tackle complex procedural stuff as well.
Does that make sense?
-Paul
SI Users » Porting ICE nodes to Houdini
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
This is a fantastic idea!
I use Motion Tools all the time and can't imagine how hard, if not impossible, it would be for me to recreate that in Houdini with my limited technical ability. I'm in the same boat as Keith - I use things like modulate by null, fcurve, test inside null, etc., for motion graphics projects.
Might I also suggest another guide idea? It would be very cool to have some sort of database or spreadsheet that basically listed ICE nodes and their Houdini equivalent (if it exists) or method to achieve the same function in Houdini.
I totally realize it's not 1:1 and the “Houdini way” is different than ICE, but having some sort of reference where I can quickly look up what I know in ICE so I could then find the Houdini equivalent node or method, would be a huge boost in my ability to move to Houdini.
-Paul
I use Motion Tools all the time and can't imagine how hard, if not impossible, it would be for me to recreate that in Houdini with my limited technical ability. I'm in the same boat as Keith - I use things like modulate by null, fcurve, test inside null, etc., for motion graphics projects.
Might I also suggest another guide idea? It would be very cool to have some sort of database or spreadsheet that basically listed ICE nodes and their Houdini equivalent (if it exists) or method to achieve the same function in Houdini.
I totally realize it's not 1:1 and the “Houdini way” is different than ICE, but having some sort of reference where I can quickly look up what I know in ICE so I could then find the Houdini equivalent node or method, would be a huge boost in my ability to move to Houdini.
-Paul
SI Users » Why do all nodes seem to only take 1 input?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Thanks! That's great to see!
Sorry for these seemingly basic or uneducated posts but Houdini represents a fairly significant investment - both financially and from a learning perspective.
I'm not young (I started on the Amiga 1000 in the 1980's when I was in high school), and a lot of what I know how to do is hard-wired at this point. So whichever direction I end up going is probably going to be what I use for the remainder of my career.
I have a lot riding on this decision.
-Paul
Sorry for these seemingly basic or uneducated posts but Houdini represents a fairly significant investment - both financially and from a learning perspective.
I'm not young (I started on the Amiga 1000 in the 1980's when I was in high school), and a lot of what I know how to do is hard-wired at this point. So whichever direction I end up going is probably going to be what I use for the remainder of my career.
I have a lot riding on this decision.
-Paul
SI Users » Why do all nodes seem to only take 1 input?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Yes - I have that video in my “to watch” list - that's what gave me the idea of creating an entire channel.
The one issue with that particular video I had was the sound is almost impossible to hear.
-Paul
The one issue with that particular video I had was the sound is almost impossible to hear.
-Paul
SI Users » Why do all nodes seem to only take 1 input?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
I've been trying to read and watch as many tutorials as possible.
But am I wrong in my understanding that most everything in Houdini first needs to be built from scratch & then you can reuse it later?
My ultimate concern is - Houdini seems like a no brainer for Softimage TD's. I'm not a TD. I am an artist with enough knowledge to be reasonably productive (but mostly I rely on things like Mootzoid plug-ins to accomplish what I need). I'm not totally convinced I can recoup the investment if I end up going with Houdini because I simply don't have the technical skills necessary to use Houdini.
I would love it if someone with both ICE and Houdini knowledge could create a Vimeo channel that would simply show an A-B comparison of how you'd do something in ICE versus how the same thing is accomplished in Houdini. I think that'd really help sell Softimage users on Houdini in general.
-Paul
But am I wrong in my understanding that most everything in Houdini first needs to be built from scratch & then you can reuse it later?
My ultimate concern is - Houdini seems like a no brainer for Softimage TD's. I'm not a TD. I am an artist with enough knowledge to be reasonably productive (but mostly I rely on things like Mootzoid plug-ins to accomplish what I need). I'm not totally convinced I can recoup the investment if I end up going with Houdini because I simply don't have the technical skills necessary to use Houdini.
I would love it if someone with both ICE and Houdini knowledge could create a Vimeo channel that would simply show an A-B comparison of how you'd do something in ICE versus how the same thing is accomplished in Houdini. I think that'd really help sell Softimage users on Houdini in general.
-Paul
SI Users » Why do all nodes seem to only take 1 input?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Sorry if this has been answered. I'm continuing to evaluate my options & I've been watching as many YouTube, Vimeo, etc., Houdini tutorials that I can find to learn more about it.
The one thing that struck me the other day is, it seems like all the nodes only have 1 input and only do 1 thing. So it seems like you have to do a LOT more work in Houdini when compared to ICE because it looks like you have to start from scratch for nearly everything (unless you've previously built a tool and saved it for yourself).
The thing that saves me, as a non-TD person, is how ICE is color coded & therefore makes it clear what can plug into what & almost every node has very clear inputs and outputs that help you understand how things should be wired up. Houdini doesn't seem to have anything similar at all. Is that really the case?
Secondly, I am way more on the artist-side of things and when I look at Houdini I realize I don't think I could do even the simplest of things. For example, how would you modulate a deformer by a null? In ICE I can apply a deformation to a mesh or point cloud and then test if the mesh or pointcloud is inside a null (or inside geometry) and then use that to affect the deformation.
Houdini certainly seems like the future to me, but I'd hate to invest in it and find out I simply can't wrap my head around the Houdini way.
Thanks,
Paul
The one thing that struck me the other day is, it seems like all the nodes only have 1 input and only do 1 thing. So it seems like you have to do a LOT more work in Houdini when compared to ICE because it looks like you have to start from scratch for nearly everything (unless you've previously built a tool and saved it for yourself).
The thing that saves me, as a non-TD person, is how ICE is color coded & therefore makes it clear what can plug into what & almost every node has very clear inputs and outputs that help you understand how things should be wired up. Houdini doesn't seem to have anything similar at all. Is that really the case?
Secondly, I am way more on the artist-side of things and when I look at Houdini I realize I don't think I could do even the simplest of things. For example, how would you modulate a deformer by a null? In ICE I can apply a deformation to a mesh or point cloud and then test if the mesh or pointcloud is inside a null (or inside geometry) and then use that to affect the deformation.
Houdini certainly seems like the future to me, but I'd hate to invest in it and find out I simply can't wrap my head around the Houdini way.
Thanks,
Paul
SI Users » Any good examples of models built entirely in Houdini?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Hey Piotrek! Good to see you here too!
I'd be interested to hear your take on Houdini.
-Paul
I'd be interested to hear your take on Houdini.
-Paul
SI Users » project "Houdini, a great modeler"
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Sorry if this has been mentioned previously, I've just been skimming the posts, but… one thing I've always wished Softimage would have picked up for modeling is Modo's falloff's.
If you haven't seen them in action, check them out.
I love how they visually represent them in the layout. In Softimage's M-key you had an fCurve to modify the falloff, but you couldn't choose different shape falloffs like you can in Modo and you're limited to seeing points or edges light up based on the falloff.
-Paul
If you haven't seen them in action, check them out.
I love how they visually represent them in the layout. In Softimage's M-key you had an fCurve to modify the falloff, but you couldn't choose different shape falloffs like you can in Modo and you're limited to seeing points or edges light up based on the falloff.
-Paul
SI Users » Any good examples of models built entirely in Houdini?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Trust me, I'm very impressed with Houdini. My other fear is, I get very enamoured with things like being able to go back and change things later. It's really cool for sure.
I could honestly see myself spending way too much time trying to build something just so I could show everyone how many parameters you could change later on, when a basic model would have sufficed.
The inner geek in me takes over, but ultimately I'm in business to make money, pay my bills & take care of my family.
-Paul
I could honestly see myself spending way too much time trying to build something just so I could show everyone how many parameters you could change later on, when a basic model would have sufficed.
The inner geek in me takes over, but ultimately I'm in business to make money, pay my bills & take care of my family.
-Paul
SI Users » Any good examples of models built entirely in Houdini?
- Paul Griswold
- 73 posts
- Offline
Like most Softimage users, I'm checking out Houdini and other options. Houdini obviously looks very powerful, but honestly I have not yet seen any examples of really good models built in Houdini.
I've checked out some modeling tutorial videos and all of them seem to start out with some basic modeling concepts & then quickly move to all the neat procedural stuff you can do with the model.
But honestly, I don't need to make a basic chair that can interactively have longer or shorter legs. I need to model a very detailed chair.
I understand that's not the Houdini way of doing things, but the fear I have right now is, everyone using Houdini seems to be in love with the idea of setting up very complex procedural models that can be adjusted later, but when you look at the final example as just a model, it's not very good. It seems like people will spend hours and hours building something that could be cranked out in 30 minutes, except in the Houdini version you can tweak the bevels and thickness of things later on.
Are there examples of very detailed, impressive models that were built entirely in Houdini?
I don't mean to sound negative about Houdini - it really does look like a fantastic tool. But I don't really see examples of highly detailed models built in Houdini.
-Paul
I've checked out some modeling tutorial videos and all of them seem to start out with some basic modeling concepts & then quickly move to all the neat procedural stuff you can do with the model.
But honestly, I don't need to make a basic chair that can interactively have longer or shorter legs. I need to model a very detailed chair.
I understand that's not the Houdini way of doing things, but the fear I have right now is, everyone using Houdini seems to be in love with the idea of setting up very complex procedural models that can be adjusted later, but when you look at the final example as just a model, it's not very good. It seems like people will spend hours and hours building something that could be cranked out in 30 minutes, except in the Houdini version you can tweak the bevels and thickness of things later on.
Are there examples of very detailed, impressive models that were built entirely in Houdini?
I don't mean to sound negative about Houdini - it really does look like a fantastic tool. But I don't really see examples of highly detailed models built in Houdini.
-Paul
-
- Quick Links