[Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?

jim at rutherfordfx.com jim at rutherfordfx.com
Wed May 13 14:07:49 EDT 2015


alot of the houdini modeling tutorials I've seen always seem to play up
the procedural stuff...loading in tons of flexibility and it always
seems to lead to building an asset with unlimited flexibility.  All
great and powerful and shows off Houdini but I've seen my own students
have their eyes completely glaze over....  I guess there needs to be
more ...here this is how to model a dog...just a dalmation...not create
an asset that makes 20 breeds...



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?
From: Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 10:03 am
To: sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com

Where procedural modeling is advantageous the current tools are good,
but
it comes at the expense of productivity for unique one off forms.

as a cheesy analogy i feel like houdini requires me to design a massive
injection molding factory when all i want to do is run some MDF through
a
band saw.
There are circumstances where either approach is appropriate, but
currently
the latter is not even being pursued, I see this as a massive weakness.

Im just an individual using the indie product in my spare time, so my
views
may differ from the target market.
I figure i should mention them on the off chance that others share my
view.

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:10 PM, <jim at rutherfordfx.com> wrote:

> Honestly..I model everything in Houdini and much prefer it to
> Maya...Sure I'll use modo when I just want to bash something out
> quickly...I don't get the bad rap people give Houdini over
> modeling...modeling in softimage annoyed the crap out of me but maybe I
> didn't give it a chance.
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Sidefx-houdini-list] houdini modeling?
> From: Sam Cuttriss <teanau at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, May 12, 2015 5:20 pm
> To: sidefx-houdini-list at sidefx.com
>
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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