I always worry that Houdini is not such a friendly app to be used as a 'backbone' as you (Jordi) phrase it. But I'm basing that on the logic that most of our 3d artists will HAVE to use it, but that's not really the case...
I've started to settle into the idea that maya is OK for being the base, (after some love) so perhaps this is the moment I need to give Houdini a proper look before I fall down into the abyss of Maya. On Tuesday, 17 March 2015, Jordi Bares Dominguez <[email protected]> wrote: > That certainly is a great approach but even better is if you go in the > other direction, use Houdini as the backbone and render from > Mantra/Arnold/Octane/PRMan/3Dlight/whatever as the FX live inside Houdini > and therefore it is the natural backbone. > > Ultimately you will be using a myriad of tools that will funnel “dumb” > cached data (just baked geometry, particles with attributes and little > more) to Houdini and from there you are free to assemble your scenes as you > need to. > > Furthermore, if you need to scale you will find Houdini excels at that so > imho it is a no brainer. > > hope it helps > > jb > > > On 17 Mar 2015, at 18:15, Manuel Huertas Marchena <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > I am wondering if any of you guys working in film use houdini for digital > asset production, or is it still more of a fx tool for most part? (having > said that I do realize that houdini is not and end to end solution or all > kinds of assets, but still I feel that there is a lot of stuff that > could/can be created using a procedural approach, > ex: buildings, concept modeling, snow, rocks, trees, props...etc..) > > > -- Simon Reeves London, UK *[email protected] <[email protected]>* *www.simonreeves.com <http://www.simonreeves.com>* *www.analogstudio.co.uk <http://www.analogstudio.co.uk>*
