Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Matt Morris]

Thanks for the recommendations Jon, much appreciated. I'll go through
Jordi's guides again and the cgwiki stuff, and then hopefully will feel
like I know enough of the basics to make the more in-depth tutorials
worthwhile. A maths refresher is a very good idea as well.


On 8 May 2018 at 14:32, Jonathan Moore  wrote:

> MAT's are the way forward for Mantra, but SHOP's is still better with many
> 3rd party renderers such as Redshift and Arnold. Redshift works with the
> MATs contexts but it's can get tricky with more complex projects. There are
> even shops like Animal Logic that have stayed with SHOP's for the time
> being as there are issues that affect their particular pipeline. On that
> basis I don't consider it a bad thing to use this time to learn MATs but
> still use SHOPs in production. It's highly likely that H17 will push the
> MATs workflow forward in new directions, so getting a handle on it now will
> be time well spent.
>
> In terms of up to date learning materials, all of the
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedhoudini.com_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=3c8oH-MxSK7dl4YnG4Rluo7px31Aza9m7IWfWa-R_0M=5RCgxPM_V_kDNNWF9POYMy3RrKI3g1u_X7lBACXwo0o=
> 
> stuff is bang on the money, and Steven Knipping is amongst the best in
> terms of teaching the why as well as the how.  His prices are very
> reasonable considering the quality of the training.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rebelway.net_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=3c8oH-MxSK7dl4YnG4Rluo7px31Aza9m7IWfWa-R_0M=OxAzOLQnljJI773gWlOm1uL6Jrb4LtpAjyE6UxGSUgw=
> 
> is another very good option. It's more expensive than the Applied Houdini
> stuff as it's involves weekly mentoring and feedback. Having said it's
> expensive, they have a couple of reasonably priced foundation courses
> starting in June. Saber & Igor really know their onions and have been
> training professionally onsite for a number of years so I think the prices
> are reasonable for the calabre of the training.
>
> Adam Swaab has a range of training products on the market that're very
> reasonably priced but Adam's stuff is very much entry level.
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__helloluxx.com_product_houdini-2Djumpstart-2Dbundle-2Dadam-2Dswaab_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=3c8oH-MxSK7dl4YnG4Rluo7px31Aza9m7IWfWa-R_0M=2dgyJGjAVRKg_0h_eho2UZrEOlcd_2UWrWQ0DZiY76Q=
> 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Jordi Bares]

Indeed there is so much good training nowadays it is amazing…

And yes, the AppliedHoudini is super good.
jb


> On 8 May 2018, at 14:32, Jonathan Moore  wrote:
> 
> MAT's are the way forward for Mantra, but SHOP's is still better with many 
> 3rd party renderers such as Redshift and Arnold. Redshift works with the MATs 
> contexts but it's can get tricky with more complex projects. There are even 
> shops like Animal Logic that have stayed with SHOP's for the time being as 
> there are issues that affect their particular pipeline. On that basis I don't 
> consider it a bad thing to use this time to learn MATs but still use SHOPs in 
> production. It's highly likely that H17 will push the MATs workflow forward 
> in new directions, so getting a handle on it now will be time well spent.
> 
> In terms of up to date learning materials, all of the 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedhoudini.com_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=qGQfm1EY7iK_3m-R3uOpJqjAwpZARLsqGcU_5qQmQYA=Xh8uytwMkoPTHLXw7YsVi_IHrlojNbEaAk0YvTIr1FY=
>  
> 
>  stuff is bang on the money, and Steven Knipping is amongst the best in terms 
> of teaching the why as well as the how.  His prices are very reasonable 
> considering the quality of the training.
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rebelway.net_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=qGQfm1EY7iK_3m-R3uOpJqjAwpZARLsqGcU_5qQmQYA=BkaDdYWCvQ3An23uDjN6FF_WWl8mCU7hIvSteKajxM0=
>  
> 
>  is another very good option. It's more expensive than the Applied Houdini 
> stuff as it's involves weekly mentoring and feedback. Having said it's 
> expensive, they have a couple of reasonably priced foundation courses 
> starting in June. Saber & Igor really know their onions and have been 
> training professionally onsite for a number of years so I think the prices 
> are reasonable for the calabre of the training.
> 
> Adam Swaab has a range of training products on the market that're very 
> reasonably priced but Adam's stuff is very much entry level. 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__helloluxx.com_product_houdini-2Djumpstart-2Dbundle-2Dadam-2Dswaab_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=qGQfm1EY7iK_3m-R3uOpJqjAwpZARLsqGcU_5qQmQYA=WpSHDRAVdvkppuZ7-mBHR6vOb6L39anlAWFy-lgDZDI=
>  
> 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Pierre Schiller]

I'm so interested in getting to know a SI-HU crossover course.



On Tue, May 8, 2018, 08:32 Jonathan Moore  wrote:

> MAT's are the way forward for Mantra, but SHOP's is still better with many
> 3rd party renderers such as Redshift and Arnold. Redshift works with the
> MATs contexts but it's can get tricky with more complex projects. There are
> even shops like Animal Logic that have stayed with SHOP's for the time
> being as there are issues that affect their particular pipeline. On that
> basis I don't consider it a bad thing to use this time to learn MATs but
> still use SHOPs in production. It's highly likely that H17 will push the
> MATs workflow forward in new directions, so getting a handle on it now will
> be time well spent.
>
> In terms of up to date learning materials, all of the
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedhoudini.com_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=sZuz9PC7Zz34osI4agioW68DdBGNyPhyc-yEP0sBeNA=bl0IjR8x_0MWV72gAMAbjVrnObsgxd2vI68A19QdLRo=
> 
> stuff is bang on the money, and Steven Knipping is amongst the best in
> terms of teaching the why as well as the how.  His prices are very
> reasonable considering the quality of the training.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rebelway.net_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=sZuz9PC7Zz34osI4agioW68DdBGNyPhyc-yEP0sBeNA=MHYVPBOCrYG0eeePscDUywd5zKODIJ_21XzuQuAQf-I=
> 
> is another very good option. It's more expensive than the Applied Houdini
> stuff as it's involves weekly mentoring and feedback. Having said it's
> expensive, they have a couple of reasonably priced foundation courses
> starting in June. Saber & Igor really know their onions and have been
> training professionally onsite for a number of years so I think the prices
> are reasonable for the calabre of the training.
>
> Adam Swaab has a range of training products on the market that're very
> reasonably priced but Adam's stuff is very much entry level.
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__helloluxx.com_product_houdini-2Djumpstart-2Dbundle-2Dadam-2Dswaab_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=sZuz9PC7Zz34osI4agioW68DdBGNyPhyc-yEP0sBeNA=OUpGD5A1jT015zxGVD-KkU0JZ-UI5Mft5h1XaYbLyKQ=
> 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Jonathan Moore]

MAT's are the way forward for Mantra, but SHOP's is still better with many
3rd party renderers such as Redshift and Arnold. Redshift works with the
MATs contexts but it's can get tricky with more complex projects. There are
even shops like Animal Logic that have stayed with SHOP's for the time
being as there are issues that affect their particular pipeline. On that
basis I don't consider it a bad thing to use this time to learn MATs but
still use SHOPs in production. It's highly likely that H17 will push the
MATs workflow forward in new directions, so getting a handle on it now will
be time well spent.

In terms of up to date learning materials, all of the
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.appliedhoudini.com_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=5SON44Wr5Z8tnF6FH8umbwxywValHT1-As3ePt4ZO0o=
 stuff is bang on the money, and Steven
Knipping is amongst the best in terms of teaching the why as well as the
how.  His prices are very reasonable considering the quality of the
training.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rebelway.net_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=9txiFHl03cSx13X7K9GI-oe3tp4-X5VZjLaiiiZgu1o=
 is another very good option. It's more expensive than
the Applied Houdini stuff as it's involves weekly mentoring and feedback.
Having said it's expensive, they have a couple of reasonably priced
foundation courses starting in June. Saber & Igor really know their onions
and have been training professionally onsite for a number of years so I
think the prices are reasonable for the calabre of the training.

Adam Swaab has a range of training products on the market that're very
reasonably priced but Adam's stuff is very much entry level.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__helloluxx.com_product_houdini-2Djumpstart-2Dbundle-2Dadam-2Dswaab_=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=fqUiX6dyMCgQeF-WJA4SNjHVPaUTb3UVYQO9GW6-Ok8=
 is his
most basic stuff (the first few volumes are a little dated but it's still
useful content). The 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.learnsquared.com_courses_houdini-2Dparticles=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=sJJCuhOw9YXKhzwx7pTQcoWIsupgNSnHcLGCwTY-u4Y=
content is a more contemporary and notches up to fairly advaced content
(I've linked to his more advanced particles course, but he has foundation
content too). Unfortunately his most advanced course is already fully
booked, but it's worth keeping an eye on all the CGSociety courses as
they're run in a similar manner to the Rebelway stuff-
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cgsociety.org_training_course_abstract-2Deffects-2Din-2Dhoudini=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=lgrJjb_3nmvQsCOEKfU3ZsFRSaQfmQcsGNUpucQZZJE=
 .

As much as there's a ton of great free training out there and SideFX have
been exemplary in the manner that they categorise and filter all this
training content on their website. The paid stuff I've linked to here is in
a different league to the typical Lynda and Pluralsight content. You'll
find more advanced subject matter at entagma.com but the good paid stuff is
better structured for the needs of typical production projects.

Having rubbised Pluralsigt, there's one course that's worth taking if pick
up one of those 3 months free offers that're floating around (by signing up
for a free Visual Studio account here: 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__my.visualstudio.com=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=JSC3OLMVoFC7CPdbS-DrxUJOFbROoIiG95UVMAGEdHY=
 )  -
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.pluralsight.com_courses_houdini-2Dpractical-2Dmath-2Dtips=DwIFaQ=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA=H2_J6PP26gG9IAcDDxopeocHT4_nL27-Njv42K1_a9Y=t6-uQWNIw8vkWknYwJeIs2Kbh3gUM9L-NhrYRUdHM48=
 -. Even if
you already have a good handle on pertinent math subjects from working with
ICE, this course is great for learning how to apply that knowledge in
Houdini. And a refresher on pertinent vector, trig and algebra is never a
bad thing. :)



On 8 May 2018 at 10:35, Jordi Bares  wrote:

>
> On 8 May 2018, at 08:34, Matt Morris  wrote:
>
> I'd certainly be down for that too :)
>
> Hacked my way through Houdini for a volume job recently and while there's
> a wealth of information out there its sometimes 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Jordi Bares]

> On 8 May 2018, at 08:34, Matt Morris  wrote:
> 
> I'd certainly be down for that too :)
> 
> Hacked my way through Houdini for a volume job recently and while there's a 
> wealth of information out there its sometimes difficult to know the optimal 
> way to achieve something, and find up to date solutions for the mat context 
> instead of shops for example. Ended up back in xsi for some particle 
> behaviours as there are so many compounds I miss for randomization etc.

"Optimal way" is an elusive thing.. I keep learning new approaches for things I 
learned and now are kind of lame… (for example the constant adding colours to 
apply effects and then rename them or worse, remove the color afterwards… I do 
it now via attributes and visualisers and it is a lot more elegant)

And yes, I am not using SHOPs anymore (unless I am using Arnold)… MATs is the 
way forward and quite exciting when you realise what is in front of you.

Anyway, it is something of an ever evolving task…

Jb


> 
> 
> 
> On 8 May 2018 at 08:25, Morten Bartholdy  > wrote:
> Thanks Jordi. Well, like I said – I will have to dive in to Houdini at some 
> point I guess :)
> 
> I would love a Soft2Houdini crash course :)
> 
> MB
> 
> Den 4. maj 2018 klokken 20:22 skrev Jordi Bares  >:
> 
> For the sake of sharing my experiences…
> 
> On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy  > wrote:
> 
> Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.
> 
> It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them more 
> accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais Powertools 
> ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of better and 
> more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a degree in rocket 
> science to be able to wield said tools at all
> 
> Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0 or 
> the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things are 
> simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things 
> without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for 
> example custom controls with DOPs records and others)
> 
> Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has gone 
> in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires a fair 
> amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more than basic 
> math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.
> 
> The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in 
> softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can choose 
> between learning simple expressions or learning to program.
> 
> Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry, vectors 
> and matrices.
> 
> I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased 
> demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools,
> 
> I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed primitives 
> allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in combination with 
> Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are difficult of full of 
> moving parts.
> 
> but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to 
> use.
> 
> I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in Houdini 
> 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools… but it is 
> also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter what.
> 
> Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff 
> accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were made 
> available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a good 
> idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down to this 
> – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them on making 
> more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they try and 
> balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential for 
> increasing it.
> 
> With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long 
> time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so many 
> things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are not 
> possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain limitations. 
> Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making your live eraser 
> in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you are doing.
> 
> But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier and 
> element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN FACT.
> 
> What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for 
> practical use (the steep 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Matt Morris]

I'd certainly be down for that too :)

Hacked my way through Houdini for a volume job recently and while there's a
wealth of information out there its sometimes difficult to know the optimal
way to achieve something, and find up to date solutions for the mat context
instead of shops for example. Ended up back in xsi for some particle
behaviours as there are so many compounds I miss for randomization etc.



On 8 May 2018 at 08:25, Morten Bartholdy  wrote:

> Thanks Jordi. Well, like I said – I will have to dive in to Houdini at
> some point I guess :)
>
> I would love a Soft2Houdini crash course :)
>
> MB
>
> Den 4. maj 2018 klokken 20:22 skrev Jordi Bares :
>
> For the sake of sharing my experiences…
>
> On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy  wrote:
>
> Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.
>
> It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them
> more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais
> Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of
> better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a
> degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all
>
> Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0
> or the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things
> are simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things
> without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for
> example custom controls with DOPs records and others)
>
> Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has
> gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires
> a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more
> than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.
>
> The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in
> softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can
> choose between learning simple expressions or learning to program.
>
> Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry,
> vectors and matrices.
>
> I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased
> demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools,
>
> I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed
> primitives allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in
> combination with Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are
> difficult of full of moving parts.
>
> but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult
> to use.
>
> I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in
> Houdini 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools…
> but it is also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter
> what.
>
> Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff
> accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were
> made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a
> good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down
> to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them
> on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they
> try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential
> for increasing it.
>
> With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long
> time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so
> many things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are
> not possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain
> limitations. Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making
> your live eraser in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you
> are doing.
>
> But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier
> and element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN
> FACT.
>
> What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for
> practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into
> it for real yet.
>
> May be that is what makes you feel it is complex…
>
> I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC
> which is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the
> users, so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably
> many others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if
> it was made even easier to use :)
>
> Agreed, there are many things that should be a lot easier because you do
> them all the time (like path deform for example, or layering animation, or
> having a shape manager and others) but don’t be mistaken, it is not
> difficult at all until you need to dive in certain areas.
>
> And that would 

Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[Morten Bartholdy]

Thanks Jordi. Well, like I said - I will have to dive in to Houdini at some 
point I guess :)

I would love a Soft2Houdini crash course :)


MB



> Den 4. maj 2018 klokken 20:22 skrev Jordi Bares :
> 
> 
> For the sake of sharing my experiences...
> 
> > On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy  wrote:
> > 
> > Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.
> > 
> > It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them 
> > more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais 
> > Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of 
> > better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a 
> > degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all
> > 
> Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0 or 
> the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things are 
> simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things 
> without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for 
> example custom controls with DOPs records and others)
> > Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has 
> > gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires 
> > a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more 
> > than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.
> > 
> The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in 
> softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can choose 
> between learning simple expressions or learning to program.
> 
> Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry, vectors 
> and matrices. 
> > I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased 
> > demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools,
> > 
> I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed primitives 
> allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in combination with 
> Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are difficult of full of 
> moving parts.
> > but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to 
> > use.
> > 
> I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in Houdini 
> 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools… but it is 
> also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter what.
> > Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff 
> > accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were 
> > made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a 
> > good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down 
> > to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them 
> > on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they 
> > try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential 
> > for increasing it.
> > 
> With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long 
> time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so many 
> things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are not 
> possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain limitations. 
> Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making your live eraser 
> in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you are doing.
> 
> But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier and 
> element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN FACT.
> > What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for 
> > practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into 
> > it for real yet.
> > 
> May be that is what makes you feel it is complex...
> > I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC which 
> > is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the users, 
> > so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably many 
> > others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if it 
> > was made even easier to use :)
> > 
> Agreed, there are many things that should be a lot easier because you do them 
> all the time (like path deform for example, or layering animation, or having 
> a shape manager and others) but don’t be mistaken, it is not difficult at all 
> until you need to dive in certain areas.
> > And that would mean I would get to spend less time in Maya which honestly 
> > makes me short of breath to the point of needing to vomit, almost every day.
> > 
> Well, then I can guarantee you you will age slower.  ;-)
> 
> Peace and have a great weekend.
> jb
> 
> PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX 
> to organise a crash course in