Thanks Jordi. Well, like I said - I will have to dive in to Houdini at some point I guess :)
I would love a Soft2Houdini crash course :) MB > Den 4. maj 2018 klokken 20:22 skrev Jordi Bares <[email protected]>: > > > For the sake of sharing my experiences... > > > On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here. > > > > It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them > > more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais > > Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of > > better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a > > degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all > > > Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0 or > the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things are > simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things > without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for > example custom controls with DOPs records and others) > > Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has > > gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires > > a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more > > than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done. > > > The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in > softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can choose > between learning simple expressions or learning to program. > > Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry, vectors > and matrices. > > I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased > > demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools, > > > I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed primitives > allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in combination with > Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are difficult of full of > moving parts. > > but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to > > use. > > > I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in Houdini > 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools… but it is > also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter what. > > Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff > > accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were > > made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a > > good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down > > to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them > > on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they > > try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential > > for increasing it. > > > With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long > time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so many > things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are not > possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain limitations. > Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making your live eraser > in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you are doing. > > But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier and > element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN FACT. > > What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for > > practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into > > it for real yet. > > > May be that is what makes you feel it is complex... > > I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC which > > is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the users, > > so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably many > > others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if it > > was made even easier to use :) > > > Agreed, there are many things that should be a lot easier because you do them > all the time (like path deform for example, or layering animation, or having > a shape manager and others) but don’t be mistaken, it is not difficult at all > until you need to dive in certain areas. > > And that would mean I would get to spend less time in Maya which honestly > > makes me short of breath to the point of needing to vomit, almost every day. > > > Well, then I can guarantee you you will age slower. ;-) > > Peace and have a great weekend. > jb > > PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX > to organise a crash course in Houdini for Softimage users? May be replicating > one of the old XSI tutorials live in Houdini??? I still love those tutorials… > remember the carnivore plant? > > > Just my two kr (the coin we use here) > > > > Have a nice weekend all – Morten > > > > Den 3. maj 2018 klokken 19:17 skrev Jordi Bares <[email protected]>: > > > > And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement > > for Softimage. > > > > This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… > > > > jb > > > > ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to > > [email protected] with “unsubscribe” in the subject, > > and reply to confirm. > > > > ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to > > [email protected] with “unsubscribe” in the subject, > > and reply to confirm. > > > > > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with > "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to [email protected] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
