I agree Tim.
When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it
is exactly that. In every nook and cranny you'll find
programming interfaces that allow you to use VEX and Python to
help package your project for a wealth of purposes. As Jordi
says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything else.
But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the
Modo forums helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their
tentative steps. There are a group of artists there that have no
intention of learning VEX (or Python for that matter), they're
primarily using Houdini for good old fashioned modeling, scene
layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The reason why is
simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini Indie's
pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling
improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus)
have been enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's
more esoteric ways. And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi
who specifically puts tutorials together for hobbyists telling
them they can ignore all that nasty VEX stuff! :)
From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be
interesting to see how this the influx of very non-technical
artists influences SideFX over the next year or so. They may
recoil in horror or they may find ways of accommodating them
without destroying the user experience for the vast majority of
houdini users - technical artists.
Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and
rendering workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over
time I hope that artists explore Houdini's technical side as it
offers so many rewards.
On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:
I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini
was on par with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering.
The reality is some of the assets you can make with Houdini,
with very minimal scripting, can be far more complex and
superior than what you can make with other applications. In
fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya
would involve far more scripting and technical know how than
the Houdini workflow. Of course 'Horses-for-courses' as the
British like to say, if your talking about modelling
high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better
choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D
as a single software process anymore. I'll use the best
software to get the best results out, what ever that is.
Cheers,
Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
on behalf of Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain <[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
*Sent:* 14 April 2017 22:52
*To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/xsi_list>
*Subject:* Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files
I've posted useful?
textcoding will cost money to our clients:
it's time consuming, and
not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and
cinematic workflow:
- i really mean by this that, so much time and energy you
spend in controling your workflow with textcoding,
the less time you can possibly have to think about the
image workflow and plasticity.
this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the
visual repetitions
back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and
expressions, but your artistic
attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.
i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer
from a different angle.
as an artist this seems so evident though..
2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>:
I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already,
conditionals and flow control is often easier to ‘read’
in text form than it is in a node graph.
Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D
Happy weekend.
Andy
On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S
<[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>>
wrote:
Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text
editors by now?
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to
[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to
[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to
[email protected]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>
with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
