[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

File: 234784564.gif (16 KB, 800x600)
16 KB
(Almost) complete modelling noob here, is there any reason Houdini is not used more for modelling? Recently started using it for VFX and decided to try modelling too. So far it seems great, the graph and procedural nature is a lot less painful than the usual workflow. My other experience in modelling (and VFX) was Maya which was just a pain, felt like it would randomly break, crash, or just stop working (also felt like you had to buy a 200$ plugin for every other thing you wanted to do properly). While I can't really say how it stacks up against other software such as Modo, Houdini so far has been a much much less painful experience than Maya.

What are the limitations holding it back from being more commonly used for modelling apart from being very different from the others due to the procedural nature?
File: rfbottom.png (466 KB, 1920x1045)
466 KB
466 KB PNG
I've been using it as a generalist tool (including modeling) for a long time, so I'll try to give my 2 cents.

Houdini has traditionally been a vfx/td tool and very few people attempted to use it for traditional modeling. Since straight poly-modeling is one of the easiest things to transfer between packages, the urgency and focus to improve that facet of the program wasn't really there. I mean, SideFX did improve it over the years here and there, but realistically the modeling tools were not a showstopper for their customers.

Things have kind of changed and more people outside of vfx are coming over to Houdini, and there is big internal push to expand it beyond vfx. I believe SideFX hired on a couple of ex-softimage devs and it seems like good number of SI users moved over to Houdini as well. They've contributed a lot of ideas on improving the modeling/workflow aspects of Houdini (there's a bigass thread in the SI subforum on sidefx) and some of that has been incorporated into 15.5/16.

I also really like the modeling tools in the latest release, but like you I'm not up-to-date on other programs like Modo/Max/Maya. I've used them all at some point but not in the capacity of a modeler who's job it is to crank out awesome models day after day. I'm thinking if you're really proficient in another modeler and you have all your scripts and plugins to buff up your workflow, switching to Houdini as a modeler might be a hard sell. Not saying it's baby duck syndrome. More like, why bother when it's so easy to transfer models and why do it if Houdini's modeling tools aren't vastly superior.

Personally I'm really used to having Houdini's network editor and being able to branch off things, modify them and merge them back in, and all the other useful stuff you can do in a procedural workflow (even when you are modeling in a mostly destructive fashion).
Modelling in Houdini is like killing a fly with a Howitzer
So is it really easy or is it amazing or what?

Your analogy is terrible.
This analogy fits perfectly, you are just to dumb to understand it.

Can you kill a fly with a Howitzer?
Does it make sense to use it?
no its a terrible analogy. Houdini is shit for modelling. Think maya but worse. Much, much worse.

in terms of modelling

Modo > max > xsi > giant sea of shit > houdini
t. hasn't used Houdini after 14
t. shill

Not that guy, but one of SideFX's primary goals is to improve modelling in Houdini to make it a one-stop-shop.
shoo shoo shills. Have a (you)
If you think Max's modeling tools are superior to Softimage you are sniffing glue. Also, Modo's workflow is based on Lightwave. A study done by blender guru of all major software found that for the same action Softimage required fewer clicks to achieve the same effect than Maya or Max.

Houdini's strengths is the proceduralism of creation, and the analogy of the howitzer is to say that the variation that you can create within the workflow can be a bit overbearing. Most 3D assets usually require less iteration than Houdini allows, but it all depends on what your target is. If you look at how modern open world games are made, you will notice Houdini is involved in most of them because you can populate worlds procedurally quickly rather than by one by one. You probably could have done something similar with Softimage's ICE environment, but Autodesk decided that Maya and Max were more popular so they killed the better app.
No, no, NO you STILL don't get the analogy.
File: 197724.jpg (15 KB, 458x411)
15 KB
>A study done by blender guru of all major software found that for the same action Softimage required fewer clicks to achieve the same effect than Maya or Max.

>Autodesk decided that Maya and Max were more popular so they killed the better app.
>the better app.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.