> On this I believe you are way too close to Softimage because it is not > trivial either to follow a complex scene, > or a character? not saying it is not easier (it is) but it is not trivial > either.
I disagree. A graph can be traversed and relevant nodes displayed in a view. Softimage, Maya, Max, are all node graphs under the hood, but the data views such as the schematic merely display subsets of the nodes which contain certain characteristics (parent/child relationship). Houdini has parent/child relationships too, but there isn't a convenient place where they are displayed in isolation of other properties of the scene. Tools could be written to traverse and display only the nodes which define a parent/child relationship. This is, in my opinion, a low hanging fruit that could be addressed. >> As for networks and subnetworks. Great, you have a system. Most people do >> not, >> or if they do, it will not be the same system as yours. THAT is the >> point. > > > Same as with Passes, Partitions, Groups, Overrides and Layers in > Softimage? > we build a consensus on how to use it (everything on the BG partition > hidden > for example) and even tools to move things to the right partitions based > on > one acting as template, etc.. Not quite the same thing. With passes, partitions, groups, etc.. Softimage defines the structure and users merely label the parts in some way that is intuitive to them. Partitions can only appear inside of passes, overrides always appear immediately below the partition or object which it overrides, and so forth. In Houdini, the networks are much more arbitrary. The user does more than label things. They also define structure of the assets. The user can impose self restraint and stick to a naming scheme, template for arranging elements in the network view, etc.., but there is no consistent structure which all users will see uniformly imposed by Houdini in the manner you see with Softimage. This can be disorienting to the non-technical user as the data and presentation can be radically different. > It is strange because it is precisely the very sophisticated HDAs system > that allows > Houdini to scale teams massively while keeping complexity under control. > > A good example; You're comparing apples to oranges here. The point is to get an intuitive understanding of the data you're working with. You're talking about something completely different. Matt Message: 1 Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 10:16:35 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordiba...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List. On 14 May 2018, at 00:01, Matt Lind <speye...@hotmail.com> wrote: you're dissecting things at a more granular level than is intended, and as a result you're losing sight of the overall discussion. a new user coming into Houdini doesn't have that historical background, nor does he/she care. He only sees a lot of special case tools that require inside knowledge to understand and use. That is the immediate point of frustration that isn't resolved well with documentation, and in many cases, not even discussed at all. This is one deterrent from adopting Houdini from the generalist's perspective. You are right this could bring a lot of entry level comfort and easier transition. May comment it with the guys at SideFX. Houdini doesn't have good tools for dealing with the macro view of a scene for the generalist. When you open a scene you're not familiar with, or one you haven't opened in a very long time, you want to get a general overview of it's structure in a few seconds. That is the purpose of mentioning the schematic view as it provides that overview at a glance. Does it tell you everything? No, of course not, but it doesn't have to either. It does tell you the links between nodes such as who is constrained to whom, where the envelopes reside, which nodes have shapes/lattices/etc. and very importantly ? hierarchical relationships to understand how rigs are put together. Again, we're talking about the big picture. Explorer??? that?s for micro-level work when you want the dirty details on an object. On this I believe you are way too close to Softimage because it is not trivial either to follow a complex scene, or a character? not saying it is not easier (it is) but it is not trivial either. It's not good for the broader picture as you have to spending a lot of time clicking on nested node after node until you find what you're looking for, and even then there's often a lot more information displayed than you need leading to excessive noise. That's exactly the same problem with ICE compounds as digging into nested compound after nested compound you begin to lose sight over the bigger picture you're trying to grasp. This isn't a discussion about which is more powerful, it's about presenting information that is better suited for high level working for the non-technical user. Indeed this is a byproduct of a node approach, hence my personal preference for VEX Wrangles instead of VOPs (no wire, fully defined in one single node under the SOPs roof) As for networks and subnetworks. Great, you have a system. Most people do not, or if they do, it will not be the same system as yours. THAT is the point. Same as with Passes, Partitions, Groups, Overrides and Layers in Softimage? we build a consensus on how to use it (everything on the BG partition hidden for example) and even tools to move things to the right partitions based on one acting as template, etc.. I'm not suggesting Houdini be rebuilt from the ground up. I'm highlighting sticking points between it's current state and why more generalists don't adopt it. When you get into a larger production pipeline, as much as you need the low level power Houdini provides with assets and such, there is just as much need at the opposite end of the spectrum with getting users into the pipeline to do work. It is strange because it is precisely the very sophisticated HDAs system that allows Houdini to scale teams massively while keeping complexity under control. A good example; I am developing a character, export the asset to disk and animators start to use it. They discover a problem with one control? I pick the asset, fix it and export the same version These users (let?s say rather than 1 there are 20 animators) get the asset WHILE THEY ARE WORKING, without interruption. No scripts, not nothing.. bang. Imagine the change is enormous, just add a version and they can choose the version they want to use? again, all dynamically. Now scale this to everything is an asset where the city buildings are all being modelled live, the cars rigged, the characters updated? and you have to do NOTHING to get the latest and greatest version. And now go further assets contain assets that contain assets, all versioned based where. City v1.0 contains BuildingA v1, BuildingB v1 and BuildingC v1 City v2.0 contains BuildingA v2 and , BuildingB v1 and BuildingC v1 And those buildings indeed contain the windows as assets, the doors, the roof furniture? all versioned of course You get it? no pipeline required, no scripts, no nothing. Very very quickly you can see that may be, just may be, having the best f-curve editor is not even important in the big scheme of things. cheers Jb ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
