On 31 Mar 2014, at 13:44, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected]> wrote: > Ultimately I can do the same things in all three packages, in Maya in example > I don't even try to find workarounds, whenever I bump into one of the > innumerable gaps I just write my way out of it with a node, which > incidentally is also why I'm taking a looking to splice and looking forward > to their CUDA implementation instead of using my own in c++. > Text is tremendously expressive, if expensive in terms of learning curve, > which is also a cookie point for vex really. > > The problem comes when you have deadlines and you simply want to experiment > without redoing at the end of the process. For that Soft was simply the > perfect storm. > ICE limitation of having a strict I/O domain and the sequential stack with > entry points, the clarity and abundance of atomic nodes, and a generally > cohesive experience remain unbeaten.In Soft when you hit a wall you often hit > it hard, but those are few and far between, and in between you could really > fly. Same goes for clusters, properties, drag'n'drop and how Soft presents > and links those larger aggregates, they simply work 99% of the time. > Very true, they really hit the right spot and there is no match yet...
> Maya and Houdini simply don't provide that experience, and their learning > curve to reach that level of fluidity is measured in years, while with Soft > we had people who never used it literally flying around within a month. > In my experience is quite a different problem… - with Maya you hit a wall and that is it, either you program C++ and are good at it or forget it… - with Softimage you sometimes (Rerely) hit a wall, but when you do, again there is no way out other than programming it yourself in C++ - with Houdini is like going on the internet, is so vast you get distracted and unless you are very focused you can be enjoying yourself without getting anywhere but you rarely will have to program C++ unless you are refining something for pure performance. > As a creature TD Houdini simply doesn't get you on the zone quickly enough, > if ever. It's brilliant for a number of things, infinitely powerful, has best > of breed solvers, but it gets in the way constantly. > My feeling is that it is too granular for many tasks and you have to be disciplined or you can be wondering around... > It's patently obvious they rarely, almost never in fact, had to address teams > like the ones I run as user base. > Could you develop further? > Performance in general is also pretty abysmal (was, might be better know) and > optimisation is opaque and lacking in immediately useful tools and > diagnostics. > in version 12.5 and then in 13 there were some major improvements as they embarked in a huge task to make the nodes fully multi-threaded (still in progress) and there have been a major effort to integrate python really well (to me feels like the best integration so far) Also they started to integrate OpenCL http://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini13.0/news/13/opencl a good example is Pyro http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2123 > Again, as of two and half years ago. Might be different now and I wouldn't > know, but nothing I've read or seen suggests so. > Have a go a this fast rig and let me know what do you think http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_forum&Itemid=172&page=viewtopic&t=31169&sid=9a764f3fbadfb00725638e42897932cf I have been doing a fair amount of rigging lately and I managed to put 170 characters on a heavily choreographed scene and it was much better than before so although is not my dream scenario it is perfectly usable and I can do quite a few really amazing things with the rig and assets. hope it helps. jb > On 31 Mar 2014 23:18, "Jordi Bares" <[email protected]> wrote: > Slow performance depends on many things like having nested assets, and yes, > you won't find an interface to manage your blend shapes but what you can do > with your rig imho is truly phenomenal. > > Regarding the deformations ICE versus VOPs I would love to know more about > it, what do you feel you can do in ICE you can't in Houdini? > > Assuming you are doing with the off-the-self toolkit and without any > proprietary pipeline tools to speed up rigging building a proper asset > interface, protect it from the user and all that takes time but do you feel > is much longer than any other package? > > jb > > On 31 Mar 2014, at 12:04, Raffaele Fragapane <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I have to admit to not having tried again in at least two and half years, >> but I haven't seen any related release notes related to rigging since then, >> so bear with me if this is not recent or still actual information, but in >> what way is rigging in Houdini phenomenal? >> It's a major pain in the arse, generally slow both performance wise and to >> actually produce the rigs, and it has absolutely zero adequate facilities >> for a lot of stuff such as shape manipulation, and while VOPs are great, >> when it comes to deformations they don't even scratch the surface of what >> ICE can do. >> And while it's true assets are phenomenal, the sheer scope of investment to >> wrap a character up to give it to an animator is staggering, it takes >> forever to truly and properly armor up a rig and expose only the right >> context in the right way. >> >
