[Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?

Sam Cuttriss teanau at gmail.com
Tue May 12 19:18:37 EDT 2015


Sure maintaining proceduralism would be incredible. But if it adds a single
click to a modeling operation  I'm afraid it would need to be abandoned (
in this rapid modeling sandbox scenario )

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Sam Swift-Glasman <glassman3d at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think it could  be argued that the edit sop is fairly black-box already?
>
> Why not take this further and give modelers the tools that they need whilst
> still having access to other sops down the line
> Maybe also if it can done efficiently, why not include a history of edits
> to give the procedural purist access to every stroke if they so desire
>
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, im looking for a very fast/ very stupid sandbox to model without the
> > benefits / burden of proceduralism.
> > I want the sandbox to prioritise efficiency and ergonomics, reducing
> clicks
> > to the absolute minimum, eliminating workflow dependence upon commands /
> > attribute wrangling /
> > I would even prefer primary interactive properties to be represented in
> the
> > viewport at the site the modification will manifest using context
> sensitive
> > handles / parameters whenever possible.
> > Multiple sticky keys acting simultaneously were very successfully
> > implemented in softimage reducing what could be 10 or more sequential
> steps
> > to a couple of modified mouse clicks.
> >
> > I realise what im asking for is !Houdini
> > and i recognise the output geometry of such an arrangement would probably
> > eliminate any procedural modification opportunities.
> >
> > but im more than willing to give that up to model quickly and
> expressively.
> >
> > besides, it seems like a great opportunity to capture the hearts and
> minds
> > of autodesk refugees.
> > _sam
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jordi Bares Dominguez <
> > jordibares at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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