below
On 22 May 2014, at 11:35, Andy Goehler <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 21, 2014, at 23:15, Jordi Bares <[email protected]> wrote: > >> - Shading is very granular and the examples and setups provided are not very >> good so once you get it is good but not great yet. The actual implementation >> of Arnold for Houdini is soooo much user friendly (looks a quite a lot like >> the render tree to be honest) > > Hi Jordi, > > I’m not quite sure I understand regarding Arnold in Houdini. Wether using > Mantra or Arnold it ends up with a similar VEX graph doesn’t it? Yes it does but Arnold has reconstructed a ton of nodes you will use on a constant basis that are nicely packaged like in mental ray phenomena. > If I drop down a Mantra shader using a ‘Surface Shader Builder’ I get an > empty ‘Rendertree’ – adding a ‘surfacemodel’ I’m right at home, no difference > to Arnold. Maybe I’ve missed something, what are you referring to user > friendliness in particular? It is difficult to explain to be honest but I will encourage to try to add a noise function on one of mantra surface node inputs… instead of having a plug and job done you will have to dive in and wire it by hand which is not as fluid. The good part is that you can dive in, the bad part is that your though process is disrupted. The best solution is to modify mantra surface yourself to have a version for you that allows you to plug things… negate things, etc… > > What I do love, and stated elsewhere on the list, is the flexibility that > Mantra brings with it without having to go full C++ in an IDE. 100%… it is worth the extra work and let's face it, Mantra is free for any number of nodes… no wonder some major players in London are moving to Houdini in a big way. jb > cheers > > Andy
