houdini never change hands like other software that several companies own them,
/ change developers etc.. etc..
El Martes, 17 de marzo, 2015 18:51:44, Adam Sale <[email protected]>
escribió:
Thanks for that Gerbrand. I had started dabbling with Houdini over the spring
and summer before the start of our new school year in September. My experiences
with it were very positive, and I was having fun learning it. It made sense
after a couple weeks mucking around with it. In the end I went with maya for
our Fx and rigging courses based on the fact I had marginal experience with
Maya over a number of years prior. So far I am ok with Maya for rigging, and
skeletal work, but deformation is really frustrating as everyone else here has
contended. FX in general has not been a lot of fun in Maya either. The scale
issue alone in Maya has taken at least a year or more off of my life.
I am going to give Houdini another shot this coming spring when I have more
downtime, as May just chokes on a lot of things I would like to do, most
specifically with Fluids and Particles. I am still hopeful and waiting for
Bifrost to be more than a great tool for simming water bodies.
Irie,
Adam
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Raffaele Fragapane
<[email protected]> wrote:
For anybody following this who's still on the fence let me put it simply: If
you're used to XSI, and you have to do deformation work with Maya's OOTB
toolset you either are insane, or about to go insane very quickly.
Rig authoring and animation are mostly fine, but when it comes to deformation
there is very, very little in Maya out of the box, and what is there is
supported by tools and workflow that will age you a year in a month of use;
when they don't break they are still painful, and it's not very often that they
don't break.
If you have to do it, and are proficient enough to clobber deformers and some
helper tools together but not enough to write C++ close enough to the metal for
it to perform, start learning Fabric. In fact, start learning Fabric anyway if
you do rigging.If you have to do it, and are more of the artistic persuasion,
see if you can change your role to something else, anything between animation
and potato farming will do, and have the company hire someone who only worked
in Maya before for that kind of work and is therefore unaware of how much pain
he's in.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Manuel Huertas Marchena <[email protected]>
wrote:
Curiously I ve been reading the transition guides you kindly wrote lately,
thanks Jordi! I am sure that Houdini provides the scalability and resources to
be an end to end solution. But for the time being thatdecision is not up to
me. At AF we have a katana(vray) & maya pipe. Houdini is used for hero fx
stuff. Its on my plans totry and create a production ready asset to show
production (once I figure out how to create something actually "useful"!) and
only then see the plausibility of using Houdini for environment work (as an
additional tool... who knows then..). As this concept is still a bit "new"
(although I know its not the case...) I have not seen much cg environment
pipelines based on this software if at all. The only case I am aware is rising
sun pictures... but I dont know someone there atm. I ve seen houdini used in
videogames environments... but dont have much examples of that for film (not
talking about fx of course), I am guessing that the main "idea" is somehow
similar... ?!
cheers
-Manu
IMDB | Portfolio | Vimeo| Linkedin
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:14:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Very OT: for the love of your career.. try houdini
To: [email protected]
How are you finding your new found Houdini knowledge to be fitting into the
needs of the marketplace? Are there many shops adopting it? Or are you a lone
wolf or able to turnkey shots for people? I too have found Maya unintuitive and
uninspiring. Houdini looks interesting but I'm wary of jumping on something
that I'll never get to use. Unlike many of you here, I am in a small market so
there aren't many 3D jobs to go around.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Simon Reeves <[email protected]> wrote:
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]> 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 ReevesLondon, UK
[email protected]
www.simonreeves.comwww.analogstudio.co.uk
--
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and
let them flee like the dogs they are!
