Materials in houdini are essentially applied per polygon (primitives in houdini). Check the details view of a geometry that has a material, and the select the primitive icon. You will see each individual poly has got the material applied to it.
By the way, the Details View panel is your best friend. If you are not using it, you are not using houdini very well ;) C On 10 March 2015 at 19:08, Jordi Bares Dominguez <[email protected]> wrote: > You will certainly use them a lot as you will have surely many streams of > data (a bit like if you had in one single object multiple parallel operator > stacks that you can blend/merge/dispose/etc… > > My take is to try to do things at object level due to easiness with for > example transformations, material assignment, scene optimisation and LOD. > > For example, every component of a wheel of a car I separate and make > objects and have a hierarchy, this allows me to do very quick low > resolution objects out of big ones. Transformations are much faster and > ultimately I can do clever camera based hiding and what not. > > Also given I use bundles a lot having objects is very convenient as I can > do text searches that bring the objects to the bundles so it is a major win > after a bit of a slow prep time of course. > > So I would say my best friend is “object merge” operator rather than merge. > > ;-) > > hope it helps > jb > > On 10 Mar 2015, at 17:47, Jason S <[email protected]> wrote: > > (see addendums in bold) > > On 03/10/15 13:32, Jason S wrote: > > On 03/10/15 12:15, Christopher Crouzet wrote: > > This is a core concept when you have to deal with such graphs—it is so > essential that the `Merge` node is probably one of the most used nodes in > Houdini. > > I can understand why, whether for optimization, *[or]* manageability > purposes. > > Groups in Houdini share roughly the same purpose than clusters from > Softimage. > They are a core concept in Houdini as every node understand them. What you > can do with clusters, you can do with groups, and much more out of the box. > > I can imagine, as core *[or as basic of a concept]* as in Soft I would > assume. *[or so it would seem]* > > > And thanks for the, I think important clarification. > > > >
