[Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?

Marten Blumen martyb at gmail.com
Tue May 12 20:33:36 EDT 2015


Dev's dream in code - they'd write new modelling tools in their sleep :)

On 13 May 2015 at 12:24, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:

> Yep, I understand where you're coming from. To me though it seems that
> the amount of effort required to create for what you're asking for
> would be similar to creating an entirely new modelling app. So why not
> just use another modelling app alongside Houdini, that already exists?
> :) Then SideFX can concentrate on its own unique place in the market
> rather than spending resources competing with all the many other
> options out there.
>
> On 13 May 2015 at 10:20, Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Totally valid, I may be totally out of line expecting this of houdini.
> >
> > I view modeling as the fundamental core of 3d, from which an apps
> > specialisation builds upon.
> > Without robust / efficient modeling features houdini may be limiting
> itself
> > to very large pipelines?
> > vs individuals and small shops trying to get a wide variety of tasks
> done
> > quickly.
> >
> > that may be a conscious strategic decision, but as (one of many it seems)
> > ICE savvy softimage veterans looking for a home, this is the biggest
> issue
> > i face.
> >
> > _sam
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There are plenty of other modelling apps that do a great job of
> >> destructive poly modelling, but really only one (Houdini) that does a
> >> great job of procedural modelling. Why not just let your 'black box
> >> edit SOP' be a file SOP, and continue it on in another app more suited
> >> to the job? IMO there's nothing wrong with using a mix of tools, using
> >> the best one suited to the task at hand. I'm happy to let Houdini be
> >> Houdini, and let SideFX concentrate on making awesome procedural
> >> modelling, because they're the only people who are!
> >>
> >> On 13 May 2015 at 08:48, 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
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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