244

thankyou mookid!

i can see the benefits of wich you speak, the procedural nature of the software must be a great timesaver in modeling for visualization. especially knowing what limited and often very incomplete material goes out tho the viz studios from the architects sometimes.

my angle on using houdini is not to try to replace catia. that would be plain foolish. nor is it to do the things that other cad systems do better. the aim is to do the opposit, all the things that are near impossible to do in traditional cad without having to develop proprietary code (takes time, needs interface to be used by designers, etc.)

non standard architecture i guess…

by now im curious enough about the software to spend some hours learning it. thanks everyone!

rhino is what i use most of the time. the precision is good, the sdk is well documented and the scripting is also very powerful. unfortunatly rhino has zero parametric ability. there is no built in solver of any kind.
im not looking for a modeling tool to do traditional mcad work but rather a tool to investigate complex relationships between many parameters and constraints.

/thomas

thanks simon,

my intesion is to go the othew way round: from houdini to cad and my hopes is that i will be able to trust the geometry to be accurate. if singlepresicion float is used throughout then it may become a problem for very large scenes.
by cheating i mean that geometric curve or surface continuity is adjusted in the rendermesh rather than in the actual nurbs. eg. how does the software handle piecewise geometry and joinde surfaces?

the efficient instance handling is good news! what kind of transformatins can you do instances?

/thomas