Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain]

building more and more bridges/compounds/learning.paths between various
gritty ways of ashieving results,
and between those and enable fancy graphic solutions (possibilities),
will result with more independency/freedom for everyone working with the
software,
smaller teams on a project, more experimentation/inventivity in the
industry,
and thus hopefully more quality and happyness in the cinema industry, and
their fans.



>
> I would use a different analogy but I know what you mean, nevertheless if
> you put it in context it looks quite different to me…
>
> Probably what you are trying to do nowadays would require a programer (in
> Maya for example) to implement, now you are trying to do it yourself
> connecting nodes without any intention on diving onto the nitty gritty of
> things (and yes, that involves some basic maths) but… is this realistic??
> Probably not..
>
> In my opinion, as the field expands and we need finer control we all are
> going to be exposed to more and more maths (probably pre-calculus for a
> long time) but even that will change for sure so I do believe it is only a
> matter of accepting this is a constantly evolving field and to stay
> relevant you need to study many things, from anatomy to maths.
>
> > I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for
> SideFX, and making their software more accessible is probably very hard,
> and takes ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I
> really wish.
>
> I like the fact they keep expanding new horizons (Terrains? Proper
> muscles? New Booleans? etc...), supporting standards and embracing them
> quickly (VDB for example? Alembic? OpenColorIO?, …) while at the same time
> embracing modern viewport centric workflows and modern usability metaphors
> *without* crippling the main core attributes that make Houdini itself.
>
> I hope it makes sense
> jb
>
> > Have a nice weekend all :)
> >
> > Morten
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici <
> danyarg...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >> I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
> >> SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
> >> really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.
> >>
> >> If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour
> Houdini
> >> right now.  I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and
> >> working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable
> >> position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction.
> >>
> >> Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned!
> >>
> >> DAN
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore <
> jonathan.moo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful
> >>> application because of its technical approach.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’
> >>> (to say the least) shouldn’t mean that SideFX should have to change
> their
> >>> development strategy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I believe that SideFX have in fact done a fantastic job of listening to
> >>> customers that have moved to Houdini from other packages including
> >>> Softimage. The speed with which they implemented a suggested change ref
> >>> dropping VOP nodes over wires the other day is a fine example of that.
> But
> >>> there‘s a danger of allowing the ‘tail to wag the dog’ so that Houdini
> >>> gets changed for the worse rather than the better. I think SideFX have
> the
> >>> balance of things pretty much spot on. There’s still huge improvements
> that
> >>> can be made to the approachability of certain aspects of the user
> >>> experience but I it’s never going to transform into something radically
> >>> different to what’s available today. If anything, with so much of
> Houdini
> >>> moving away from Hscript style expressions to VEX expressions (for very
> >>> good reason - multithreaded performance) certain aspects of the Houdini
> >>> user experience are in fact getting more technical.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The best way to learn how to adapt to Houdini is first to accept it for
> >>> what it is. And part of the Houdini user experience has always been
> >>> scripting and programming. That’s why it’s so often described as a 3d
> >>> operating system rather than a DCC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Apologies for spelling things out so bluntly but I can’t see Houdini
> >>> evolving into something less technical.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
> softimage-bounces@
> >>> listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain
> >>> *Sent:* 30 March 2017 19:57
> >>> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
> https://groups.google.com/
> >>> forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
> >>> *Subject:* Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 

Re: Texturemapping displacement of VDB volumetrics in Arnold

[Olivier Jeannel]

pour l'instant 24 images en 2h...

2017-03-31 10:26 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :

> The Arnold Volume Collector allows for displacement of the density in a
> VDB file by plugging for instance a fractal in to Position Offset. It looks
> like vector data which makes sense for displacement, but when I plug a
> fractal into it I can only get it to displace in a particular direction
> with some fractal noise added. I would like to in a more controlled manner
> to displace the volume in place like when displacing geometry.
>
> I have looked for tutorials or examples on this but found nothing so far.
> I guess it is actually a fairly simple thing offsetting rgb in a fractal
> like in Ba_Fractal_4D, but my experiments so far leaves a lot to be desired.
>
> Any hint and ideas are most welcome :)
>
> And have a nice friday everyone!
>
> Cheers
> Morten
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Texturemapping displacement of VDB volumetrics in Arnold

[Olivier Jeannel]

oups wrong mail

2017-03-31 14:07 GMT+02:00 Olivier Jeannel :

> pour l'instant 24 images en 2h...
>
> 2017-03-31 10:26 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :
>
>> The Arnold Volume Collector allows for displacement of the density in a
>> VDB file by plugging for instance a fractal in to Position Offset. It looks
>> like vector data which makes sense for displacement, but when I plug a
>> fractal into it I can only get it to displace in a particular direction
>> with some fractal noise added. I would like to in a more controlled manner
>> to displace the volume in place like when displacing geometry.
>>
>> I have looked for tutorials or examples on this but found nothing so far.
>> I guess it is actually a fairly simple thing offsetting rgb in a fractal
>> like in Ba_Fractal_4D, but my experiments so far leaves a lot to be desired.
>>
>> Any hint and ideas are most welcome :)
>>
>> And have a nice friday everyone!
>>
>> Cheers
>> Morten
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>
>
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Olivier Jeannel]

I can't talk for FE, but here everybody is pretty relax concerning
implementing this or that in Houdini :)

2017-03-31 12:49 GMT+02:00 :

> I think it should definitely be the case that Houdini should become more
> accessible. It doesn’t undermine the abilities of the app, to make it more
> user friendly.
> For example, with Fabric engine, or in ICE, you can make a node that does
> ‘everything’ with a bunch of parameters. Say a Fur system for artists, but
> you can go down inside through the internal compounds right down to the
> core maths, if you like. An artist doesn’t need to, but can do if he so
> fancies. This layering system, of complexity is one of the great things
> about ICE. It helps you learn it and one day be the guy who’s not just
> USING the tool, but making them. thats what happened to me.
> But in terms of more ‘traditional’ usage, for example having a nice Shape
> making and managing tool etc etc, wouldnt suddenly dumb down Houdini in any
> way for the technical people who’d never want to use it. It just gives it a
> much broader range of accessibility for artists. At the moment, the people
> who use Houdini tend to be people who understand, enjoy and live in the
> technical sphere, but that isn’t for everyone.
>
> In general, there appears to be strange resistance, from people who are
> happy in their technical knowlege to ‘Philistines’ coming in and ‘Fisher
> Pricing’ their app. When I visit the Fabric forums, for example and
> requested some improvements to Canvas, I got a quite a few surprising
> replies from people ,in a deriding tone, telling me to learn KL as that
> would do what I wanted.
> I knew KL could do what I wanted, but I wanted to help them improve Canvas
> giving a helpful user point of view.  The Devs actually were open to my
> ideas, but its certain users that seem to peer down their noses at ‘arty
> farty’ non-coders.
>
> I’m pretty technical for a lowly artist, but I find Houdini a bit of a
> slog compared to learning ICE.
>
> *From:* Olivier Jeannel 
> *Sent:* Friday, March 31, 2017 11:24 AM
> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.https://groups.google.
> com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
> *Subject:* Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies
>
> I'm quite the opposite Morthen. I found that learning little math (add
> subtract vector mostly...) is just an open path to what's called
> "creativity" nowaday.
> I'm more in the particles "do stuff" part of the work than in the
> character-toon-story telling though.
> I can't say that I'm excited by the modeling tools added in the 16 (I'm
> sure they are great), but having that wide software that's able to not lost
> attributes whatever the context, that constantly amaze me.
>
>
> 2017-03-31 12:00 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :
>
>> Don't get me wrong - I understand the power and flexibility of Houdini
>> and the fact that it stems from its core architecture and I am not looking
>> for the 3D equivalent of Kais Power Tools.
>>
>> It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist,
>> no matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good
>> at math and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking
>> ressources away from the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do
>> this. I want to make great work, not need a science degree to do it.
>>
>> I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user
>> friendly so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do
>> even very advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how
>> skilled an artist you are.
>>
>> Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is
>> not with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still,
>> and the other competitors don't really come close to the level of these
>> anyway, so naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing
>> rapidly and outside of the dark side of AD.
>>
>> It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering
>> wheel but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the
>> steering, and if you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an
>> expression that provides the proper mix of gas and air and change the
>> ignition timing. It is hardly intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be
>> that, but imagine if this solid core architecture was given a better
>> interface, I am sure many more artists out there would jump the wagon
>> straight away and we would see even more fantastic stuff created with
>> Houdini plus make a lot of people more happy.
>>
>> I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for
>> SideFX, and making their software more accessible is probably very hard,
>> and takes ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I
>> really wish.
>>
>> Have a nice weekend all :)
>>
>> Morten
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > 

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[paul]

I think it should definitely be the case that Houdini should become more 
accessible. It doesn’t undermine the abilities of the app, to make it more user 
friendly.
For example, with Fabric engine, or in ICE, you can make a node that does 
‘everything’ with a bunch of parameters. Say a Fur system for artists, but you 
can go down inside through the internal compounds right down to the core maths, 
if you like. An artist doesn’t need to, but can do if he so fancies. This 
layering system, of complexity is one of the great things about ICE. It helps 
you learn it and one day be the guy who’s not just USING the tool, but making 
them. thats what happened to me.
But in terms of more ‘traditional’ usage, for example having a nice Shape 
making and managing tool etc etc, wouldnt suddenly dumb down Houdini in any way 
for the technical people who’d never want to use it. It just gives it a much 
broader range of accessibility for artists. At the moment, the people who use 
Houdini tend to be people who understand, enjoy and live in the technical 
sphere, but that isn’t for everyone.  

In general, there appears to be strange resistance, from people who are happy 
in their technical knowlege to ‘Philistines’ coming in and ‘Fisher Pricing’ 
their app. When I visit the Fabric forums, for example and requested some 
improvements to Canvas, I got a quite a few surprising replies from people ,in 
a deriding tone, telling me to learn KL as that would do what I wanted. 
I knew KL could do what I wanted, but I wanted to help them improve Canvas 
giving a helpful user point of view.  The Devs actually were open to my ideas, 
but its certain users that seem to peer down their noses at ‘arty farty’ 
non-coders.

I’m pretty technical for a lowly artist, but I find Houdini a bit of a slog 
compared to learning ICE.  

From: Olivier Jeannel 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:24 AM
To: Official Softimage Users Mailing 
List.https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
Subject: Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

I'm quite the opposite Morthen. I found that learning little math (add subtract 
vector mostly...) is just an open path to what's called "creativity" nowaday. 
I'm more in the particles "do stuff" part of the work than in the 
character-toon-story telling though.
I can't say that I'm excited by the modeling tools added in the 16 (I'm sure 
they are great), but having that wide software that's able to not lost 
attributes whatever the context, that constantly amaze me.



2017-03-31 12:00 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :

  Don't get me wrong - I understand the power and flexibility of Houdini and 
the fact that it stems from its core architecture and I am not looking for the 
3D equivalent of Kais Power Tools.

  It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist, no 
matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good at math 
and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking ressources away from 
the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do this. I want to make 
great work, not need a science degree to do it.

  I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user 
friendly so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do 
even very advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how skilled 
an artist you are.

  Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is not 
with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still, and the 
other competitors don't really come close to the level of these anyway, so 
naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing rapidly and outside 
of the dark side of AD.

  It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering 
wheel but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the steering, 
and if you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an expression that 
provides the proper mix of gas and air and change the ignition timing. It is 
hardly intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be that, but imagine if this 
solid core architecture was given a better interface, I am sure many more 
artists out there would jump the wagon straight away and we would see even more 
fantastic stuff created with Houdini plus make a lot of people more happy.

  I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for SideFX, 
and making their software more accessible is probably very hard, and takes 
ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I really wish.

  Have a nice weekend all :)

  Morten








  > Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici :
  >
  >
  > I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
  > SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
  > really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.
  >
  > If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd 

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Jordi Bares]

I think we all are mixing a few things that may be leading you to think like 
that and may not actually be the case… correct me if I am wrong please.

> It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist, no 
> matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good at 
> math and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking ressources 
> away from the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do this. I want 
> to make great work, not need a science degree to do it.

Houdini is very granular, true, and with that comes a bit bigger “vocabulary” 
of tools, for certain tasks you do need maths, but you will need the same in 
any other package if you try to do that same task.

A good analogy would be scripting, arguably if you are forced to script 
something out is detracting from your art right? But now is commonplace and 
everyone assumes you are a better artist if you can script… same with 
everything, specially simple maths.

> I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user 
> friendly so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do 
> even very advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how 
> skilled an artist you are.

I would say it is getting simpler, but it is a moving target as the field 
itself is expanding every year. Just look at the evolution of fluid dynamics 
over the last 10 years… from nothing to this very sophisticated big/small scale 
fluids, various methods… it is expanding.

> Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is not 
> with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still, and 
> the other competitors don't really come close to the level of these anyway, 
> so naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing rapidly and 
> outside of the dark side of AD.
> 
> It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering 
> wheel but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the 
> steering, and if you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an 
> expression that provides the proper mix of gas and air and change the 
> ignition timing. It is hardly intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be 
> that, but imagine if this solid core architecture was given a better 
> interface, I am sure many more artists out there would jump the wagon 
> straight away and we would see even more fantastic stuff created with Houdini 
> plus make a lot of people more happy.

I would use a different analogy but I know what you mean, nevertheless if you 
put it in context it looks quite different to me…

Probably what you are trying to do nowadays would require a programer (in Maya 
for example) to implement, now you are trying to do it yourself connecting 
nodes without any intention on diving onto the nitty gritty of things (and yes, 
that involves some basic maths) but… is this realistic?? Probably not..

In my opinion, as the field expands and we need finer control we all are going 
to be exposed to more and more maths (probably pre-calculus for a long time) 
but even that will change for sure so I do believe it is only a matter of 
accepting this is a constantly evolving field and to stay relevant you need to 
study many things, from anatomy to maths.

> I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for SideFX, 
> and making their software more accessible is probably very hard, and takes 
> ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I really wish.

I like the fact they keep expanding new horizons (Terrains? Proper muscles? New 
Booleans? etc...), supporting standards and embracing them quickly (VDB for 
example? Alembic? OpenColorIO?, …) while at the same time embracing modern 
viewport centric workflows and modern usability metaphors *without* crippling 
the main core attributes that make Houdini itself.

I hope it makes sense
jb

> Have a nice weekend all :)
> 
> Morten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici :
>> 
>> 
>> I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
>> SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
>> really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.
>> 
>> If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour Houdini
>> right now.  I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and
>> working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable
>> position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction.
>> 
>> Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned!
>> 
>> DAN
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful
>>> application because of its technical approach.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’
>>> (to 

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Olivier Jeannel]

I'm quite the opposite Morthen. I found that learning little math (add
subtract vector mostly...) is just an open path to what's called
"creativity" nowaday.
I'm more in the particles "do stuff" part of the work than in the
character-toon-story telling though.
I can't say that I'm excited by the modeling tools added in the 16 (I'm
sure they are great), but having that wide software that's able to not lost
attributes whatever the context, that constantly amaze me.


2017-03-31 12:00 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :

> Don't get me wrong - I understand the power and flexibility of Houdini and
> the fact that it stems from its core architecture and I am not looking for
> the 3D equivalent of Kais Power Tools.
>
> It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist,
> no matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good
> at math and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking
> ressources away from the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do
> this. I want to make great work, not need a science degree to do it.
>
> I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user
> friendly so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do
> even very advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how
> skilled an artist you are.
>
> Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is
> not with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still,
> and the other competitors don't really come close to the level of these
> anyway, so naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing
> rapidly and outside of the dark side of AD.
>
> It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering
> wheel but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the
> steering, and if you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an
> expression that provides the proper mix of gas and air and change the
> ignition timing. It is hardly intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be
> that, but imagine if this solid core architecture was given a better
> interface, I am sure many more artists out there would jump the wagon
> straight away and we would see even more fantastic stuff created with
> Houdini plus make a lot of people more happy.
>
> I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for SideFX,
> and making their software more accessible is probably very hard, and takes
> ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I really wish.
>
> Have a nice weekend all :)
>
> Morten
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici  >:
> >
> >
> > I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
> > SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
> > really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.
> >
> > If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour
> Houdini
> > right now.  I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and
> > working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable
> > position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction.
> >
> > Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned!
> >
> > DAN
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore <
> jonathan.moo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful
> > > application because of its technical approach.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’
> > > (to say the least) shouldn’t mean that SideFX should have to change
> their
> > > development strategy.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe that SideFX have in fact done a fantastic job of listening to
> > > customers that have moved to Houdini from other packages including
> > > Softimage. The speed with which they implemented a suggested change ref
> > > dropping VOP nodes over wires the other day is a fine example of that.
> But
> > > there‘s a danger of allowing the ‘tail to wag the dog’ so that Houdini
> > > gets changed for the worse rather than the better. I think SideFX have
> the
> > > balance of things pretty much spot on. There’s still huge improvements
> that
> > > can be made to the approachability of certain aspects of the user
> > > experience but I it’s never going to transform into something radically
> > > different to what’s available today. If anything, with so much of
> Houdini
> > > moving away from Hscript style expressions to VEX expressions (for very
> > > good reason - multithreaded performance) certain aspects of the Houdini
> > > user experience are in fact getting more technical.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The best way to learn how to adapt to Houdini is first to accept it for
> > > what it is. And part of the Houdini user experience has always been
> > > scripting and programming. That’s why it’s so 

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Morten Bartholdy]

Don't get me wrong - I understand the power and flexibility of Houdini and the 
fact that it stems from its core architecture and I am not looking for the 3D 
equivalent of Kais Power Tools.

It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist, no 
matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good at math 
and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking ressources away from 
the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do this. I want to make 
great work, not need a science degree to do it.

I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user friendly 
so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do even very 
advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how skilled an artist 
you are.

Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is not 
with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still, and the 
other competitors don't really come close to the level of these anyway, so 
naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing rapidly and outside 
of the dark side of AD.

It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering wheel 
but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the steering, and if 
you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an expression that provides the 
proper mix of gas and air and change the ignition timing. It is hardly 
intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be that, but imagine if this solid 
core architecture was given a better interface, I am sure many more artists out 
there would jump the wagon straight away and we would see even more fantastic 
stuff created with Houdini plus make a lot of people more happy.

I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for SideFX, and 
making their software more accessible is probably very hard, and takes 
ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I really wish.

Have a nice weekend all :)

Morten







> Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici :
> 
> 
> I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
> SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
> really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.
> 
> If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour Houdini
> right now.  I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and
> working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable
> position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction.
> 
> Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned!
> 
> DAN
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore 
> wrote:
> 
> > I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful
> > application because of its technical approach.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’
> > (to say the least) shouldn’t mean that SideFX should have to change their
> > development strategy.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that SideFX have in fact done a fantastic job of listening to
> > customers that have moved to Houdini from other packages including
> > Softimage. The speed with which they implemented a suggested change ref
> > dropping VOP nodes over wires the other day is a fine example of that. But
> > there‘s a danger of allowing the ‘tail to wag the dog’ so that Houdini
> > gets changed for the worse rather than the better. I think SideFX have the
> > balance of things pretty much spot on. There’s still huge improvements that
> > can be made to the approachability of certain aspects of the user
> > experience but I it’s never going to transform into something radically
> > different to what’s available today. If anything, with so much of Houdini
> > moving away from Hscript style expressions to VEX expressions (for very
> > good reason - multithreaded performance) certain aspects of the Houdini
> > user experience are in fact getting more technical.
> >
> >
> >
> > The best way to learn how to adapt to Houdini is first to accept it for
> > what it is. And part of the Houdini user experience has always been
> > scripting and programming. That’s why it’s so often described as a 3d
> > operating system rather than a DCC.
> >
> >
> >
> > Apologies for spelling things out so bluntly but I can’t see Houdini
> > evolving into something less technical.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-bounces@
> > listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain
> > *Sent:* 30 March 2017 19:57
> > *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/
> > forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
> > *Subject:* Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies
> >
> >
> >
> > hi. yes, was forced to stop following this week's entagma taurus tutorial.
> >
> > again, these monthes 

Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies

[Dan Yargici]

I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect
SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they
really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also.

If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour Houdini
right now.  I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and
working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable
position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction.

Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned!

DAN


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore 
wrote:

> I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful
> application because of its technical approach.
>
>
>
> Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’
> (to say the least) shouldn’t mean that SideFX should have to change their
> development strategy.
>
>
>
> I believe that SideFX have in fact done a fantastic job of listening to
> customers that have moved to Houdini from other packages including
> Softimage. The speed with which they implemented a suggested change ref
> dropping VOP nodes over wires the other day is a fine example of that. But
> there‘s a danger of allowing the ‘tail to wag the dog’ so that Houdini
> gets changed for the worse rather than the better. I think SideFX have the
> balance of things pretty much spot on. There’s still huge improvements that
> can be made to the approachability of certain aspects of the user
> experience but I it’s never going to transform into something radically
> different to what’s available today. If anything, with so much of Houdini
> moving away from Hscript style expressions to VEX expressions (for very
> good reason - multithreaded performance) certain aspects of the Houdini
> user experience are in fact getting more technical.
>
>
>
> The best way to learn how to adapt to Houdini is first to accept it for
> what it is. And part of the Houdini user experience has always been
> scripting and programming. That’s why it’s so often described as a 3d
> operating system rather than a DCC.
>
>
>
> Apologies for spelling things out so bluntly but I can’t see Houdini
> evolving into something less technical.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-bounces@
> listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain
> *Sent:* 30 March 2017 19:57
> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/
> forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
> *Subject:* Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies
>
>
>
> hi. yes, was forced to stop following this week's entagma taurus tutorial.
>
> again, these monthes i spend most of my time to write & storyboard.
>
> got recently interested by _computer_  2d possibilities, new for me.
>
> but as discussion advances here, i am getting discouraged to be able to
> talk in the future,  about a project with a Houdinist.
>
> (i don't want to just supervize) because i am foremost a visual artist,
> isn't it that Houdini should evolve upside down,
>
> so that Visual controls Math Thinking, and not the other way around.
>
> Procedural Innovation looked nice, so far,  i guess?
>
> so, in a way i donot opt if a new community shift occurs between
>
> Maya artists and Houdini vop sop artists. or do you think it necessary,
> and why?
>
> thanks
>
> Nicole.
>
>
>
> 2017-03-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy :
>
>
>
> I just also wish Houdini would be made more accessible for less
> technically inclined artists like myself.
>
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Texturemapping displacement of VDB volumetrics in Arnold

[Morten Bartholdy]

The Arnold Volume Collector allows for displacement of the density in a VDB 
file by plugging for instance a fractal in to Position Offset. It looks like 
vector data which makes sense for displacement, but when I plug a fractal into 
it I can only get it to displace in a particular direction with some fractal 
noise added. I would like to in a more controlled manner to displace the volume 
in place like when displacing geometry.

I have looked for tutorials or examples on this but found nothing so far. I 
guess it is actually a fairly simple thing offsetting rgb in a fractal like in 
Ba_Fractal_4D, but my experiments so far leaves a lot to be desired.

Any hint and ideas are most welcome :)

And have a nice friday everyone!

Cheers
Morten
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.