It is the same with any package the only thing is that Houdini artists tend to be more of a peculiar type… you just have to make sure they stick to the conventions like all Softimage users do (for example on how we setup passes)
Jordi Bares [email protected] On 21 May 2014, at 22:12, Andy Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote: > Sure. There's certainly a lot of potential there. It's just that the openness > means that the workflow is very open to interpretation. Houdini's a bit like > coding, everyone has their own style so you can get in a mess. It's very easy > to > add in quick little "fixes" which other people might look on as hacks instead. > > A > > > On 21 May 2014 at 21:25 Francois Lord <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And how would it fare as a lighting/shading/rendering hub? >> I'm very hesitant to move to Maya just for it's lack of a true a pass >> system. But then, there's only Houdini and Katana. We could add to the >> list Modo and Clarisse (which I'm surprised nobody talked about here >> yet) but we need Arnold. >> >> On 21-May-14 15:55, Andy Nicholas wrote: >>> From my experience, it's still relatively slow. A lot of stuff is still >>> single >>> threaded although they've done a lot of work to improve that recently. Be >>> ready >>> to eat up a lot of disk space too, as you'll be caching stuff out all the >>> time >>> to make up for the lack of speed. >>> >>> >>> Despite what many say about Houdini being great for particles, compared to >>> ICE, >>> the particles workflow is bloody awful. The nodes are super basic which >>> means >>> you have to roll your own out of VOPs, which are then super slow. ICE and >>> Arnold >>> are a dream for instancing, but Houdini drives me insane with slow and flaky >>> workflows (although I probably need to update my knowledge since some of the >>> new >>> features have come out - e.g. packed primitives). >>> >>> >>> Generally in production, expect not to see any significant results out of >>> Houdini artists for the first 70-80% of the job. That can be a real pain for >>> working with needy clients. Once you get past that point though, they'll be >>> able >>> to turn new versions out very quickly. Unfortunately, if it doesn't look >>> good at >>> that point you've got a crap load of work to redo, and it can really bite >>> you in >>> the ass if you don't have a good backup plan. >>> >>> >>> When it comes to commercials, not a lot beats ICE and it's rigid body >>> implementation for speed and ease of use, and I really miss not having that >>> in >>> Houdini. Doing simple stuff in Houdini's DOPs can require an hour of >>> research >>> trying to find out what data you need to modify, and how to actually >>> implement >>> it. >>> >>> I could go on a lot longer, but all I'll say is that you have to be super >>> careful when you decide to throw a job at Houdini. Make sure you have R&D >>> time >>> built in if you haven't done a particular effect before. >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 May 2014 at 19:42 Francois Lord <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> So... >>>> What are houdini weaknesses? What is missing in Houdini compared to >>>> Softimage? Would you run a company only using Houdini as 3D app? Why not? >>
