[Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?

Jordi Bares Dominguez jordibares at gmail.com
Tue May 12 14:00:42 EDT 2015


I think we should argue the two variants we encounter

- Procedural modelling tasks : nodes, for sure (booleans, architecture stuff, etc…)

- Normal modelling tasks (which is 90% of the cases) : it has to be one too, it is a destructive process by nature and thus trying to shoehorne it onto a procedural paradigm gives you a very cumbersome workflow.


If you try to build it all with very granular tools we will end up in the same situation we are in, almost nobody uses it.

jb


> On 12 May 2015, at 10:49, Andy Nicholas <andy at andynicholas.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> The thing is, individual SOPs are great, and yes, we should definitely have that list that Srecko put down, but the fact is that to (non-procedural) modellers, having to put down SOPs, create groups, attributes, etc. breaks the modelling workflow and can quickly kill a moment of inspiration while they look up VEX syntax for the umpteenth time ;)
> 
> So yes, I’d say that an uber editing SOP is still very much necessary. Maybe it has a button which says “Make SOP network” to automatically creates a network based on what you’ve just done. That would be awesome, although it would be a tough challenge for SideFX to define the heuristics of how it would do that.
> 
> 
>> If one wants an UBER modeling node it's easy enough to just create an OTL
>> yourself :)
> 
> 
> Hehe! Careful, someone might think you’re being serious ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 May 2015, at 07:40, Ron Schab <ron.schab at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed with most of above.
>> 
>> If one wants an UBER modeling node it's easy enough to just create an OTL
>> yourself :)
>> 
>> I actually love the procedural node trees.  It it one of the many reasons I
>> prefer Houdini.
>> 
>> The cookie-SOP highly depends on mesh resolution amongst other things that
>> i.e. Cinema doesn't needs in order to work.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> beers
>> Ron
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Srecko Micic <srecko.micic at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not see much benefits of Uber tool, at least if it works like Edit
>>> Node in 3dsMax. I like to be able to go back and tweak nodes later,or
>>> combine them in one tool,  that is why I love Houdini :D
>>> 
>>> What I would like to have is more and better implemented (with more
>>> options) SOPs.
>>> - For example better Bevel sop that works like Cinema4D.
>>> - Slide edge/vertices along edge, surface ....
>>> - Snapping on object surface not just vertices - Retopology
>>> - Poly bridge.
>>> - Boolean improved, I find this rarely works, but I think it is important
>>> for Houdini to have this implemented as better as possible.
>>> - More curve options (easy to round corners, offset, combine them etc),
>>> add splines as in 3dsMax, this is also important for Houdini because of
>>> it’s procedural approach.
>>> - Something like Backdrop in Modo, much easier to work with reference
>>> images than what we have now (transparent, overlay, easy to scale, rotate,
>>> translate).
>>> - More NURBS tools.
>>> - Matcaps implemented
>>> - Enhance DXF and EPS/AI importers
>>> - Small modelling helpers, like make circle from selected faces etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Srecko Micic
>>> 3D Generalist
>>> -------------------------------------------
>>> Skype: srecko.micic
>>> Email: srecko.micic at gmail.com
>>> http://sreckom.webworkman.com
>>> 
>>>> On May 12, 2015, at 15:22, Jordan Walsh <jordan.h.walsh at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It would be really nice to have an UBER modeling node like an edit node
>>> but
>>>> with all the modeing tools built in, like divide, add, extrude etc for
>>>> organic modeling and also keeping the tools in their normal node for for
>>>> procedural setups.
>>>> A node that has the same functionality as 3dsMax's Edit Poly modifier
>>> would
>>>> be awesome. It is a massive pain to have a giant string of nodes for some
>>>> modelling tasks.
>>>> 
>>>> Jordan
>>>> 
>>>> PS, I do love using an Add SOP to remove prims ;)
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 1:05 PM, François Duchesneau <sidefx at trinix.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I wonder if the goal here is not to be able to set absolute value in a
>>> non
>>>>> procedural way. My understanding is while you're editing your points
>>>>> sometimes you want to say the selected ones go to 10 in Y and then the
>>> next
>>>>> selection go 5 in X, in architecture modeling for example.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The last thing you want is have an AttribWrangle and then conntinue your
>>>>> editing with another Edit Sop. If the Edit Sop had a toggle for World
>>> Space
>>>>> editing then you could use switch from one style to the other for the
>>>>> following operation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> Francois
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, if you want something as specific as setting the x component of
>>> the
>>>>>> P attribute to 10, it doesn't seem like a giant leap to say @P.x = 10;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
>> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list
> Sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
> https://lists.sidefx.com:443/mailman/listinfo/sidefx-houdini-list




More information about the Sidefx-houdini-list mailing list