That variation is documented on my guides and believe me, you will love it.
Jordi Bares [email protected] On 21 May 2014, at 23:03, Andy Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hehe! There you go, another variation ;) I've not tried that one, but that > sounds like a better way of going about it than my previous attempts with > instancing into subnets. > > > > > > > On 21 May 2014 at 22:57 Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I do miss XSI passes a bit… The thing as you know is that there is no the >> concept of passes, you can mimic it although not 100% so people just find >> their approach and become very proud of it not knowing XSI has the very >> finest >> system since day 1. >> >> I never use takes for passes but for overrides and use ROPs together with >> bundles instead of explicit references of "object merge" style approaches. >> >> The thing I am not sure i want to give up now is the approach of ROP networks >> dependencies so I can trigger very complex setups and simply go home. >> >> ;-) >> >> Jordi Bares >> [email protected] >> >> On 21 May 2014, at 22:51, Andy Nicholas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Sure, conventions are always necessary, but more so with Houdini. Some >>> people >>> use Takes as passes, others use ROPs with object masks into subnets as >>> passes. >>> Or you could use a mix of the two approaches. >>> >>> >>> At least in Soft, passes are passes! >>> >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 21 May 2014 at 22:16 Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>> >>
