[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 / qa] [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] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




How does it feel to see your """investment""" go down the drain, Houdinifags?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hpqwfZah08
>>
Looks like Spiderman's spunk
>>
>implying FLIP Fluids is on the level of Houdini simulations
>implying Houdini only simulates water
>implying Houdini only does simulations
Another day, another anon makes a stupid tone-deaf post on The Four Chans. Has your life really fallen to the point where you make bait threads because they're the only time where someone will pay attention to you?
>>
>>634612
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hpqwfZah08
It's no competition. You can do so much more in Houdini.
>>
>>634614
You paid attention to him though.
>>
>>634627
Eh, it's not like I said I wouldn't.
>>
>>634612
I know this is a bait thread but this is not even at the level of "lesser" solutions like Phoenix FD, not to mention Houdini. Come on man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCl0CRK448
>>
>>634651
you would need to do a direct comparison to accurately compare.

>>634614
>implying Houdini only does simulations
what else it do?
>>
>>634653
real procedural modeling, unlike blender

also, it doesn't matter...the quality of its sims is currently unmatched, except for what some proprietary studio tools do.
>>
>>634663
shhh
there's enough hype around it as it is
don't inform idiots about the goodies
>>
>>634682
Why not?
>>
>>634692
waters down the field, produces more completion in the long run, lessens the wow-effect of procedurally generated shit, do I need to go on?
>>
>>634637
Embarrassing.
>>
>>634663
>The quality of its sims is unmatched

I work exclusively with Houdini in feature FX, and while the quality of its sims is definitely unmatched when you make your own custom shit and tweak a lot, for pyro stuff FumeFX works way better out of the box and gives nicer results faster. Which is fucking frustrating because I'd love for the base pyro setup in Houdini to work the same way.
>>
>>634653
https://vimeo.com/274633381 see >>634663
>>
>>634663
>real procedural modeling, unlike blender
It's something the blender foundation is genuinely interested in, although I don't know what progress (if any) has been made in that direction, but the intent was to "make everything a node" starting with modifiers.
>>
>>635211
No progress so far, but the foundation is laid for that to happen.
But the point is, why wait when you can have it now. Not to mention that SideFX has an advantage of nearly 20 years of RnD and practical experience with the VFX industry.
>>
>>635211
>>635274
Yeah sounds great if Blender develops Houdini level procedural modeling, I'll check in on that again in 2025 or so, but for the time being I'll stick with Houdini.
>>
this will allow for some highly realistic donut toppings.
>>
>>635342
and wallpaper paste
>>
>>634612

>hay guys, my shitty open source app now has [insert feature that premium software has had for years], how will your [premium software with a billion better and more advanced features than your shitty open source app] survive?

you realize there's a reason that blender is basically not used in ANY real studios, right? huehue
>>
>>635389
It's funny. The most often used arguments are always like this:
>Blender users: Blender is better than Maya, because it's free
>Maya users: Maya is better than Blender, because it's much more feature-rich
>>
>>634612
are you fucking retarded ?
>>
>>635390
>because it's much more feature-rich
lol. maya is just a relic at this point. the only reason people still use it is out of courtesy to monolithic corporations
>>
>>634612
anyone got a good torrent for this yet?
>>
>>635390
>because it's much more feature-rich
*if you buy plugins for it, 999$mo/each goyim

seriously wished there were better alternatives to those two for 3dcgi multipurpose tools. 3ds max has been on the edge of the cliff for years, c4d is only used for motion and modo is a meme that never evolves
>>
>>636752
>forgetting about Houdini
>>
>>636340
Someone should compile a copy and put it up for free. It's GPL anyway.
>>
>>636752

love when people talk about tools being dead or obsolete, meanwhile theyre capable of doing anything, are used everywhere, and there's no reason to think an alternative would be better.

you can always tell when someone has zero experience in the industry when they talk about max or maya being dead
>>
>>636781
Houdini is pretty powerful but procedural modeling isnt for everybody.

>>636861
I'm not saying max is dead, but software without support will be abandoned by the community eventually which is what happened to softimage and may happen to 3dsmax someday.
>>
>>636865
You can model in Houdini pretty much like you would in other software.
>>
File: 1457023807272.png (347 KB, 468x400)
347 KB
347 KB PNG
>>636870
Well well I did not know about that
The most I knew about houdini was the UE4/Unity plugin, and that it was slowly becoming a solid tool for rigging and animation
How is it compared to max or modo?
>>
>>636870
>>636873
Given that Houdini has the best, true procedural modeling makes it a bigger deal
>>
>>636873
It's very different, but very good. Surprised people would think Houdini is known for rigging more than modeling.

Compared to those programs the modeling is a bit more like MAX. The node graph functions like a modifier stack, but you can quickly rewire it. You can use it pretty much the same as MAX if you want but a typical modeling workflow in Houdini is also going to use things like VDBs and VEX formulas to take advantage of proceduralism. However It doesn't have the super fast click-and-move-shit workflow like Modo or Blender. The selection and manipulation actions aren't as ultra fluid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6otDVfL8s
>>
wow that video looks very pretty
houdinifags must be totally BTFOd right now
>>
Has anyone successfully gotten this working without paying for it?
>>
>>634653
>what else it do?
Are you serious or just pretending to be retarded?
>>
what tier of cpu farm do you need for serious houdinifag werk?
>>
>>638554
It depends. What do you want to do?
>>
>>638440
>>637437
>>
>>638566
Nado simulations. Shark simulations.
>>
>>638554
If you're talking about producing shots: Just get a 16-core threadripper, at least 64GB of RAM, and a decent video card (gtx 1070 or higher). Also lots of disk space because caching out pyro and flip sims requires a good amount of storage.

If you're talking about rendering: Redshift is where it's at because Mantra is just too slow to do anything without a renderfarm, and I personally don't like the idea of spending money to get shots rendered on somebody else's machines.
>>
>>638580
redshift looks like shit. Renderman is the only way in 2018
>>
>>638581
Saying any engine naturally looks worse than another one after the year 2010 immediately identifies you as a fucking moron.

IT IS DOWN TO THE ARTIST, 100%. Remember that and get to work, anon.
>>
For a person with no rigging experience would it be counterproductive to start with Houdini?





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.