Houdini : non VFX jobs?

[David Saber]

Hello

I'd like to know if Houdini is somewhere used as a generalist tool: not only simulations and FX but also modelling , texturing, , rigging, animation, lighting a scene, etc?

Is there a company that uses Houdini this way?

And if no, do you think a company will use Houdini this way someday?

Thanks

David

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Graham D. Clark]

Companies have tried this

I think CORE used it in most areas years ago

Ask sidefx, they showed me quite a few projects all houdini when I've visited

Graham D Clark

phone: why-I-stereo

http://www.imdb.me/grahamdclark

http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamclark

[Jordi Bares]

Many do although rigging+animation is not so common… yet. ;-)

Framestore Commercials (where I am based) has a lot of Houdini and pretty much all the FX, lighting and rendering backbone is Houdini.

jb

[Meng-Yang Lu]

http://jamesowen.co/

Maybe like this?  It's more motion graphics than straight up smoke machine.  But the application of the tool is pretty fun here.

-Lu

[Laurence Dodd]

Its something I've been wondering too. I have been learning Houdini for the last year or more, and I really like it, but I am concerned I'm going to spend my working days doing vfx sims, which isn't my favourite. Houdini is still very much shoved into the vfx box.

I dread the thought of being forced into Maya, stick with it and hope people start using it more generally, or start looking at C4D or something, eek.

Laurence

On 2 May 2018 at 11:56, David Saber <david...@sfr.fr> wrote:

Hello

I'd like to know if Houdini is somewhere used as a generalist tool: not only simulations and FX but also modelling , texturing, , rigging, animation, lighting a scene, etc?

Is there a company that uses Houdini this way?

And if no, do you think a company will use Houdini this way someday?

Thanks

David

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

[Jonathan Moore]

Houdini is increasingly being used by Motion Design shops too. Prime examples being ManvsMachine and Aixsponza (there are many, many more).

Outside of FX, I think Houdini is most often partnered with another DCC in the major shops. For motion design, the partner is more likely to be C4D, but shop's that output non FX based entertainment and advertising content will most often partner Houdini with Maya or 3ds Max (Max is probably most commonly partnered with Houdini in gaming and VR). There are of course exceptions to those generalisations but I think it's a fair breakdown of the major segments.

I personally don't ever see Houdini filling the Softimage void. The engineering that powers the Houdini user experience very often requires a totally different mindset for solving the same end goals. I think Houdini fills an ICE void, but the rounded user experience of Softimage is so much harder to fill.

I've come to believe that every DCC evolves the way they do in large part due to the echo chamber of their core user communities. The vast majority of Houdini users are FX TD's and they reflect back to SideFX, mirrored viewpoints of Houdini engineers. This core influence is hard to break, just look at how Maya, Max, C4D, Modo & Lightwave have 'evolved' over the last 15-20 years. They have all stayed core to their DNA, with iterative changes and little in the way of revolutionary leaps. And Houdini is no different. It's DNA can be traced all the way back to PRISMS, much like it's approach to proceduralism.

Plus I think there are parts of the Houdini community that don't want to see the user experience to become more artist friendly. If Houdini is easier to drive, they might see their hourly rates drop! ;)

On 2 May 2018 at 17:07, Laurence Dodd <laur...@porkpie.tv> wrote:

Its something I've been wondering too. I have been learning Houdini for the last year or more, and I really like it, but I am concerned I'm going to spend my working days doing vfx sims, which isn't my favourite. Houdini is still very much shoved into the vfx box.

I dread the thought of being forced into Maya, stick with it and hope people start using it more generally, or start looking at C4D or something, eek.

Laurence

On 2 May 2018 at 11:56, David Saber <david...@sfr.fr> wrote:

Hello

I'd like to know if Houdini is somewhere used as a generalist tool: not only simulations and FX but also modelling , texturing, , rigging, animation, lighting a scene, etc?

Is there a company that uses Houdini this way?

And if no, do you think a company will use Houdini this way someday?

Thanks

David

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

If anything I can guarantee you the general vibe has changed from Houdini=FX to Houdini=Anything you want except rigging because it is hard to find riggers

Ultimately is up to you, if you aim towards a particular area you will get there… simple as that.

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[phil harbath]

if it had a good auto-rigger like gear, shape animation tools, and an easy to use animation mixer I’d be all over it.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Tekano Bob]

Fairly certain that Axis Animation are primarily houdini for entire pipeline

http://www.axisanimation.com/all-jobs/houdini-generalist/

[Jordi Bares]

I personally don't ever see Houdini filling the Softimage void. The engineering that powers the Houdini user experience very often requires a totally different mindset for solving the same end goals. I think Houdini fills an ICE void, but the rounded user experience of Softimage is so much harder to fill.

I agree the elegant “no-frills" workflow in Softimage is not going to be replicated anytime soon but there have been some truly remarkable efforts to get closer while keeping Houdini true to its procedural roots (which obviously is the right thing to do)

Plus I think there are parts of the Houdini community that don't want to see the user experience to become more artist friendly. If Houdini is easier to drive, they might see their hourly rates drop! ;)

Unless there is a major breakthrough in education I doubt a 20 years experience Houdini FXTD will have his rates go down… if anything is going to be the total opposite.

My 2 cents

jb

On 2 May 2018 at 17:07, Laurence Dodd <laur...@porkpie.tv> wrote:

Its something I've been wondering too. I have been learning Houdini for the last year or more, and I really like it, but I am concerned I'm going to spend my working days doing vfx sims, which isn't my favourite. Houdini is still very much shoved into the vfx box.

I dread the thought of being forced into Maya, stick with it and hope people start using it more generally, or start looking at C4D or something, eek.

Laurence

On 2 May 2018 at 11:56, David Saber <david...@sfr.fr> wrote:

Hello

I'd like to know if Houdini is somewhere used as a generalist tool: not only simulations and FX but also modelling , texturing, , rigging, animation, lighting a scene, etc?

Is there a company that uses Houdini this way?

And if no, do you think a company will use Houdini this way someday?

Thanks

David

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

 
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Laurence Dodd]

As soon as I started looking at Maya, it just made me sad, but when I delved into Houdini i felt quite at home and it always feels like they are pushing it forward.
Also re Maya I never had that "ooh thats a good feature", but with Houdini its all the time, I just need to up my coding skills.

On 2 May 2018 at 19:23, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I personally don't ever see Houdini filling the Softimage void. The engineering that powers the Houdini user experience very often requires a totally different mindset for solving the same end goals. I think Houdini fills an ICE void, but the rounded user experience of Softimage is so much harder to fill.

I agree the elegant “no-frills" workflow in Softimage is not going to be replicated anytime soon but there have been some truly remarkable efforts to get closer while keeping Houdini true to its procedural roots (which obviously is the right thing to do)

Plus I think there are parts of the Houdini community that don't want to see the user experience to become more artist friendly. If Houdini is easier to drive, they might see their hourly rates drop! ;)

Unless there is a major breakthrough in education I doubt a 20 years experience Houdini FXTD will have his rates go down… if anything is going to be the total opposite.

My 2 cents

jb

On 2 May 2018 at 17:07, Laurence Dodd <laur...@porkpie.tv> wrote:

Its something I've been wondering too. I have been learning Houdini for the last year or more, and I really like it, but I am concerned I'm going to spend my working days doing vfx sims, which isn't my favourite. Houdini is still very much shoved into the vfx box.

I dread the thought of being forced into Maya, stick with it and hope people start using it more generally, or start looking at C4D or something, eek.

Laurence

On 2 May 2018 at 11:56, David Saber <david...@sfr.fr> wrote:

Hello

I'd like to know if Houdini is somewhere used as a generalist tool: not only simulations and FX but also modelling , texturing, , rigging, animation, lighting a scene, etc?

Is there a company that uses Houdini this way?

And if no, do you think a company will use Houdini this way someday?

Thanks

David

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

 
------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

[Jonathan Moore]

Unless there is a major breakthrough in education I doubt a 20 years experience Houdini FXTD will have his rates go down… if anything is going to be the total opposite.

We're already seeing a leveling of the playing field with junior & middleweight motion designers. A few years back a technical artist with both C4D and Houdini skills was able to command a good 25-50% premium. These days it's an expectation of any technical artist hire (that their skills cover both C4D and Houdini, and for an hourly rate equivalent to that paid to a purely C4D technical artist a few years back). But that's as much a case of Houdini education breaking free of FX focused Universities such as Bournemouth (UK). These days Houdini is included as part of the mix in some graphic and fine arts based courses such as those on offer via the various UAL institutions (University of the Arts London). Many young freelancers touting their trade to motion design shops don't see scripting or programming as a barrier to creative expression; in many cases, they see it as a useful catalyst. 

I was only joshing when I spoke about reduced hourly rates, but behind the sarcasm was a reality of technical skills in the creative marketplace. As Houdini becomes more accessible to generalists, the worth of specialists is diluted. It's just the nature of things. I'm not talking FXTD's with 20 years of experience here, but in-house creative teams at e.g the likes of Sky or the BBC, will be able to complete projects themselves, without having to rely on expensive freelance specialists. Generalist isn't a dirty word in these environments, for some businesses, good quality generalists are worth much more than specialists (not that they have the budgets to pay them more). SideFX's efforts has made Houdini more accessible to generalists to a certain degree, but the reality is that Houdin at the very least requires a programmatic mindset and ideally decent scripting skills. 

Those at the tail end of their career, that came from a pure fine arts education are at a definite disadvantage with a technical application like Houdini. 

Softimage was unique in it's ability to offer both technical and non technical artists uncompromised capabilities for creative expression. I'm not certain that another single DCC will come along that offers such uncompromised abilities to both audiences. And whilst that doesn't impact larger pipelines too much, I'm conscious that a fair number of people on this list run independent creative businesses (with 10 or less employees). In the past a single DCC such as Softimage was all that was needed to be competitive. These days I don't think a single DCC exists to cater to the generalist needs of these types of businesses. It's more a case of working out which pair of DCC's covers you best for the market your targeting. For some that decision will be based purely on native capabilities, for others plugin requirements/availability will be a core consideration too.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Angus Davidson]

Well we are currently hoping that some of our Honours or Masters game design students will take up a Houdini project. Cant wait actually ;)

--
ICT Project Manager
Digital Arts
Wits School of the Arts
angus.d...@wits.ac.za
011 717 4683

---

From: softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com [softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com] on behalf of Jordi Bares [jordi...@gmail.com]
Sent: 02 May 2018 08:23 PM

To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list

Subject: Suspected Spam:Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.

[Jordi Bares]

Well, I suspect they will have a job.. in fact.. probably a good job.

jb

This communication is intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this communication without the permission of the University. Only authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the content of this message may not be legally binding on the University and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University agrees in writing to the contrary.  ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

Is it realistic assuming anyone at all (except someone with a brain the size of a watermelon ;-) can come out of a 2 year course and command Houdini in any meaningful way? I don’t think so… let alone their art, C4D and Houdini.

In terms of market realities and "in-house teams able to compete”, I am not sure of that either… we are in times of both, commoditisation and consolidation, with big companies attracting the very finest talent to the finest projects and many agencies, production, broadcasters and others moving into the VFX arena in the hope of a slice of the money they now spend outside which ultimately will fulfil the simplest projects as scale is truly challenging and therefore expensive.

Those guys that are worth their salt will have ambitions to work with the best, and they will leave to get better project, better money and more fulfilling careers.

My 2 cents of today

jb

PS. BTW, Sky has closed their VFX unit.

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Olivier Jeannel]

For the motion work I believe Houdini is far superior to C4D. Last C4D user I talked to told me the normals aren't exposed in Maxxon's software...

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jonathan Moore]

Yet again Jordi, I think we're comparing apples with watermelon's.

You and I are members of the same private Houdini Discord server and one of the smartest individuals on that server only graduated a year or so ago (Jake Rice), and he studied motion graphics not VFX.

The core of the broadcast and advertising market is very different to the VFX market (I understand you service this segment at Framestore), in much the same way that FMX is a very different showcase to NAB; it's one of the reasons that C4D and Houdini service very different needs as much as they have commonalities in other areas. And when I speak of SKY and the BBC, I'm talking about the needs of day to day broadcast graphics for news and sport, not small scale VFX to compete with the larger shops such as SKY's failed attempts at Osterley (some very close friends lost their jobs it that fiasco).

I work with Grey Worldwide and Publicis Groupe helping them with their internal production facilities and in a completely different creative segment with Atkins, a worldwide architectural practice, who now spend nearly 70% of their visualisation budget on real-time and VR. In all three cases Houdini is part of the production pipeline, but the nature of Houdini use in those pipelines is very different to the stuff you do at Framestore.

I'm happy that SideFX have made Houdini more accessible to uses outside of typical VFX pipelines. The work of Luiz Kruel on the real-time shelf over the last 18 months has been outstanding, and I expect similar efforts with motion design over the next 18 months. But that doesn't mean that my architectural client should stop basing the core of the pipeline around Max or that my advertising clients should move from C4D for the core of their 3d output. For all Houdini's power it's fundamentally an operating system for 3d. And for generalist 3d output, Houdini use means that the proverbial wheel has to be reinvented on a daily basis if pipelines aren't staffed by expert TD 'tool makers' (as happens on typical FX pipelines). Budgets are smaller, turnaround times are equally smaller, but client expectations are just as high. This means that more focused tools such as Max and C4D often fit the bill better. But that doesn't stop Houdini being a perfect facilitator for those occasions when Max and C4D comes up short.

My clients use Maya to a lesser extent but there are other 3d segments where Maya is a better workhorse than Houdini. 

None of this means I'm any less of a Houdini champion, it simply means that I'm not a Houdini evangelist. They're two very different things.

Equally, my tuppence worth for today. ;)

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

below

On 3 May 2018, at 15:27, Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote:

You and I are members of the same private Houdini Discord server and one of the smartest individuals on that server only graduated a year or so ago (Jake Rice), and he studied motion graphics not VFX.

This Jake Rice??

 https://www.linkedin.com/in/jake-rice-97ba25129/

The core of the broadcast and advertising market is very different to the VFX market (I understand you service this segment at Framestore),

Mmm… in what sense? Framestore is quite big and has quite a few departments tackling all aspects of post-production… I think the only thing we don’t do is architectural visualisation.

Click on the departments drop down

https://www.framestore.com/work

I'm happy that SideFX have made Houdini more accessible to uses outside of typical VFX pipelines. The work of Luiz Kruel on the real-time shelf over the last 18 months has been outstanding, and I expect similar efforts with motion design over the next 18 months. But that doesn't mean that my architectural client should stop basing the core of the pipeline around Max or that my advertising clients should move from C4D for the core of their 3d output. For all Houdini's power it's fundamentally an operating system for 3d. And for generalist 3d output, Houdini use means that the proverbial wheel has to be reinvented on a daily basis if pipelines aren't staffed by expert TD 'tool makers' (as happens on typical FX pipelines). Budgets are smaller, turnaround times are equally smaller, but client expectations are just as high. This means that more focused tools such as Max and C4D often fit the bill better. But that doesn't stop Houdini being a perfect facilitator for those occasions when Max and C4D comes up short.

My clients use Maya to a lesser extent but there are other 3d segments where Maya is a better workhorse than Houdini. 

Nobody said there is no space for anything else, simply that I doubt the rates for senior Houdini artists will go down as their expertise is essential, specially those that have been around for a while, are creative and resourceful and technically apt.

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jonathan Moore]

Why is this turning into an argument Jordi. 

I said something in jest about hourly rates, which I then reiterated was in jest, you brought VFXTD veterans of 20 yrs in to the equation. 

Everything I've written in this thread goes back to the original post about Houdini being used as a generalist tool.

I very much keep on top of what you guys are up at Framestore and have even commented on your output on this list (the Paddington M&S campaign at Xmas).

We obviously have very different views with regard to Houdini as a generalist replacement for Softimage and those different views have come up on more than one occasion on this list. But there is no doubt that at this current time, the manner in which Framestore are using Houdini as a generalist toolset is a minority use case. Ever since Softimage was EOL'ed certain voices have been predicting that Houdini would become it's natural replacement but we're a fair way down the line from when you published your excellent transition guide. A mammoth effort by anybodies standards. And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

Sure Houdini is more popular that it's ever been, mainly because of the wisdom and foresight of the Apprentice and Indie initiatives. And Houdini's made significant inroads into gaming and motion design pipelines. But even in motion design the most successful, famed and popular proponents of using Houdini for mograph - ManvsMachine and Aixponza; still rely on C4D for the majority of their output.

And finally ref Jake Rice - this is who I'm talking about:

http://jakericedesigns.com/

below

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

[Jonathan Moore]

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

A conversation best partnered with pint's of ale to fuel the conversation at some point. :)

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

On 3 May 2018, at 18:24, Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

A conversation best partnered with pint's of ale to fuel the conversation at some point. :)

Sounds like a good idea.. have you been around Chancery Lane pubs?? Fancy meeting??? It is really cool area

jb

On 3 May 2018 at 18:17, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Fabricio Chamon]

Houdini conversation with ex-soft people in a pub...sounds like a cool place to be. =)

I’m London atm (and for the next week), if anybody is keen for a beer or two...let me know

Cheers

Em sex, 4 de mai de 2018 às 09:30, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> escreveu:

On 3 May 2018, at 18:24, Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

A conversation best partnered with pint's of ale to fuel the conversation at some point. :)

Sounds like a good idea.. have you been around Chancery Lane pubs?? Fancy meeting??? It is really cool area

jb

On 3 May 2018 at 18:17, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alex Doss]

ex-soft? quite a foot on the chest man... lol

On 4 May 2018 at 14:03, Fabricio Chamon <xsim...@gmail.com> wrote:

Houdini conversation with ex-soft people in a pub...sounds like a cool place to be. =)

I’m London atm (and for the next week), if anybody is keen for a beer or two...let me know

Cheers

Em sex, 4 de mai de 2018 às 09:30, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> escreveu:

On 3 May 2018, at 18:24, Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

A conversation best partnered with pint's of ale to fuel the conversation at some point. :)

Sounds like a good idea.. have you been around Chancery Lane pubs?? Fancy meeting??? It is really cool area

jb

On 3 May 2018 at 18:17, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Alex Doss
Mobile: +31 (0) 6 5437-2515
web: www.alexdoss.com

[Jonathan Moore]

Sounds like a good idea.. have you been around Chancery Lane pubs?? Fancy meeting??? It is really cool area

I used to work just round the corner in Smithfields so I know the area reasonably well. But not likely to be in London over the next couple of weeks (live and work in Northamptonshire these days). But I'll definitely give you a ping a few weeks in advance next time I'm likely to be in London. There's a HUG (Houdini user group) in London that one of the chaps on the Discord organises. Maybe that would work? 

On 4 May 2018 at 09:30, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3 May 2018, at 18:24, Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

A conversation best partnered with pint's of ale to fuel the conversation at some point. :)

Sounds like a good idea.. have you been around Chancery Lane pubs?? Fancy meeting??? It is really cool area

jb

On 3 May 2018 at 18:17, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Morten Bartholdy]

Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.

It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all.

Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.

I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools, but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to use. Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential for increasing it.

What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into it for real yet. I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC which is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the users, so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably many others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if it was made even easier to use :)

And that would mean I would get to spend less time in Maya which honestly makes me short of breath to the point of needing to vomit, almost every day.

Just my two kr (the coin we use here)

Have a nice weekend all – Morten

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jonathan Moore]

To interject once more. I love Houdini, I love it's power and flexibility. And I find VEX & VOPs more logical and efficient than ICE.

But when I speak of Houdini not being a 'generalist' replacement for Softimage, I'd describe why, via the following catch all proposition. 

Houdini makes complex tasks relatively easy, but equally in makes simple tasks relatively complex.

3ds Max and Cinema 4d are nowhere near as powerful and flexible as Houdini, Maya or Softimage, but they succeed in making the majority of typical tasks, intuitive and artist friendly for the audiences they each cater to. Softimage was the last of it's kind. A DCC that functioned equally well at making complex tasks relatively easy and and the majority of tasks intuitive and truly artist friendly.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

For the sake of sharing my experiences...

On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy <x...@colorshopvfx.dk> wrote:

Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.

It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all

Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0 or the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things are simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for example custom controls with DOPs records and others)

Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.

The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can choose between learning simple expressions or learning to program.

Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry, vectors and matrices. 

I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools,

I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed primitives allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in combination with Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are difficult of full of moving parts.

but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to use.

I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in Houdini 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools… but it is also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter what.

Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential for increasing it.

With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so many things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are not possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain limitations. Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making your live eraser in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you are doing.

But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier and element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN FACT.

What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into it for real yet.

May be that is what makes you feel it is complex...

I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC which is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the users, so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably many others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if it was made even easier to use :)

Agreed, there are many things that should be a lot easier because you do them all the time (like path deform for example, or layering animation, or having a shape manager and others) but don’t be mistaken, it is not difficult at all until you need to dive in certain areas.

And that would mean I would get to spend less time in Maya which honestly makes me short of breath to the point of needing to vomit, almost every day.

Well, then I can guarantee you you will age slower.  ;-)

Peace and have a great weekend.

jb

PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX to organise a crash course in Houdini for Softimage users? May be replicating one of the old XSI tutorials live in Houdini??? I still love those tutorials… remember the carnivore plant?

Just my two kr (the coin we use here)

Have a nice weekend all – Morten

Den 3. maj 2018 klokken 19:17 skrev Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com>:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind…

jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Laurence Dodd]

Hi Jordi,

PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX to organise a crash course in Houdini for Softimage users? May be replicating one of the old XSI tutorials live in Houdini??? I still love those tutorials… remember the carnivore plant?

I would love to see these, thanks.

I'm pretty comfortable in Houdini, and day to day stuff is all fine, in fact I love so much about Houdini; but at the moment for me its as soon as you hit the Vex stuff I stumble, but thats my shortcoming, and its getting better, just have to knuckle down.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

[Jordi Bares]

On 5 May 2018, at 17:52, Laurence Dodd <laur...@porkpie.tv> wrote:

Hi Jordi,

PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX to organise a crash course in Houdini for Softimage users? May be replicating one of the old XSI tutorials live in Houdini??? I still love those tutorials… remember the carnivore plant?

I would love to see these, thanks.

:-).  will chat with them

I'm pretty comfortable in Houdini, and day to day stuff is all fine, in fact I love so much about Houdini; but at the moment for me its as soon as you hit the Vex stuff I stumble, but thats my shortcoming, and its getting better, just have to knuckle down.

I have seen two types of approaches, those confortable with programming go to VEX because it is so direct and compact… the others (like me) use regular SOPs and only dive to VEX when I want to avoid VOPs which are a bit too cumbersome for my own taste… VEX is so convenient…

But as you say, it is a matter of just going for it…

jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.comwith “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Laurence Dodd
Porkpie Animation

E: laur...@porkpie.tv
W: www.porkpie.tv
M: 07570 702 576
T: 01273 278 382

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Olivier Jeannel]

Funny you found vex convenient and vops cumbersome :) I'm the opposite ;)

[Jonathan Moore]

I have seen two types of approaches, those confortable with programming go to VEX because it is so direct and compact… the others (like me) use regular SOPs and only dive to VEX when I want to avoid VOPs which are a bit too cumbersome for my own taste… VEX is so convenient…

Funny you found vex convenient and vops cumbersome :) I'm the opposite ;)

Oliver, I don't think there's a right or wrong way when it comes to VEX and VOPs. I've come across quite a few ex ICE folk who find VOP's a more natural workflow. However if you did get a handle on VEX you'll find there are many situation where VEX is simpler in terms of the effort involved. The side benefit of VEX's efficiency is that it can provide more clarity as most general VEX tasks only require a few lines of code.

I'm sure you saw the 'Joy of Vex' when Matt Estella first launched it a few months back. A lot of artists in the Houdini community seem to have found this series of short tutorials really useful for getting a foundation knowledge of VEX. If nothing more, it provides insights into those times where VEX may provide a path of least resistance, rather than seeing VEX as a replacement to VOP's. Give it a try, Matt's certainly got a knack for teaching this stuff in a natural, common sense manner.

http://www.tokeru.com/cgwiki/index.php?title=JoyOfVex

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Morten Bartholdy]

Thanks Jordi. Well, like I said – I will have to dive in to Houdini at some point I guess :)

I would love a Soft2Houdini crash course :)

MB

Den 4. maj 2018 klokken 20:22 skrev Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com>:

For the sake of sharing my experiences…

On 4 May 2018, at 14:24, Morten Bartholdy <x...@colorshopvfx.dk> wrote:

Pardon me for intruding, but I have to agree with Jonathan here.

It used to be that developers worked to make better tools and make them more accessible to the average artist (and I am not talking about Kais Powertools ;), but that path seems to have been abandoned in the pursuit of better and more advanced tools, and letting it up to the users to get a degree in rocket science to be able to wield said tools at all

Tools are getting easier (just look at the new hair system in 16.5 vs 16.0 or the new MAT context in order to blend BRDFs properly), complex things are simply complex (DOPs for example) and you can’t simplify certain things without loosing the whole point or it will take a lot to get there (for example custom controls with DOPs records and others)

Houdini is probably the best example of this. I know a lot of effort has gone in to making it more accessible, but to my knowledge it still requires a fair amount of insight into expression syntax and scripting plus more than basic math end vector knowhow to get even simple things done.

The fact you can add expressions in your fields (something you can’t do in softimage) means you don’t need to script as much… so arguably you can choose between learning simple expressions or learning to program.

Both require a certain level of simple maths involving trigonometry, vectors and matrices.

I understand your position (stated in earlier threads) that the increased demands on production requires more complex solutions/tools,

I would say sophisticated rather than complex… for example packed primitives allow you to do things that are truly mind-bending in combination with Material Style Sheets, but that does not mean they are difficult of full of moving parts.

but I don't buy the premise that it also has(!) to become more difficult to use.

I don’t think that either.. a good example of sophisticated tools in Houdini 16 and 16.5 that are a pleasure to work are the new terrain tools… but it is also true that unfortunately some problems are complex no matter what.

Good UI devs could alleviate that and make even really complex stuff accessible to the least technical artist in the room if ressources were made available, ie the management and dev team leads concur it would be a good idea. I am going out on a limb and guessing it might often come down to this – spend ressources on making the tool more accessible or spend them on making more and better tools… In reality I think in all fairness they try and balance it while keeping a keen eye on their userbase and potential for increasing it.

With the UI and UX there is a major point Jeff Wagner explained to me long time ago… Houdini is non-linear (branches splitting and mixing again) so many things there can be easily put on a linear system (like Softimage) are not possible in Houdini and therefore we have to accept certain limitations. Exactly the same than ICE, you don’t have many tools making your live eraser in terms of workflow inside ICE, you need to know what you are doing.

But it is true also that Softimage vision of ICE is a lot neater, easier and element in terms of packaging functionality in ICE… A LOT BETTER IN FACT.

What remains is that people like me find Houdini way too technical for practical use (the steep learning curve) and as such I have not delved into it for real yet.

May be that is what makes you feel it is complex…

I will for sure, because I think it is probably the only major 3D DCC which is really evolving and making groundbreaking tools available to the users, so it will very likely inherit the world, but for me, and probably many others, as Jonathan probably indicates, it would do so much faster if it was made even easier to use :)

Agreed, there are many things that should be a lot easier because you do them all the time (like path deform for example, or layering animation, or having a shape manager and others) but don’t be mistaken, it is not difficult at all until you need to dive in certain areas.

And that would mean I would get to spend less time in Maya which honestly makes me short of breath to the point of needing to vomit, almost every day.

Well, then I can guarantee you you will age slower. ;-)

Peace and have a great weekend. jb

PS. I am thinking… would it be of interest for you guys if I talk to SideFX to organise a crash course in Houdini for Softimage users? May be replicating one of the old XSI tutorials live in Houdini??? I still love those tutorials… remember the carnivore plant?

Just my two kr (the coin we use here)

Have a nice weekend all – Morten

Den 3. maj 2018 klokken 19:17 skrev Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com>:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind…

jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Matt Morris]

I'd certainly be down for that too :)

Hacked my way through Houdini for a volume job recently and while there's a wealth of information out there its sometimes difficult to know the optimal way to achieve something, and find up to date solutions for the mat context instead of shops for example. Ended up back in xsi for some particle behaviours as there are so many compounds I miss for randomization etc.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

www.matinai.com

[Jordi Bares]

On 8 May 2018, at 08:34, Matt Morris <mat...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd certainly be down for that too :)

Hacked my way through Houdini for a volume job recently and while there's a wealth of information out there its sometimes difficult to know the optimal way to achieve something, and find up to date solutions for the mat context instead of shops for example. Ended up back in xsi for some particle behaviours as there are so many compounds I miss for randomization etc.

"Optimal way" is an elusive thing.. I keep learning new approaches for things I learned and now are kind of lame… (for example the constant adding colours to apply effects and then rename them or worse, remove the color afterwards… I do it now via attributes and visualisers and it is a lot more elegant)

And yes, I am not using SHOPs anymore (unless I am using Arnold)… MATs is the way forward and quite exciting when you realise what is in front of you.

Anyway, it is something of an ever evolving task…

Jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jonathan Moore]

MAT's are the way forward for Mantra, but SHOP's is still better with many 3rd party renderers such as Redshift and Arnold. Redshift works with the MATs contexts but it's can get tricky with more complex projects. There are even shops like Animal Logic that have stayed with SHOP's for the time being as there are issues that affect their particular pipeline. On that basis I don't consider it a bad thing to use this time to learn MATs but still use SHOPs in production. It's highly likely that H17 will push the MATs workflow forward in new directions, so getting a handle on it now will be time well spent.

In terms of up to date learning materials, all of the http://www.appliedhoudini.com/ stuff is bang on the money, and Steven Knipping is amongst the best in terms of teaching the why as well as the how.  His prices are very reasonable considering the quality of the training.

https://rebelway.net/ is another very good option. It's more expensive than the Applied Houdini stuff as it's involves weekly mentoring and feedback. Having said it's expensive, they have a couple of reasonably priced foundation courses starting in June. Saber & Igor really know their onions and have been training professionally onsite for a number of years so I think the prices are reasonable for the calabre of the training.

Adam Swaab has a range of training products on the market that're very reasonably priced but Adam's stuff is very much entry level. https://helloluxx.com/product/houdini-jumpstart-bundle-adam-swaab/ is his most basic stuff (the first few volumes are a little dated but it's still useful content). The https://www.learnsquared.com/courses/houdini-particles content is a more contemporary and notches up to fairly advaced content (I've linked to his more advanced particles course, but he has foundation content too). Unfortunately his most advanced course is already fully booked, but it's worth keeping an eye on all the CGSociety courses as they're run in a similar manner to the Rebelway stuff- http://www.cgsociety.org/training/course/abstract-effects-in-houdini . 

As much as there's a ton of great free training out there and SideFX have been exemplary in the manner that they categorise and filter all this training content on their website. The paid stuff I've linked to here is in a different league to the typical Lynda and Pluralsight content. You'll find more advanced subject matter at entagma.com but the good paid stuff is better structured for the needs of typical production projects.

Having rubbised Pluralsigt, there's one course that's worth taking if pick up one of those 3 months free offers that're floating around (by signing up for a free Visual Studio account here: https://my.visualstudio.com )  - https://www.pluralsight.com/courses/houdini-practical-math-tips -. Even if you already have a good handle on pertinent math subjects from working with ICE, this course is great for learning how to apply that knowledge in Houdini. And a refresher on pertinent vector, trig and algebra is never a bad thing. :)

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

www.matinai.com

------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Pierre Schiller]

I'm so interested in getting to know a SI-HU crossover course.

------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

Indeed there is so much good training nowadays it is amazing…

And yes, the AppliedHoudini is super good.

jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.comwith “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

www.matinai.com

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Matt Morris]

Thanks for the recommendations Jon, much appreciated. I'll go through Jordi's guides again and the cgwiki stuff, and then hopefully will feel like I know enough of the basics to make the more in-depth tutorials worthwhile. A maths refresher is a very good idea as well.

--

www.matinai.com

[Jordi Bares]

For maths have a look at this...

http://www.ilectureonline.com/lectures/subject/MATH

Start with Algebra to go through the steps of all things you know but probably are rusty, then move to linear algebra, that is pretty much all you need.

If you happen to be eager to move further, then go into calculus and differential eq. as some of the very cool stuff some Houdini artists do is because they know this… which happens to be a bit harder.

Enjoy

jb

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[David Saber]

Thanks a lot for the answers and testimonials , they'll come in handy.

I still use XSI and more and more Maya. I would have gone at top speed with Houdini if there was some jobs but here in France there is absolutely NO Houdini jobs. I guess all Houdini jobs are in the UK right?

So in my spare time I'm learning Houdini… just in case. There are many things I like with Hou but globally the workflow is a bit alien to me.

I purchased some of Rohan Dalvi's tutorials. The one I'm following now is the rocket ship : https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_141986424&d=DwID-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=wocXfs-0FToIcmkYvAMVju9h5If2iF4hNr38EyHFgsw&s=utEfA5UTDe68AgzmsoSAgvZ3jT6MUCUkjyNQ2jQzeg8&e= . I enjoy Rohan's videos, but I'm not so found of procedural modelling. To create the rocket ship's door, a dozen nodes are needed… All working with some kind of curves (carve nodes) to draw the shape of the door, then delete nodes to cut out the volume. Like some kind of nurbs boolean workflow. Everything is done in the network editor and I don't find this workflow funny. So of course the beauty of this kind of work is that you can go back to the first node (in a tree so high it's scary) and if you modify it, all the subsequent nodes will evolve accordingly. And when the ship will be shape-animated everything will follow nicely. But the same could be achieved with non procedural modelling , not?

The learning links posted here are all about procedural modelling and particles.

I remember when I first learned Softimage 3D, I got on some CD the Chinny tutorials where he was modelling a scorpion, then rigging it, then animating it. Anyone remembers this? I must have kept this CD somewhere. This tut was simple, fun and quick to learn. It taught me where tools where and the general logic of the app. I would love to have the same kind of tutorial with Houdini: something simple at first, helping you to create and animate a character. I don't think modelling a character would rely that much on procedural modelling, and in Houdini, traditional modelling tools à la XSI are available. (But it seems no Houdini trainer is interested in showing them in action. Why not showing these tools? Are they "not complex enough"?) Then after the simple stuff, the tutorial would add some more complex things. I think it would be much more fun that way.

And I think most 3d artist would enjoy working with a fun to use app while keeping its procedural and non linear power. If Houdini could evolve towards a better artist friendly mindset (like Soft 3d and XSI) , it could make a much needed breakthrough over Maya, Max, C4D, Modo, etc.

Good day, David

[Mirko Jankovic]

As you mentioned simple starting tutorials I figured as well that one of the problems with people moving from Softimage to Houdini, probably is similar to my probem as well.

You go from 10+ years of Softimage thinking oh I have some experience I mean how hard can it be, dig into Houdini expecting to create same level complex stuff right away.. and then hitting a wall. But the truth is that Houdini dies have rather different logic ,a bit bigger turn around and that should be starting actually from boxes, spheres moving them and then evolving.. well same way we learned SI or Maya when we started back then. At least till logic is picked up and automated in muscle memory.

Wondering if anyone else thinks similar or it is just me doing it wrong way around  :)

--

Mirko Jankovic

http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic

Need to find freelancers fast?

www.cgfolio.com

Need some help with rendering an Redshift project?

http://www.gpuoven.com/

[Jordi Bares]

Same here, every time I move to a new package (Massive, Maya, Houdini, Modo, etc...) I feel crippled… my approach is to just do it… go for it on a real life project and with a bit of time and in the end is not that bad.

But it is true that you will be using Houdini as if it was Maya or Softimage for a while (thinking in terms of object hierarchies for example) but after a while you get the trick of the application and how to really squeeze the most out of it which means do it the Houdini way. Not weird, just different.

A good example is.. 

1) you can choose to import alembic files with the high res geometry in…

or

2) import just a few points (one for each object transformation) and attach the geometry (dynamically) to those points… 

The first is direct and very much Softimage-like and “makes sense”. The second will look unnecessary for a period… but later you will come full circle and understand that the Houdini way has a lot of benefits, for example it will update _a lot_ faster, you will be able to update dynamically the resolution based on camera position, minimise IFD baking, what to load or not, etc… In the end both ways are going to give you the pixels you are after but one opens the door to a completely new world (2) and once you get into it you will be able to scale the projects to a point you have never been able to with (1).

Jb

------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Olivier Jeannel]

Eeeer actually there are a lot of guys working on H in Paris. Checkout some french Houdini discord  https://discordapp.com/channels/236444656005545984/302095531768020992

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Mirko Jankovic

http://www.cgfolio.com/mirko-jankovic

Need to find freelancers fast?

www.cgfolio.com

Need some help with rendering an Redshift project?

http://www.gpuoven.com/

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[David Saber]

Hi Olivier, thanks for the tip! I'm new to Discord, is this a server invite link? It does nothing in my browser (I also have the Windows app installed). Thanks.

David

On 2018-05-09 13:01, Olivier Jeannel wrote:

Eeeer actually there are a lot of guys working on H in Paris. Checkout some french Houdini discord https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__discordapp.com_channels_236444656005545984_302095531768020992&d=DwIF-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=QUaagVjK1vIrJjekkbSMO3iOIuB-lRvziWvTWuQrVJ4&s=EYWKt1kqJUoaHdZetA_-vv54w2aBg02wkhjdxS8pbsU&e= <https://u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6mg4oLGBuQENbeDkYXezg3m6vjHxJcC6rUMd8QE2Mtqz8La5pE2ZQ-2F6ie-2BZjGbIj6HlYFvPpZ3hyiAp7QrpJ3-2FIUnm-2FR2WqO69o1-2Beu9U0ZYgCS-2FlmnBU-2FpWHw-2Bp4WgyqZD8esrp7yLKWGxVE2iPOsaMQ2J4ajLAP8ePZkFev6lmlEU-2B9yPtnS8bHR3QsbNS9sPYa63v1-2FxilHalsS4fRfo9b7pcFjujKXq6B7oEvxqNGNBMgH8ZwfeA-2F1qW7vTxFLtsYVdU9kqlb7p7AdI1fxty4mNkTRW6VnbEE1Wjy7XLTMKYRtsVjh-2FAJ-2Bq0lKrQ8tE0EXgUmYL-2FdWnsx5FQ-2FLtXMJWj6F5ibB9pe8T6mb-2BsohNYL6n8nlHE5-2F5mBg3WQW4KRTt-2FTHUGxfIpTUihvKI-3D_1RXb6-2BUkKyan7iHlFI-2FldfmXWA-2BT-2FvzqDoLMxL3pWx3xvDz4ZxkapNK-2FNcECOn8B9j4NNsqytrtHbjUJ0LJZlct7bov6y3-2BZnBtjhgunxh2WH-2FTRxFCK3h0R-2BqQwCuqxg5Ji3-2F6Hv8JBneeROhKgiCjrU8wKx8a-2BmUVos7ufFY3ycKfQI-2B-2FrUNWY4W7X6qP9R-2Bm5SUH87pBkqnebUfAHWA-3D-3D>

2018-05-09 12:27 GMT+02:00 Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com <jordi...@gmail.com>>:

On 9 May 2018, at 10:55, Mirko Jankovic <mirkoj....@gmail.com <mirkoj....@gmail.com>> wrote:

As you mentioned simple starting tutorials I figured as well that one of the problems with people moving from Softimage to Houdini, probably is similar to my probem as well. You go from 10+ years of Softimage thinking oh I have some experience I mean how hard can it be, dig into Houdini expecting to create same level complex stuff right away.. and then hitting a wall. But the truth is that Houdini dies have rather different logic ,a bit bigger turn around and that should be starting actually from boxes, spheres moving them and then evolving.. well same way we learned SI or Maya when we started back then. At least till logic is picked up and automated in muscle memory. Wondering if anyone else thinks similar or it is just me doing it wrong way around :)

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:32 AM David Saber <david...@sfr.fr <david...@sfr.fr>> wrote:

Thanks a lot for the answers and testimonials , they'll come
in handy.

I still use XSI and more and more Maya. I would have gone at
top speed with Houdini if there was some jobs but here in
France there is absolutely NO Houdini jobs. I guess all
Houdini jobs are in the UK right?

So in my spare time I'm learning Houdini… just in case. There
are many things I like with Hou but globally the workflow is
a bit alien to me.

I purchased some of Rohan Dalvi's tutorials. The one I'm
following now is the rocket ship :
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_141986424&d=DwID-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=wocXfs-0FToIcmkYvAMVju9h5If2iF4hNr38EyHFgsw&s=utEfA5UTDe68AgzmsoSAgvZ3jT6MUCUkjyNQ2jQzeg8&e=

<https://u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6iB4H67OtDu1LYz6krlc8-2FqBeLCXrELBQVbfMn71cNywwCM9MLKQNt6NvY2bdnUVgo3ga6X6AbaGT-2Fd7ob90wVGbm6Qf5hW0ivxnEGxvzj1nWazkybWc26Iz8UMdS25EOduMrZGHYMiH0p52YteffmKVv57WItRFMtWnC4QAfwOYbajk1lsX64i1OyE82-2FcyvBhCiOMb8X1S3S2TSRGCLuSulouuvRcjqDtbva4xfpliTgylIccZlZJ02Q9tr0hYLq14lW9HnjqWPdSbSKK9yMTZHnhi-2FzVSNyDVLcRqUnMtzKuGeYRcF-2BkbeHSlgdgIwcJOmlrl8QnzDWGUwWuvRf7d67A67wBQkohe7SbEvJuP1rJKF5vVxFGYICAN8-2F8LUkZZ5sufqJeSfGgPGgCXNUaZsuu1RYotHA4Kf50DGn3-2BV3EZp-2BWAX08KXPLKQrosY-2BssY3y6AuTxBN4WTkZrLnSOwWLBCOi8-2BkrBAA2nBKwMmhsXbTQjyGPO-2B-2FPy1-2B0Na7kimfJxQkm06ha-2B6mvoTWxZdSaADU5HUgwoVuYGzW7xWc7lTmnakt4hcnelVjD8sHkKAhaYrPNYyaserJhWjd6EhzDf2QPzCexsCyezaFCsE3C-2Bwah7RbMJ2Wl8uOSA9VSahWfSJrkqjTilfMuGtBuMACqQeHg5rl7s2JTeUgWy8RUYCqgyIhFJycajZFs32wxu-2Bxyi4ABVCS4aTawOtM3nSK9SzwcjWGhxMXjV6sunRV3PW57aHuA0z0UCKQTWSv2cqoRa1hvl32YZrCMRSFtf-2Fv0m9-2FL0NfmANil8L99yb4oryyDYFk1ICisUqbaJExpVHpbM8Ar9aEhe00Kucs-2BjFK0yK-2BMp8qtX89trACE4g90pjJYN70FWjTVe0LHaYzPbVO-2F05ncIdHEZseTd6hok3oAW5m-2Fut4IsQ6eIcM1Myr1CZLL2Ii8-2BArMixo0iaP4jeaMSVKhSBLimrrdWd1vBc3UP3sAK3ju-2BUazKz0lCYTAMlMOFJDkYibOgdmOCqwgccIRXgTpOs-2FXWYQIYIdBTUePx44djt3XfA1avR3XidPfezSpvGMtrpI3-2FXN9Fo89mMOzP8VtoHVHty8oaiISaaUWp-2FiHhk3cXwB9V6IQxWTCWn-2BbCy19VNbx1iWqvhwaTKnzmDSewyDiSoCDGrqwvbSQPkkmR9IqOHGdf5ixq3Zx6feyAfhfBZRmhiVgGIvVJD9acABy9UcGBM40BJNLB-2FNGoZf4YFqfnGNrM411GThpduhgzd2mARoLV536ImsP1FhKCDurTB4c16x4yGe3XvqE99y3FmK3RLOFn2ufIZrqzPpfX-2BTgGl33RnhERcNabdD1rm-2FgVllZg0Za67ybguhXfA9qub6MorbPjaqZImPftbM927RsWGY49W3bwf8DeSLDPApVb3ZzcS5YsgSoGNK-2FJOgB-2B88hJYU70-2FWjQ4drCcP1biqZxQM1bOgisR0h7Qxve2LRzM01-2FEV17OzbRSnHoI9Bq4cuyKggyB5M-2B14Pgc-2BAfMqx0IOuNwx7goEdz49j29kW8dsPa6q8-2FuYL32DTLHzgNuc7i4vKbqvhZcHWxub4ZQw3LRekmGXasAxBobGC-2Bs34R-2BSOJpJsPu8iPZubRdVeuQdVXS-2Fk-2Fin1Wh-2FtLiX4R8FnXusR6EZKQnTcApqckyFpdg27LidQLPr3SDvQfpW4DQZqL52rovfWMDzSuI1EzkNDDAI4Y79kzZ7jLuNPwnI55va7tAy-2Fuw-2BboqEssLrotHKIiGEBmUBxCoeKfmKX6ZhprCVIa0YgQd5vp61Heoyr0sF8bi8xhWMwOGjoKgdyzD7cIIUSnJz7kz3cyldFnfsWSIFGsx9YlgqJUyHV7BLcN1KuOzi0wiB6yYcfpQSq3VHFWCjvknIRGKANwFpg3KkvEZ37WiH3A384CapmNLQUcF1Q4GqzqIZI5YB7D63DKwza60JsQsUzOMv2T4TZfZb5Nf0HfK9VYIyXDkDfqMnXAidV3siY3NhpGhIG4vavfSOu00NTzJWx5aM3TOcNB4O7gTnSJay-2BonOEMsUMnYWbNWewyTd6H9CIoIF5viGo1TdMoLqKazj3E6HS-2FkTSoyKGbq7HAvH0yU4i0m9Zxble0kDZRoMWFZ7dYzetqx1Y2oM8C6LxtTTMYgoSmQNaq80nxRbjYzqLAauxGNyMg6OWcvJUGRZAwNP1dOvsa8VgGIjd8Yaisg5tDyeJDGxJogy0wRMcMyaDPzaknDUczl21PA7xdWfc-2BfJgKIm7l-2Bbklx00z6UiPeWqQiizI8DWoe8J5ua7Dh3BBgdcHZ2BFwhe7VKW00-2BpAK6VdlVp4rjHwW7w3CJhLb-2FKSGYg6S-2B-2FCahuxjzjHXZZIjdHPHLlQ3Rbnhe8XUGbuHI6levCFcoV3J0JNsZcaHJesqSstgGHe3IVPOz7CRNzxh3fUfq8E8-2B64BDCF7gp11-2BM-2BmiXWEZsDu8U3OkplZhChdOmNGHWUdLcCFttRyWgaDdKmaT8Zlotq7LN2aqffs2tNeOqAaAYd44BmhBAGA8OaRgMcs2ufjHhTTnDu8NJZfwZWopNSGtfdPzHYj04rNMZ-2BlW21VoWW78fEcCAcCmfd3qQvIA16ISoBR-2BHpvaSkwmiRsT-2B-2FVfSJiPZS3Y9pdRT-2FjCMvwsh3hxJYZ4JV0-2BRQ6JGvMcLkjl2JHzQLGUjwbQexADyK6O1cdpzDYGavnf2fTkik3z89pybms3UzoQqA93nELQO51dQ-2FAApmqRJRbT6a-2BUzHJ1LVu2wYmP5NGL0FyKlsbGaWV1TpIXvu98a2bi7tOpUwWSMDtAXi35xedRDPmEWBAZMepVBBRfYaZaWZWUYbHiX5GKXsk6xxVrr8QX6p3uE66lplqFRTqukDCO-2BvbjcdSqrluimKM6aW3MuuSP2NE-2BL7otPsMKgl1jlngdRwaSgTGfrF5-2BDgUr0CRtkL6X6tWcVVOn2gcYzr-2FnYeGGPIJYPyZTsSNtXa8u4E1pqernpKJklM6bgtFsnVZjQf-2BIwMHRi4wsaFsPq3gkazt1gstZrdhGZ2vjKw5yuAPkZtUWUjyeV1feSkNVEHIHiYBtssyFml0l1ScyGYoIbcVaUSWhJYVe26f-2FGTB-2FvAtxeqojeHqtfAdHcLb06btTRSbSPRD0vzsd7edViWXGQLXfphsvGRhmN2734ephAnIMUdJoLuLyjUj22UHdPRu-2BfP-2Bw7K-2BJ8DrsKZRj0tFFW3BsUt8TIPBoG6YLPF92rF0FWVSwLlCjjk-2F7kMsVJi9N4hxVlCEcGEInjJXX0g-2FlV-2BEt2oGaWMCIQ49uMwl9PiJsCuPmpz9JzkMZI9PH8oIb-2Fjy7mlNW76I8kb8wcDOI4MBy0BwH8pxQyQlzcq-2BB0t1z1PjiomS9fR2mv1IZAvO1weMqJq1wic5g70UAGxxaNBldd6Nmj92FTtxkgBISEdWxEDl9m7FucCJE2-2BPbP1KyotonHcNdGuwx8MA1qclqMGKT7OPkW0yPDiAXIA-2Fj-2BIGqqmP4kwmml4MYrnfSzt4WbU0yJLcw-2B5p29drJriOv-2By8oikfhQykMOmElDO9dyGA7QhVZS-2FqoAjA8TeV5CJI5mGk5YNovr-2FJiE6pg4oO4F5qwVgKBmOQ8lyX0Ofc-2ByZ2vCDgs3OtyvozsFawIHQ9g-3D-3D_1RXb6-2BUkKyan7iHlFI-2FldfmXWA-2BT-2FvzqDoLMxL3pWx3xvDz4ZxkapNK-2FNcECOn8BNJbxlVMI2te5Jwc0O9fQYQW8lGvDE7fOagpLAl8i3gUnTwyf34eZCAtmgO-2FKbmm6Kuygo3RFB4IxO9Qg20M4lF3L1G0cQNJv0S-2BOlMOEN-2BUelRq8maeo1jXNsdOTrOr-2Bx1eNYiUPyBO0eUgTh14LnQ-3D-3D>
. I enjoy Rohan's videos, but I'm not so found of procedural
modelling. To create the rocket ship's door, a dozen nodes
are needed… All working with some kind of curves (carve
nodes) to draw the shape of the door, then delete nodes to
cut out the volume. Like some kind of nurbs boolean workflow.
Everything is done in the network editor and I don't find
this workflow funny. So of course the beauty of this kind of
work is that you can go back to the first node (in a tree so
high it's scary) and if you modify it, all the subsequent
nodes will evolve accordingly. And when the ship will be
shape-animated everything will follow nicely. But the same
could be achieved with non procedural modelling , not?

softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com> with
“unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

— Mirko Jankovic _https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cgfolio.com_mirko-2Djankovic&d=DwIF-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=QUaagVjK1vIrJjekkbSMO3iOIuB-lRvziWvTWuQrVJ4&s=sGChLyAIqXGRrb9DVSMihtCFTLipd96cfnY5lcLBx-o&e= <https://u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6iB4H67OtDu1LYz6krlc8-2FqBeLCXrELBQVbfMn71cNywwCM9MLKQNt6NvY2bdnUVgiRuzEw0g0OZUwVhB4KIDvkjTtq34l13Jmfjgwg01isCCK511SfOUct9zBCzgDFFRO-2FaVrThr3vNXUM7RiWhBe-2BeNhsuRVYy8WcsXk6VbpXImEfuRQawGiawr4d49P-2FHnLnlELB9OOSGEp8kBIqiFZxa2fSH2uroog4eQsi5i0iGOvAlBanKasL72X371xL3Z1-2FMAUK-2F1-2Bn7d4-2Fi9jwJGmD-2FXB0QlJXgqMM4kstz-2Fm56HjIsU-2BkoNKiHaHAxbA8n7qCi7fJECJ12MiQJpTrx2jfXGBXF3zfBvDddlR827i4aFwrn2yvXBGGOoEZOMg9hjJ1wpoyeQ1zfNS-2FsdMLrqqLTEYI9jh09iCus2jN7wB1Huqun3ZRkxr9X-2F8mGouZwQGv37dikoHYovjGtFMOoliG8LoOFwja4mulcAQGKv1mxISxjJFBLV3tcJ10pu-2FFvEPiV-2FjLDw-2BMdlvPegIkj-2BYvWFqF4JKkVT7uvRk-2Fq9wyAdNJ7dkFwT7VixA8DdV3UZu-2FWGqXRWQ3quWa7H-2BtYtefHHpzhd2DZAVXwlyLXAoCh1H64eNTK1ORIGiduCuy2XGnkjzypff97DyId0baNZg-2FijJH11ZnmW4MAT6PF1EO3kHtguKTi9zIflfiiPIrZYp4UoaZsAb16-2FdSoWs-2ByHaESGu653AY-2FPjK2OOELiCjtEiFxVQnV87iLyOYGpu6ZeT1YYUnwOehajg1NSBtSfs2QTo1FGr1bbhxpKXJBlXloCqL7P-2FJ0Knj8h-2F3ApMbtV9ahTLBCAEcufAWOxYeraeSUUIks9Beh2USa3D-2FB2E9oHdjCn0JRR0nCeCtiKs3sShSV1ur8izbk4FjQHYkZ3wH8xk261KUkMqIIACQm417-2Bi5N5if40kFVRPNOQq3BPViGsJzZdR2XkQRs9BhSPQGR0i3JuJeE1gnfP-2FTNwWkv5ShrexA-2BqNXruB3WV-2Fh0dXn6XdFVssvkKN8cJ1iB2iUF8pFwzglAmLBTF2Lj-2Bva-2BhnSEK-2BvKIUgKBk1QXaFyzLjcJ52VAlGn9-2Bo10dOC03-2FjJYZyprzyc244SvVvWlfGoJMY4IyBJjnCeoMItmVe5bc1n-2BwkZPiBfG3n-2FnlL6B660PaHDvSdjKf6kvq3Du-2BlI9kQH26ToVnI1VYf8In9luXDG1qjQKUPPgWr8qn-2BXn76B49KUPcBcf7i49KOtdGkUEz2GsG60g7a7em4Rg5VhFDWJUS9prN6sou61mx-2B2zZeoy3V-2BmjY497zfuHxIwaAgnQSsWnlyHwMu7IeWb8GBkzXoYk3xHqGrdJX88DahaYb1RKtbKkrXOVH6Fm9IAXqwk-2Bskqueylec3vZ-2Fwtj-2B3Q9xUdEB-2Fn-2FWN56pL7fSZ-2BOYDOPN1n6cwBiPV-2BEkFuhxkqtant1mH24O4uthiTM9pOyxA4hbcnlLwG0ETkYXMne-2BOFDVpdkZp-2Bv8BOZwyfvGpuGqKCIYDXv9oqdgG2GuKivJ6j38oEkU0xYgTkEuui-2BK7t8TUtUuyhxT839-2BgSdaje-2BljFe4oany2DJ1ce55nVISmg3UVv3KroF04YMMsPSecw-2Fpv9OfwAqwBTqjWrEk2Ge8PcEeApmxTKvN4oYHAS4Tc5MlAbwh31Yyf5vQPV3qSgidc3aS04iMrLVd6OVZ2061uwm4LukgsIPFxWkAbh2ZJSx5-2FKe3es-2FRwdT6TtxnKwZs8mNzo40BoDWzqlUcWCug-2FvjhfxbJwSTSNq3OxPwL-2FYjoR-2BmoGUwrQvO5WZLuRfI-2Fl6LCp773NbT6oKiOClLBxtOf-2FEIHmvhh37s0BLKtjjlxHh28kvI8SuR5DbltvqEHQUwzyKCUo7MjrVPUuwFTdCY0IYfBqfIfOIM1Rc-2BH5L8NC7Wp2spi-2BVNBAaFVhyIbf7qVo4FmbTuBsYoC6uQM9bbUNvJch6VPhZ51jDChOUy4XKsJLEpdJ-2BCWgO0e1iMrGJCfrJfQZrSGuQ7AyfIaJcAuZInARKo-2B-2BjzO6XW-2F91W4gAky46AQp-2F4-2FQYRQEKPJBFDQKn5-2FJ1-2B9l-2FkabwbU0ke35gAp24WZdRPUq5mU9eRwUP92CBWquTXRvbk2hG2P6jTWN9u38wIa7kTwwkSXiaNi-2BAlCus1FP706JfdM9cCI4-2BPMWXL48lpxwzbfapWHUhak2S6wr-2FWwkknwqsRXkQrzdNCPhDuJMCZSmbrDQAtvDnOQ-2F28NgPhomg7E-3D_1RXb6-2BUkKyan7iHlFI-2FldfmXWA-2BT-2FvzqDoLMxL3pWx3xvDz4ZxkapNK-2FNcECOn8B3gXQ3NoGZYQiT-2FY85JuteW4T6kxzPCv3JWQpOYtWEl9PVWvrknZJm5iN41UupzHnHAZGfeq3aBUEgtK-2BIKlbWH0vCQDp0krWIrGEjH8l-2Fvjrh0Aym0Ao-2F1JaetsdEc62M9-2FBr-2Bao0oWcD9SBFDCQBA-3D-3D>_ _ _ Need to find freelancers fast? www.cgfolio.com <https://u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6iB4H67OtDu1LYz6krlc8-2FqBeLCXrELBQVbfMn71cNywwCM9MLKQNt6NvY2bdnUVgiRuzEw0g0OZUwVhB4KIDvkjTtq34l13Jmfjgwg01isCCK511SfOUct9zBCzgDFFRO-2FaVrThr3vNXUM7RiWhBe-2BeNhsuRVYy8WcsXk6VbpXImEfuRQawGiawr4d49P-2FHnLnlELB9OOSGEp8kBIqiFZxa2fSH2uroog4eQsi5i0iGOvAlBanKasL72X371xL3Z1-2FMAUK-2F1-2Bn7d4-2Fi9jwJGmD-2FXB0QlJXgqMM4kstz-2Fm56HjIsU-2BkoNKiHaHAxbA8n7qCi7fJECJ12MiQJpTrx2jfXGBXF3zfBvDddlR827i4aFwrn2yvXBGGOoEZOMg9hjJ1wpoyeQ1zfNS-2FsdMLrqqJRohUuf42k90JpxTmh0yOj99mWUOq8exllmrwbD2xKNWC5z-2FXIOkmG3B3c5kHOFZzzwkgCz4IC1RrD2eu8A-2FIHKZPgluD9FzT-2BWgJhbjqDxGDpY0OUxeU6kj5uqgkj3zsvnC0D85yEKzwyHXc1QholGsDuBt-2BHrb4-2BaaUYXrIYdYf7n6zxkZBCLeBjo2I3rGIGyshtos-2Fx5kWmfIDj0-2F3n8iq9aJyMnvQbToMrs7CRacKPO3ckeNeu9-2FTZGM7TiWYKaI4nvY2N0lYPpmu-2BGYc-2B8-2FU-2FhPm9wXlB1J1jaEmSps-2FhAKXfovPsDaYLPFYDvFevW4gat30KsJSYXkXgzB9gebuUx1jWRualolZunTgz-2BUTibTl3-2FTvOpJbdjAuorOGGIrOuDXq9EN16ePwcSaBTqsIdtSYuhtOQ7BB-2B-2FcKTFRcwrNnBL-2FA79H8k9MeMtJSfFOOo-2Fr04xyAL7aGCrr2eEZlaiRqH2JZNhYI3Oc2j5wOhAfsgWvhQ9-2FYhsSAaAizalVU40Tp2OMr516xu8Ik3-2FhiYxzaYWZVCrO3PFCvZviR5b-2BR0-2BclAKQo7pNRuQsYDueILO8c7qm5PWtnBaNsCXkfqYIQqsvXaLBsvahcNJULIt0MXj58HY5RG4nFda1-2Bzjr6AzG8XWALrVlqSdAZQvg51TKflM0gQT37YkGvEL9m0vEn80FitWo8vXq4B80JArZMWSI-2Fqav1ljLN3ZmzteHqzXo3SlJflmOotoCboz4Noborrvrkqr-2FQiP19D5o-2FLJwXvm3Cx4Bj4F3Jmc44oFICwP4kkEO-2FpaMt90ykhVKdnzOQNY6t0iBSWSb5riYWfkEj6jB8I8-2FJZI-2BVAgplyaN1n36Kjpvg-2BV1aXtSi2-2FaNiuULz7Psrllf6mdxm3p8JiC4YIm4ah8C6YOyfRUt9WU-2Fr2hUSguV4dYWFSaaTozknkcyBDigrw2qHCpciLY1xQ4ma7-2FqF-2FwMoYg4fxPfp8GQZzBvOuMrraQSGMTq9n7bYlh4z33r4SyvYWqTmG9AHb4LurC593ubPjCAii1KghDLIN-2BdpmL1YdTwhatr8oFFZTTnhLiWRRzYHw1p52ctObqVMlWDaVF7UwxoKzBLt91Qis-2FGgoDOJ86e2hqqi0rAM8YB-2Ff3u4SALFpJI7092oQh51S7OKBUt9d64XVObTmv1i7O-2BvXmGCEZOW8IedNU0ZoHzpV2lVfn-2BcBZPsiBrIhAdmOjpjM-2BLbvah-2F9lOvYWB3NKEhs4MDzHP04Vc7wL1q68TGACRN1HXTrV1Vb1kqZGo6pBXR-2FQ-2FlNLVBfpm9FVY99NJnkQ-2BIH3sVu4rHvUGFJ3bwNcDqT0PLvYx2CWJ1gYndWLpKd9TMyvVV41fCJOWQ7gWyct8KhB38iy2pcS0XbwYxusx6LbnkzyT7r-2BN2ge8Eh1PbuA-2BVfyLZm3WIXPu2Wr6Dl9WYkUS2Czb6edK-2FRhNdC5cVgNRx-2BlGL2jroVwI5jlxGWxXKGS-2BQK4F4yajibJDN1XBWojNEXOPVBUZW2cB6osOTtsPk282xX3cSR4trWeqEwxt-2FX-2BJ4lLZBnJUT6O6yTe9jjS9lpp3A4b00rOkZB2ioai7BkQSDi1O1IbN1i4PiepdHnahwNYQUJxSf0p9U4LUzT6b6kA-2BceVskn-2BjXHR5-2FgUpfAW1V2IP2o52XUirW8QDWnVwJnKCOPRXMSNr7lM12U34nepvdB3q27Bbny5Z-2F5Jf7d5yP2ezK33qzTpifWBenB1AmPi5x1DU9PXvmKCx2U-2FW5R3BX8mwOyEzhEZd2xJd-2FJ0fe4S5F29kabGBOWNytlqdOIoPP-2BBrFMJKgquL-2F2Cw-2FwgM-2FRKZBl9bxwFoON9M-2FFQZtzXkmktM1Ct6cLdXVSyqXpokwLrF16-2FZsWz1EogutPCc-2BebAyHSb-2Fvnwhsif3Qw1qihX-2F0svjc6H2D0kwhFRhDiOV_1RXb6-2BUkKyan7iHlFI-2FldfmXWA-2BT-2FvzqDoLMxL3pWx3xvDz4ZxkapNK-2FNcECOn8BRCNoS8fFlMGQaYTqAG-2BqVG0sQqBwObsEGGBQKX345ta7FM6bhXuJgCqeO-2BEp061aT2NUqJLDw-2ByJtQTCxIUmDoivzj9UCcgKKcULvFWvHkz58sKACb7okF7niezVxDm0MO4BRs0q8soOIstUQpbS5w-3D-3D>

Need some help with rendering an Redshift project? https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gpuoven.com_&d=DwIF-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=QUaagVjK1vIrJjekkbSMO3iOIuB-lRvziWvTWuQrVJ4&s=zjepr5wHFoGkKYjGo5knBjtBmFRDYm8udBhqgXH9FYk&e= <https://u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6iB4H67OtDu1LYz6krlc8-2FqBeLCXrELBQVbfMn71cNywwCM9MLKQNt6NvY2bdnUVgiRuzEw0g0OZUwVhB4KIDvkjTtq34l13Jmfjgwg01isCCK511SfOUct9zBCzgDFFRO-2FaVrThr3vNXUM7RiWhBe-2BeNhsuRVYy8WcsXk6VbpXImEfuRQawGiawr4d49P-2FHnLnlELB9OOSGEp8kBIqiFZxa2fSH2uroog4eQsi5i0iGOvAlBanKasL72X371xL3Z1-2FMAUK-2F1-2Bn7d4-2Fi9jwJGmD-2FXB0QlJXgqMM4kstz-2Fm56HjIsU-2BkoNKiHaHAxbA8n7qCi7fJECJ12MiQJpTrx2jfXGBXF3zfBvDddlR827i4aFwrn2yvXBGGOoEZOMg9hjJ1wpoyeQ1zfNS-2FsdMLrqqJf76Q55C-2F0xo-2BTGn81i5TDh7YLb-2Bm0hjbSn1cDCMjUQP8IE505cJkh9n17wMV4oK-2FyamleLYH87M35TT8VKkgsvvD2IbUEBvx0uRQzKIZs6HR-2Fn-2Fz-2FdPjpxRoPKuvQT7BHlGZGwV6DonpkOli6aZiPOObTiN3FXwEDNW9APdDYI31B8cJaC9Zh9EB3KX2N43YYLwhrU684j3ImoSVpsI0VYjzjAXzv2CXQ-2BpWO14PtDDrfyPBCmeNsDENJPh9f3-2Bdfozq2puQ8Av8GjcGUrwHLdi-2BWLnLl3Kgo5NLzh7XqhMhJmfqW0-2BVbEOhSnm1W7UUx20EtPl0GqFYCgExG4fGdapAyHvtoCTqp-2B13PlABCT8l7neu78pBvt-2BY4GlUkzfw5Td-2FhqHQ-2BTWQDuWyea-2FtQOXooBREE7XlllRQkYTPRUqyZR-2BiE6lJuRESxQN0jCNU2ShLFdkmYBT1jWYeJLUU0DqJMiZF-2BCROhnaW1pI149ly6vwEO90PVJlDHs-2F1KIflqSIeL-2Fzgd9XqgfuuZ6lEsY-2BDYvWHadSw49-2BmCr0QeRdpm39dYj-2FHRuJtLM6V9GFnPJ8tZpWYE5cP2X1UcZI940OkP-2FZGwsmYAuaC-2BATJTblqfmb17EbKhKg4Ov88FG8MExmChOVSVM5N8q-2BF68JbMFshSXX0txrgvmjxnEY8Wvp1ac5UaJlV4Eb5Pc8gVAR21YDFFcfVONI5Ii-2B6ZQBx1u4Qm28Et0uPqHvP3jUd7JGacFWkHEUOcOPcnmBDdrwBTzAhuAjE4g75lXMYhjvJ8Ds8wCjeilT4XMXDueBv-2Flo2eTXDsxEC3-2B0blkV5uYfZq09nviaLK-2Fg3buB6fzdcSJ7RM-2BJLrzfThEH24BXsuWuqraeu2fSEK3sFncMMQ90ajvQXdiIUQ04RLsFTUGR6YsuXTxPm6aK26ABGLjlimj0-2FcGAheDAbNsZc5o3oiXGL3cNWqKLCiw43s-2Bo4mVMYAJ7lOdcp2Go8bX6wgQDKuu-2BxU0xe0bt-2FjXj4kcgSETiRYPMN5cNwbSefw7uQ2vgG-2FV-2FeuOdwmCI6HwoBqf1gNKbPk48gOb-2Fr01mQ5rAilImn5sDXxkGn2FQXGGI5KQqrOBrl45KG3i4Zp9pHOgZyVeH-2BCahLEw27kb6IxvaFgE5Z4yccpZ89fzUncjY-2BOpX-2FSgEXoyycUZfGk8tfWejrIzsOreRO3A7W0MQUGnt2Ug2ZYC0BJjTJtzo3OSHWGTmEKc-2B6onKJ-2Fdcv8I4K2fXeY0osSU-2BEYScpfRB6ggM1fOqgTj-2F46MIm04bZXCM4rZXPI4mUSAeRhwZHAaEf2s4jBnX8ZtYmAJHT5uu8djIPFxnTc00yK9jTaifRkpllV-2BJmTxHB83lv-2BtXe9-2BWVUUAaFtQ7B414yvz0qMhFcwLLE2W-2BoE8ofXJog6aD7zb3sCQdE8EXxmHpNXSOBXIhEfwZvz3oT41dPof2RlF7hEW9QpXpfxRbzEcxuyyw-2Bj9RP0NUIgjpLtNMWx4PXAlSjEifBOzMfhsrsF-2FXbyXimQUE2zFnUQs7cVkkkRg3LlibU3kVZ7BGeYpgAmAUcm94gMaHUyy0NtZZfUXh7aqzfnPBzGcWKccfVept0Ycy-2Fqgodk5nZ-2FSJ7f95cPeNPNhmoe8scB-2Bjnm32y7j1OppP43KmuM92W83HNAiWEOYTw4Lz2omX16EUpgKIoQsKvLRvHsXkQt-2BbmK-2BtJPl3-2B98JTNjI0KnM76XyqxHcmfjqrRvsWiLpcFEi9rzsm9404pWSn55fZQCbSavkWfmHdXwlutmbgQLuwu7LnDaICdkUySBRAmA-2B8JcvsP1SGlqxNN5gcJSL-2FNQwVuOqviYFwTDfcyXSmmRXWtrRgNNhuJsQtuizxOR47_1RXb6-2BUkKyan7iHlFI-2FldfmXWA-2BT-2FvzqDoLMxL3pWx3xvDz4ZxkapNK-2FNcECOn8BC9pVDEPlUp-2FmJMPR9e1l8X9Zarm9YCcKDl68bA01akUIaJ8VjHwmfoN4x4XSbwwC252gi4BSmDOmRtMFEh8YN1BWcvevREkzdkXfApWs5lS-2BKhBBl0lMEPxnup26jAq5oOj-2B9vTDZAqLKRbCfxi95Q-3D-3D> ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com <softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com> with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to

softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com
<mailto:softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com> with
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Anto Matkovic]

About that 'node vs code', I think Matt Estela already gave answer, that with noises ''definitely worth using vops as a sketch pad for this kind of thing''. Story is, that building a custom deformation as somehow typical ICE task, also fits into "using as sketch pad'', where the core of job is not particular function, loop or like, instead it is more a set a recipes or combinations where I'm not completely, in advance, sure what I want.

Long story short, here's code for thing like loops, everything else is VOP. Generally H VOPs are just fine, IMO.

By the way there's practical  :) advantage of code - by textual nature, code is relative easy to transfer from something like Apprentice to full H (while I'm not sure how that practice fits into EULA). VOP or HDA have to be passed through the Orbolt, or another procedure authorized by Side FX...

---

From: Jonathan Moore <jonatha...@gmail.com>
To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com>
Sent: Monday, May 7, 2018 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

http://www.tokeru.com/cgwiki/index.php?title=JoyOfVex

[Olivier Jeannel]

is this better ?
https://discord.gg/WeSFNAR

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

Oh dear

On 02/05/2018 22:26, Jonathan Moore wrote:

Those at the tail end of their career, that came from a pure fine arts education are at a definite disadvantage with a technical application like Houdini. 

--

Alastair Hearsum

Creative Director of 3d

See our latest work here

The Penthouse,
5th Floor,
87-91 Newman Street
London
W1T 3EY
T +44 (0)20 7434 1182
glassworks.co.uk

Glassworks Terms and Conditions of Sale can be found at glassworks.co.uk

(Company registered in England with number 04759979. Registered office 73 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3QQ.
VAT registration number: 198083762)

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and attachments are strictly privileged, private and confidential and are intended solely for the stated recipient(s). Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this transmission is received in error please kindly return it to the sender and delete this message from your system.

[Alastair Hearsum]

Their declared aims are commendable but as I said in another mail they don't comprehend how far they have to go to attract the non technical artist/animator and I don't think they appreciate how irritating the sludgy workflow is. Don't get me started on the graphic design of the interface; that GI Light icon is like your granny's occasional table table cloth. What they need is for that dead MAC man to come back from the dead and knock some heads togther. You appeciate the user experience of the MAC/ Iphone Jordi.  Houdini needs that kinda treatment and its not just about the icons its about the ease of use.

On 03/05/2018 18:17, Jordi Bares wrote:

And by my judgement, Houdini is no closer to being a generalist replacement for Softimage.

This is what I would love to understand if you don’t mind… 

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[David Saber]

Thanks Olive this works much better :)

------

Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[David Saber]

LOL. I have the same one at home, a gift from my granny !!

On 2018-05-10 11:06, Alastair Hearsum wrote:

that GI Light icon is like your granny's occasional table table cloth

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Andy Chlupka (Goehler)]

Funny how that is. When I first got my feet wet with Houdini I had the same feelings. I could rage about the looks of everything UI. Then something else happened… And this is not to say that the UI/UX doesn’t need work, but while learning the ins and outs of Houdini I started to appreciate how things worked and not how they looked.

I also find these recurring workflow statements misleading. While modeling and animation workflows maybe champions. Let us not put others on the same pedestal. High Quality Viewport, Fur, ICE caching, Passes, Schematic View, etc. are no champions of their league. Some of them quite dated for their time, others just embarrassing.

To each its own I guess :—)

[Graham D. Clark]

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Alastair Hearsum <alas...@glassworks.co.uk> wrote:

Oh dear

On 02/05/2018 22:26, Jonathan Moore wrote:

Those at the tail end of their career, that came from a pure fine arts education are at a definite disadvantage with a technical application like Houdini. 

I get the person you are describing if they are no longer thinking the way they were as fine art students, and don't have some technical chops.

But pure fine arts thinking is very good fit for Houdini in the OP networks (the rest of it not so much without an accessible and usable heterogeneous scene graph). It's about process. 

I know you're not saying this, but it can't be all technical, Houdini artist was an oxymoron for a while.

Thank you for the links Jonathan! I didn't know about some of these.

Graham D Clark

phone: why-I-stereo

http://www.imdb.me/grahamdclark

http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamclark

 

[Olivier Jeannel]

I'm from an old fine art degree. Proceduralism and other math / vector thingy are the best creative things that happened to me :)

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

I see technology and maths as a liberation force so I want to think it is about a personal attitude towards the challenge of getting out of your comfort zone, not age (but may be the fact that keep getting older makes me biased??  ;-)

jb

On 10 May 2018, at 20:38, Olivier Jeannel <facial...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm from an old fine art degree. Proceduralism and other math / vector thingy are the best creative things that happened to me :)

[Andreas Böinghoff]

It is really fun to read the hole thread. We are currently in a state where we buy more and more houdini licenses. Half of the team is doing most of the work in houdini. For our daily commercial/fx work, with a small amount of keyframe animation, it is the tool! After the good old softimage times, we can highly recommend Houdini. With the great integration of Redshift and Arnold working is fun again.

Andy

On 5/10/2018 9:02 PM, Andy Chlupka (Goehler) wrote:

Funny how that is. When I first got my feet wet with Houdini I had the same feelings. I could rage about the looks of everything UI. Then something else happened… And this is not to say that the UI/UX doesn’t need work, but while learning the ins and outs of Houdini I started to appreciate how things worked and not how they looked.

I also find these recurring workflow statements misleading. While modeling and animation workflows maybe champions. Let us not put others on the same pedestal. High Quality Viewport, Fur, ICE caching, Passes, Schematic View, etc. are no champions of their league. Some of them quite dated for their time, others just embarrassing.

To each its own I guess :—)

--

ANDREAS BÖINGHOFF

3D Artist

THE | MARMALADE

www.themarmalade.com

 

T:  +49 40 43291 200

The Marmalade Post GmbH & Co. KG

Lippmannstraße 79

22769 Hamburg

 

Geschäftsführung:
Torsten Eichten, Manfred Brunwey

Amtsgericht Hamburg HRA 95793

 

[Alastair Hearsum]

I see ease of access as a liberating force

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

That as well…

jb

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[pa...@bustykelp.com]

I Agree.

 

I know that Houdini has a wider scope and thus more ability to achieve ultimately whatever you want, than XSI / ICE.

However, in my character workflow, I’m diving into ICE, making a deformer, going back and adding shapes, reading nearby surfaces, and in ICE using them to rotate the vectors of shapes deltas, readjusting the shapes, and generally ping ponging around between programming and using ‘traditional’ tools to feed into the procedure that leads to the final result. In XSI that all happens without the slightest delay or workaround as everything is just there. for me personally, I can do everything i wish to do with ICE/XSI.

Obviously I know XSI inside out which helps, but my forays into Houdini never give me hope that I will ever have that workflow at my fingertips.

I feel like it needs a layer above the deeper procedural approach, that gives you some tools to manage blendshapes etc. Maya now has a decent version of Softimage’s shape mixer. I know that Houdini doesnt’ want to keep its ‘everything procedural’ approach but sometimes you just want to make a shape and thats it, and you might want to see it in context of the rig, and be able to do a ‘secondary shape mode’ etc, and not have to make your own ‘tools’ to do this. Sculpting is not something that fits well within Houdini’s philosophy, but again ,if you want to do characters, then its a necessary thing to be able to make poses look good. and you dont always want to export, Zbrush it, import. hook up blendshape shape etc.. Slow stop-start workflows can stall your creative flow.

 

I definitely think that if they can add a level of ‘art’ tools that can feed back into the procedural system seamlessly without interfering , then it would make Houdini more appealing and fun to use.

 

From: Alastair Hearsum

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:03 PM

To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com

Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

 

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

And that is the bit that I feel that SideFX underestimates

[Anto Matkovic]

Yeah that one could be used as introduction of Autodesk Fusion 360 advertising, or some else CAD app - ''ok now stop with that small Houdini joke, let's see what procedural, powerful NURBS modeler can do, brought to you by Autodesk''. That is, mentioned AD app has usable, easy to use construction history, so it's procedural, and that is just a base for few state-of-art NurbS engines on top.

Same story with 'replicating C4d Mograph in H' series too, I'm afraid - 'let's see how our artist friendly procedure become convoluted, slow and over complicated in Houdini''

I'd say, it is a bit unfair to take Houdini as example of procedural modeling ( unfair to procedural modeling ).

Neither Side FX nor Houdini community ever showed significant effort in this field. H got decent booleans (decent = comparable to what 3ds Max has for decades) just a year ago, NurbS engine is catastrophe compared to Maya NurbS from 1998, re-meshers are really basic, voxel modeling via OpenVDB is nowhere close to power of zBrush (of course I'm talking about modeling, only), so on. Direct modeling is looking like bad copy of Maya modeling -  so, bearable dose of poison in Maya, in small player like H become a lethal one. 'Houdini modeling', that's looking more like limited, from time to time initiative by SideFX, but also a subject of permanent sabotage by H community who's spreading artist repellents all around, words like ''code is better'' even there is no need for any code in particular case, UNIX style naming and expressions and such. If I'm correct, only one Christmas tree available on Orbolt, as an 'total example' of procedural modeling, is created by someone from SideFX team, not by member of community.

Anyway it still provides a bit of everything related to 'indirect modeling', of course it's able to animate and simulate all that, and....  I think not occasionally, it fills a lot of Maya gaps. For example, for any deformation above Maya skin-blendshape-wrap-deltamush combo, I'd be ready to switch (for that part) to H, instead of possible fighting with Maya Muscles and like.

---

From: David Saber <david...@sfr.fr>
To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 11:32 AM

Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

The one I'm following now is the rocket ship : https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vimeo.com_141986424&d=DwID-g&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=wocXfs-0FToIcmkYvAMVju9h5If2iF4hNr38EyHFgsw&s=utEfA5UTDe68AgzmsoSAgvZ3jT6MUCUkjyNQ2jQzeg8&e= . I enjoy Rohan's videos, but I'm not so found of procedural modelling. To create the rocket ship's door, a dozen nodes are needed… All working with some kind of curves (carve nodes) to draw the shape of the door, then delete nodes to cut out the volume. Like some kind of nurbs boolean workflow. Everything is done in the network editor and I don't find this workflow funny. So of course the beauty of this kind of work is that you can go back to the first node (in a tree so high it's scary) and if you modify it, all the subsequent nodes will evolve accordingly. And when the ship will be shape-animated everything will follow nicely. But the same could be achieved with non procedural modelling , not?

[Jordi Bares]

You hit the nail on the head with “Slow stop-start workflows can stall your creative flow”, that is the critical factor for me as well, in the sense that in a few occasions (may be too many?) you are forced/invited to stop your creative flow to write your own tool (for example a path deform) and that should be there from the start. This is getting better though so I am hopeful.

But I do not agree with your suggestion of “wrapping”, the self tools really is a framework to do those but I don’t think SideFX should be the one promoting traditional workflows because I suspect it will lead to linear networks and although the motive is great, the result may be a non-Houdini approach, remember Houdini is a huge massively parallel ICE network.

And yes, Softimage workflow is/was king, no doubt…

Jb

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

There is a whole raft of improvements they should/could make to the user experience without jeopordising their principles: Improving the fcurve editor and having time controls in the texture node are two examples that spring immediately to mind.

[pa...@bustykelp.com]

Is it possible to make something like a ‘Shape Manager’ in Houdini?

I can understand that it sounds bad to try and force ‘traditional workflows’ into Houdini. However, it seems a bit purist and counterproductive to not allow useful creation tools just because they aren’t part of the procedural workflow. Its not like having a shape manager in there to create shapes / correctives easily and in context of the rig is going to suddenly corrupt everyone and make them stop using a procedural approach.  I need both when I’m doing work in XSI.

I think having 3d software that goes from simple accessible and easy, when you want to do creative work, to Very deep when you want to do complex stuff, is the best approach.  These types of ‘traditional’ tools aren’t going to be noticeable to the people that don’t want to use them.

[Jordi Bares]

You are very right… and those things are not against the procedural principles so you should request those changes, they will pay attention to your input.

jb

 ------

Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Andreas Böinghoff]

On 5/11/2018 5:21 PM, pa...@bustykelp.com wrote:

Is it possible to make something like a ‘Shape Manager’ in Houdini?

On SOP level you can use the Blend shape node. Or you make your own one. Blendshapes are just an linear interpolation between two meshes with the same topo.

If you want to make your custom deformer use the mix node in VOPs or the lerp function in vex. For weighting you can use any float attribute.

Andy

[Jordi Bares]

Below 

On 11 May 2018, at 16:22, <pa...@bustykelp.com> <pa...@bustykelp.com> wrote:

Is it possible to make something like a ‘Shape Manager’ in Houdini?

Of course, the Autorig panel is a good example of that…

I can understand that it sounds bad to try and force ‘traditional workflows’ into Houdini. However, it seems a bit purist and counterproductive to not allow useful creation tools just because they aren’t part of the procedural workflow. Its not like having a shape manager in there to create shapes / correctives easily and in context of the rig is going to suddenly corrupt everyone and make them stop using a procedural approach.  I need both when I’m doing work in XSI.

It makes perfect sense to have one, it may be simply a matter of time as it against traction with animators...

I think having 3d software that goes from simple accessible and easy, when you want to do creative work, to Very deep when you want to do complex stuff, is the best approach.  These types of ‘traditional’ tools aren’t going to be noticeable to the people that don’t want to use them.

The point is that you could do such things in multiple places… not only SOP level, but also CHOPs or VOPs… so… that “simple” tool in the procedural world is quite a beast to develop and support. I am not advocating not to do it but playing devil’s advocate because one of the principles I have seen is that SideFX develops with a very open minded approach… you never know how people are using your toolset and a good example of this is the latest biharmonic weighting, direct result of their FEM technology.

jb

[Bradley Gabe]

I find it a humorous coincidence that people are coming to the conclusion that Houdini is not Softimage or Maya, and you eventually have to come around to thinking the Houdini way in order to unlock its full potential.

Didn’t we have the exact same issue with Maya people trying to use XSI with Maya thinking? Setting up rigs and hierarchies in a Maya way, using a Maya-linear-production workflow, all highly inefficient. And then they didn’t like XSI because it wasn’t very good at being Maya. :-)

It’s a big reason I dreaded the idea of switching apps. I assumed Maya was going to really bad at being XSI for me. Still wish I had time to pick up Houdini at some point.

-B ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

I have been pretty vocal recently

[Jordi Bares]

It is like moving houses… hard at first… little by little you discover how to use it and finally you are ready to enjoy it.

;-)

jb

[Alastair Hearsum]

I think there is real danger in pinning all this grumbling on lack of familiarity and not acknowledging that there are some fundamental design issues . The first step to recovery is to admit that there a problem. As everyone knows there is some fantastic technology in there but its strung together in an awful way. Its like putting the organs of a 20 year old in an octagenarian; each organ very capable in its own right but not in the ideal host to get the best out if it.

[Matt Lind]

Given Houdini is a node based system, there is a simple paradox at play that in order to get the level of cohesiveness Softimage employed, tools need to share information and work together. A node based system, by design, requires each node to act independently. To get the Softimage workflow in Houdini requires either monolithic nodes with enough intelligence to cover all the bases of a particular task, or the UI needs to take control and hide the nodes behind the scenes slapping user's wrists if they attempt to fiddle with the nodes involved. In either case, it works against a node based system's mantra.

In short, I don't think it's possible for Houdini to ever become another Softimage. You'll have to settle for something that has great power but some degree of cumbersome workflow.

Matt

Message: 2 Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 18:44:10 +0100 From: Alastair Hearsum <alas...@glassworks.co.uk> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com

I think there is real danger in pinning all this grumbling on lack of familiarity and not acknowledging that there are some fundamental design issues . The first step to recovery is to admit that there a problem. As everyone knows there is some fantastic technology in there but its strung together in an awful way. Its like putting the organs of a 20 year old in an octagenarian; each organ very capable in its own right but not in the ideal host to get the best out if it.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

@Matt, Exactly my thoughts (but clearly better explained)

I would certainly advocate to improve things in terms of node functionality or assisting better in certain aspects (blend shape manager, exporting bundles in and out, or adding hierarchical overrides in takes, or adding certain tools we use every single day, or bringing more “uber nodes” to VOPs so we don’t have to be so granular) but always without sacrificing proceduralism or breaking their core design.

Jb

[Tom Kleinenberg]

This is a really interesting discussion and covers thoughts from all angles. There is an element to the discussion of technical types telling the rest of us we just need to "git gud" which is a bit disheartening though. (It's disheartening not because it's patronising but because the only way to use Houdini is to master it at fairly high technical level which will exclude a number of people, myself included). I understand that there is a technical learning curve to any piece of software but Houdini is a different beast to the other big three (Max, Maya, eXSI). You can drop a Maya artist in XSI and tell them to achieve a task and they'll do it - maybe not the most efficient way, but a way that works. I don't feel that's the same in Houdini. There's too much "well, nobody really models in Houdini" or "you can, but nobody really animates in Houdini". That's not necessarily bad, Zbrush is probably the "best" software on the market in terms of expectations to results but it's clear about it's narrow focus.

To put it in a personal way, I've worked to some level in 3DS Max, Maya, Lightwave and XSI. I wouldn't consider myself particularly artistically gifted or technically proficient but I am good at understanding the needs of a non-technical person (eg art-director), drawing up a list of requirements and achieving them, getting support from concept artists are pipeline TD's if needed. XSI was* the software that allowed me to go the furthest independently (*was because I've had to move to Maya). I would love to replace that and Houdini appears to be a good fit but I'm not sure. Maybe the "uber-nodes" you're discussing are anathematic to Houdini's overall workflow but would be streamline the on-boarding process. XSI was excellent at getting people into the software and then allowing you to get into the more complex bits on your own; although ICE was the main weapon in my arsenal, it's possible to work for years without ever touching it.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

I would suggest to give it a proper go, if you have used ICE you will see how easy it is.

jb

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Andy Chlupka (Goehler)]

The things Matt mentioned are spot on.

From the ongoing discussion I stand by my point that the superoir workflows being discussed are modeling and animation based. From my experience scene assembly, alembic handling, fx and caching, lighting, shading, rendering workflows are all surpassed at this point. Not to mention robustness and unmatched bug fixing support :-)

I’m not saying this trying to convince people. It just happened that I found lots of value in other parts of Houdini, that made it less painful leaving my familiar workflows behind. Not all is great, but it also lead to different even more efficient workflows. Especially based on the very robust digital assets system.

On May 11, 2018, at 7:44 PM, Alastair Hearsum <alas...@glassworks.co.uk> wrote:

I think there is real danger in pinning all this grumbling on lack of familiarity and not acknowledging that there are some fundamental design issues . The first step to recovery is to admit that there a problem.

I could turn this the other way around. Maybe it’s a lack of acknowledging the different fundamental design. Accept its weaknesses and build on its advantages. The first step to peace of mind is to admit there is a different philosophy by design :-)

And Alastair, your totally right with your findings on the curve editor and else. If you haven’t already, please do bring these up with SideFX.

Have a great weekend.

Andy ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Matt Lind]

I wouldn't steer towards uber nodes. The larger a node gets, the more maintenance it requires and more taxing it becomes as a bottleneck. If a node gets too big, you may end up with a situation where it becomes really popular from having a larger feature set and everybody and his cousin uses the node in every project. At that point the node can become an albatross around the developer's neck because any tweaks to the node could cause negative ripple effect throughout the community should something go wrong. The whole point of having a node system is to guard against that scenario by distributing the workload and only use the features you need. Uber nodes would automatically add bloat to your workflow from the many features you often wouldn't use but have to come along for the ride.

I think what's needed are more dedicated nodes for modeling, texturing, and animation tasks to fill in the current voids. There also needs to be some more UI polish to work with modeling and character animation workflows. Both are merely the base level adequate. They need to improve into good or great.

Houdini needs a few modules to account for workflows where a node base system simply doesn't make any sense or provide advantage. Think pushing and pulling points on geometry to sculpt a character, or tweaking texture UVs for game assets. Building a network with hundreds of nodes containing all the tweaks is counter productive beyond a handful. It would be better to make a dedicated user interface to work on that task in long session form, then merely bake out the stack of tweaks as a single node in the tree when all is said and done – or something to that effect. Perhaps the user would apply markers to decide how many tweaks can be bundled together as a single node upon completion in the same fashion a user can define an arbitrary point as a restore point when updating Windows.

The FCurve editor is mostly OK, but the layout of tools on all sides of the windows needs a rethink. While they're making good use of screen space, it puts more burden on the mind of the user to keep track of all the tools and be more conscious of pointing and clicking with the mouse when tweaking FCurve Key values so as to avoid inadvertently clicking a tool placed on the perimeter of the FCurve editing workspace. Sometimes it's better to have emptiness on one or more sides of the workspace.

What needs most attention is management of large networks of ops as when dealing with character rigging as you need some degree of assessment of how the character's parts are hooked up to function. A schematic view makes that fairly straightforward and the parts that are overdriven by expressions or other tools are easy enough to locate with arrows and wires connecting them. Doing the same in Houdini on a complex character is quite a chore as the trees of nodes don't necessarily illustrate the patterns of parent/child relationship or trickle down behavior one would expect to be able to follow. This makes the process of rigging a bit counter-productive from an organizational standpoint and puts extra burden on new users or users who haven't seen the asset before and need to become familiar with it before they begin work. It requires a great deal more study to get up to speed.

What most non-technical artists complain about is the lack of attention to detail in getting boiler plate tasks done. Not because the application isn't capable, but because it requires a lot more time and energy than should be necessary. It's kind of like having to rebuild your car from scratch every time you want to go grocery shopping. Even if all you have to buy is a carton of milk, the effort to get there is just not worth it. Furthermore, the houdini manuals aren't particularly good at describing how to make use of the system for these types of tasks. There's documentation on individual nodes and interfaces, but there really isn't anything to tie it all together in a harmony that makes sense to the end user. One hand isn't talking to the other. I am a technical user and found this to be the most frustrating part of learning Houdini. While there are videos, the last thing I want to do is spend hours and hours scrubbing through videos to find the one nugget I need to get to the next step of the task.

I would like to use Houdini, but am choosing to not pursue it until I see more adoption for character and modeling work.

Matt

Message: 1 Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:34:28 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFAw&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=fzmLZpiCcc3jRaGy_z5hZ4ClOjRIY3U-E2uo1Q-Lyk4&s=yE_cOiolcVwkjZL5q7mTHV8iEoTF02ZHO8yCBQqtWJ8&e=" <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com>

Message-ID: <28C8FB7A-0412-47D4...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

@Matt, Exactly my thoughts (but clearly better explained)

I would certainly advocate to improve things in terms of node functionality or assisting better in certain aspects (blend shape manager, exporting bundles in and out, or adding hierarchical overrides in takes, or adding certain tools we use every single day, or bringing more ?uber nodes? to VOPs so we don?t have to be so granular) but always without sacrificing proceduralism or breaking their core design.

Jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

below

On 12 May 2018, at 23:26, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't steer towards uber nodes. The larger a node gets, the more maintenance it requires and more taxing it becomes as a bottleneck. If a node gets too big, you may end up with a situation where it becomes really popular from having a larger feature set and everybody and his cousin uses the node in every project. At that point the node can become an albatross around the developer's neck because any tweaks to the node could cause negative ripple effect throughout the community should something go wrong. The whole point of having a node system is to guard against that scenario by distributing the workload and only use the features you need. Uber nodes would automatically add bloat to your workflow from the many features you often wouldn't use but have to come along for the ride.

I was referring to the kind of “uber node” you find in Softimage where you don’t have to do all the heavy lifting… certainly I agree with you, monolithic Albatros is not the idea of uber-node I had in mind. :-)

I think what's needed are more dedicated nodes for modeling, texturing, and animation tasks to fill in the current voids. There also needs to be some more UI polish to work with modeling and character animation workflows. Both are merely the base level adequate. They need to improve into good or great.

My take is that in order to compete in the modelling market the edit SOPs and the Retopo SOP will have to be extended to bring a lot more functionality and this is where I see the non-procedural approach acceptable. Right now these are very limited compared with Softimage.

Houdini needs a few modules to account for workflows where a node base system simply doesn't make any sense or provide advantage. Think pushing and pulling points on geometry to sculpt a character, or tweaking texture UVs for game assets. Building a network with hundreds of nodes containing all the tweaks is counter productive beyond a handful. It would be better to make a dedicated user interface to work on that task in long session form, then merely bake out the stack of tweaks as a single node in the tree when all is said and done – or something to that effect. Perhaps the user would apply markers to decide how many tweaks can be bundled together as a single node upon completion in the same fashion a user can define an arbitrary point as a restore point when updating Windows.

We are on the same page here as well.

The FCurve editor is mostly OK, but the layout of tools on all sides of the windows needs a rethink. While they're making good use of screen space, it puts more burden on the mind of the user to keep track of all the tools and be more conscious of pointing and clicking with the mouse when tweaking FCurve Key values so as to avoid inadvertently clicking a tool placed on the perimeter of the FCurve editing workspace. Sometimes it's better to have emptiness on one or more sides of the workspace.

Indeed, this is really user experience refinements rather than anything else, imho it is quite good already and love the grouping system. Dopesheet needs some love though.

What needs most attention is management of large networks of ops as when dealing with character rigging as you need some degree of assessment of how the character's parts are hooked up to function. A schematic view makes that fairly straightforward and the parts that are overdriven by expressions or other tools are easy enough to locate with arrows and wires connecting them. Doing the same in Houdini on a complex character is quite a chore as the trees of nodes don't necessarily illustrate the patterns of parent/child relationship or trickle down behavior one would expect to be able to follow. This makes the process of rigging a bit counter-productive from an organizational standpoint and puts extra burden on new users or users who haven't seen the asset before and need to become familiar with it before they begin work. It requires a great deal more study to get up to speed.

Do you know about the “show dependencies” right?

What most non-technical artists complain about is the lack of attention to detail in getting boiler plate tasks done. Not because the application isn't capable, but because it requires a lot more time and energy than should be necessary. It's kind of like having to rebuild your car from scratch every time you want to go grocery shopping. Even if all you have to buy is a carton of milk, the effort to get there is just not worth it. Furthermore, the houdini manuals aren't particularly good at describing how to make use of the system for these types of tasks.

I am not saying you are wrong but… could you point to some? I would love to analyse those and may be we can find ways to address those and minimise the friction.

There's documentation on individual nodes and interfaces, but there really isn't anything to tie it all together in a harmony that makes sense to the end user. One hand isn't talking to the other. I am a technical user and found this to be the most frustrating part of learning Houdini. While there are videos, the last thing I want to do is spend hours and hours scrubbing through videos to find the one nugget I need to get to the next step of the task.

Very much agree the documentation efforts need a further push… these have been left behind by the rapid development and lost tons of examples that helped a lot.

I would like to use Houdini, but am choosing to not pursue it until I see more adoption for character and modeling work.

FYI I am rigging and animating a human character in Houdini as we speak... For a film.

jb

Matt

Message: 1 Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:34:28 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFAw&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=fzmLZpiCcc3jRaGy_z5hZ4ClOjRIY3U-E2uo1Q-Lyk4&s=yE_cOiolcVwkjZL5q7mTHV8iEoTF02ZHO8yCBQqtWJ8&e=" <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com>

Message-ID: <28C8FB7A-0412-47D4...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

@Matt, Exactly my thoughts (but clearly better explained)

I would certainly advocate to improve things in terms of node functionality or assisting better in certain aspects (blend shape manager, exporting bundles in and out, or adding hierarchical overrides in takes, or adding certain tools we use every single day, or bringing more ?uber nodes? to VOPs so we don?t have to be so granular) but always without sacrificing proceduralism or breaking their core design.

Jb

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

Just to clarify...

On 13 May 2018, at 17:28, Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to use Houdini, but am choosing to not pursue it until I see more adoption for character and modeling work.

FYI I am rigging and animating a human character in Houdini as we speak... For a film.

And the Film quote I mean, “this is going to be a big screen”, it is a very small project with just 3 of us in 3D working on it so please don’t assume huge pipeline blah blah blah…

jb

[Matt Lind]

An example of the boiler plate burden is exactly what was already discussed – modeling and tweaking as that's a good bulk of the early work. Bad first impressions can be a major deterrent.

Another example is the need to learn the various categories of operators (SOPS, CHOPS, VOPS, …). Sometimes nodes from different categories do the same thing. that adds confusion. If nodes from one category cannot work with a node of a different category, then that's a problem too. This is where documentation is sorely needed. It's not strictly a case of a SOP does this and a VOP does that, but rather a discussion about strategy. When is it appropriate to use the various OPs? When should a SOP be used in place of wrangled nodes, or vice versa? that is a huge void in the documentation and a place where users easily get lost and frustrated to the point they throw in the towel.

In short, Houdini has a lot of spring cleaning to do to tidy things up for the generalist. Right now it's an idiosyncratic development environment. It can be very powerful, but it requires a lot of inside knowledge to use it. The generalist doesn't want to (or need to) deal with the inside knowledge. They need something they can hit the ground running without fuss.

As for the show dependencies thingy, that's just it. I don't want to see more wires inside of a graph which is already very crowded, messy, and lacking structure. There needs to be a way to illustrate the structured connectivity at a high level so users aren't forced into the weeds to get basic information. With ICE or the rendertree in Softimage, the nodes were text-based so you could follow the logic while hiding unconnected ports. However, even ICE trees could get very complex very quickly, so the use of compounds were introduced, and while that helped, it wasn't the same as a schematic view as compounds could be recursively nested to very deep levels hiding the very information you sought. Houdini's nodes are very iconic, but not very descriptive as to what they do. You can see various node icon shapes, but that still doesn't tell you the logic in the same way as following an ICE tree or rendertree. The design/layout of the network view leads to lots of bloat very fast making it difficult to keep track of your work when you get beyond simple models. While networks make a lot of sense for VFX work, they are often less than ideal for character driven work. Character work benefits more from straightforward relationships which are easy to identify and follow as characters are often a hub for other work such as VFX, simulations, attachments, constraint interactions, and other details which come later in the pipeline. People working in those later steps need to be able to quickly jump into the asset and immediately know what to do and where to do it. They can't be burdened with a messy network graph which they must study to the N'th degree before they understand where to start.

Matt

Message: 2 Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 17:28:12 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

below

On 12 May 2018, at 23:26, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't steer towards uber nodes. The larger a node gets, the more maintenance it requires and more taxing it becomes as a bottleneck. If a node gets too big, you may end up with a situation where it becomes really popular from having a larger feature set and everybody and his cousin uses the node in every project. At that point the node can become an albatross around the developer's neck because any tweaks to the node could cause negative ripple effect throughout the community should something go wrong. The whole point of having a node system is to guard against that scenario by distributing the workload and only use the features you need. Uber nodes would automatically add bloat to your workflow from the many features you often wouldn't use but have to come along for the ride.

I was referring to the kind of ?uber node? you find in Softimage where you don?t have to do all the heavy lifting? certainly I agree with you, monolithic Albatros is not the idea of uber-node I had in mind. :-)

I think what's needed are more dedicated nodes for modeling, texturing, and animation tasks to fill in the current voids. There also needs to be some more UI polish to work with modeling and character animation workflows. Both are merely the base level adequate. They need to improve into good or great.

My take is that in order to compete in the modelling market the edit SOPs and the Retopo SOP will have to be extended to bring a lot more functionality and this is where I see the non-procedural approach acceptable. Right now these are very limited compared with Softimage.

Houdini needs a few modules to account for workflows where a node base system simply doesn't make any sense or provide advantage. Think pushing and pulling points on geometry to sculpt a character, or tweaking texture UVs for game assets. Building a network with hundreds of nodes containing all the tweaks is counter productive beyond a handful. It would be better to make a dedicated user interface to work on that task in long session form, then merely bake out the stack of tweaks as a single node in the tree when all is said and done ? or something to that effect. Perhaps the user would apply markers to decide how many tweaks can be bundled together as a single node upon completion in the same fashion a user can define an arbitrary point as a restore point when updating Windows.

We are on the same page here as well.

The FCurve editor is mostly OK, but the layout of tools on all sides of the windows needs a rethink. While they're making good use of screen space, it puts more burden on the mind of the user to keep track of all the tools and be more conscious of pointing and clicking with the mouse when tweaking FCurve Key values so as to avoid inadvertently clicking a tool placed on the perimeter of the FCurve editing workspace. Sometimes it's better to have emptiness on one or more sides of the workspace.

Indeed, this is really user experience refinements rather than anything else, imho it is quite good already and love the grouping system. Dopesheet needs some love though.

What needs most attention is management of large networks of ops as when dealing with character rigging as you need some degree of assessment of how the character's parts are hooked up to function. A schematic view makes that fairly straightforward and the parts that are overdriven by expressions or other tools are easy enough to locate with arrows and wires connecting them. Doing the same in Houdini on a complex character is quite a chore as the trees of nodes don't necessarily illustrate the patterns of parent/child relationship or trickle down behavior one would expect to be able to follow. This makes the process of rigging a bit counter-productive from an organizational standpoint and puts extra burden on new users or users who haven't seen the asset before and need to become familiar with it before they begin work. It requires a great deal more study to get up to speed.

Do you know about the ?show dependencies? right?

What most non-technical artists complain about is the lack of attention to detail in getting boiler plate tasks done. Not because the application isn't capable, but because it requires a lot more time and energy than should be necessary. It's kind of like having to rebuild your car from scratch every time you want to go grocery shopping. Even if all you have to buy is a carton of milk, the effort to get there is just not worth it. Furthermore, the houdini manuals aren't particularly good at describing how to make use of the system for these types of tasks.

I am not saying you are wrong but? could you point to some? I would love to analyse those and may be we can find ways to address those and minimise the friction.

There's documentation on individual nodes and interfaces, but there really isn't anything to tie it all together in a harmony that makes sense to the end user. One hand isn't talking to the other. I am a technical user and found this to be the most frustrating part of learning Houdini. While there are videos, the last thing I want to do is spend hours and hours scrubbing through videos to find the one nugget I need to get to the next step of the task.

Very much agree the documentation efforts need a further push? these have been left behind by the rapid development and lost tons of examples that helped a lot.

I would like to use Houdini, but am choosing to not pursue it until I see more adoption for character and modeling work.

FYI I am rigging and animating a human character in Houdini as we speak… For a film.

jb

Matt

Message: 1 Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:34:28 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFAw&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=fzmLZpiCcc3jRaGy_z5hZ4ClOjRIY3U-E2uo1Q-Lyk4&s=yE_cOiolcVwkjZL5q7mTHV8iEoTF02ZHO8yCBQqtWJ8&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net_wf_click-3Fupn-3D5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6mg4oLGBuQENbeDkYXezg3m6vjHxJcC6rUMd8QE2MtqzowgyFFK4aAsDEzrdrVTV4Q6qbgbc-2D2FgnnpGob6G467zR75G56-2D2BuWz1AMtPXsoVdDXV-2D2BcQeKP7tI8SfI-2D2Feh9je45J8SGNt7RpMTV0RRx7u7ipqHdfH8mUievo2c62JbpLwyOU1kOPaRg2-2D2B2LXheI89DD7bUnzqVaJnQEBTdW08bxgXJLrEoHtcUb0Os6TNOgzkIKzPZXURWx-2D2FSJePMnVU8LRJWmAfJUhgo104PS4WFp-2D2FfJ3N5rbRuTadZflH0O-2D2Fh0M2h4yxib0ouX7j-2D2B2tixig6uQ8oA9tHKwbpeDBX96kNmyQeXTP2xyJ8o0enQb8fdkpC1N1yrj-2D2F86ylX3Yd13AvqA-2D3D-2D3D-5FxtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt1ZpP5RSY8m3j3fC3Llx6XJJJcGSKy2rnhFCwKBcQ-2D2FEivZuddy-2D2FtIgmtY6BXRq3bXlgHt80z2VD2zzPUbYqMGDSg

UaDfO4zTapneePB0aoSve4cxp5aGXhetvS-2D2BKHLRPZ1XRT7YsM4sJM4WoSQVHdbI3PT2EoRlpdGZVMT8RzwOJdhepaUj9cKapbsZ-2D2BdHcP5Q-2D3D&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=Z6U0dqiDr9C7tT20jA4wmvFpZvvnUEa2y4sqeer3g7A&s=IIeJjTqMRI5D1mw5DEFqoSsTFp_zygLF0Kv82bXg7wM&e=>" <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com> Message-ID: <28C8FB7A-0412-47D4...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"@Matt, Exactly my thoughts (but clearly better explained)I would certainly advocate to improve things in terms of node functionality or assisting better in certain aspects (blend shape manager, exporting bundles in and out, or adding hierarchical overrides in takes, or adding certain tools we use every single day, or bringing more ?uber nodes? to VOPs so we don?t have to be so granular) but always without sacrificing proceduralism or breaking their core design.Jb------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with ?unsubscribe? in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed… URL: http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/private/softimage/attachments/20180513/cbcb9324/attachment.html

------------------------------

___________________________________________ Softimage mailing list Soft...@listproc.autodesk.com http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/listinfo/softimage

End of Softimage Digest, Vol 114, Issue 60 **************************************

[Jordi Bares]

This thread is getting really really useful, thanks Matt… 

More comments below.

On 13 May 2018, at 21:00, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Another example is the need to learn the various categories of operators (SOPS, CHOPS, VOPS, …). Sometimes nodes from different categories do the same thing. that adds confusion.

There are historic reasons for this to be the case, in the very early days those were completely different programs, that was then unified and finally new contexts appeared (like VOPs) and lately MATs

If nodes from one category cannot work with a node of a different category, then that's a problem too.

They deal with different data, if you look at it from that angle it makes easier to build your own strategy/style.

This is where documentation is sorely needed.

Agreed.

It's not strictly a case of a SOP does this and a VOP does that, but rather a discussion about strategy. When is it appropriate to use the various OPs?

My basic approach is to keep as much as possible in SOPs and rely on Wrangle nodes to parallelise tasks. While VOPs are fantastic I find that, like ICE, these networks get big quickly (even more so in Houdini) so I prefer VEX Wrangles right now.

Regarding CHOPs, I rely on them to do signal processing and rely on input/output devices such as MIDI or joystick to drive things. And of course constraints now that they are executed as CHOPs.

And that is pretty much it.

When should a SOP be used in place of wrangled nodes, or vice versa?

If you want to have full authoring control, go for Wrangle nodes, otherwise I default to SOPs as I want a simple yet robust data management and speed is not an issue.

that is a huge void in the documentation and a place where users easily get lost and frustrated to the point they throw in the towel.

In short, Houdini has a lot of spring cleaning to do to tidy things up for the generalist.

Agreed

Right now it's an idiosyncratic development environment. It can be very powerful, but it requires a lot of inside knowledge to use it. The generalist doesn't want to (or need to) deal with the inside knowledge. They need something they can hit the ground running without fuss.

If you ask me that is not the case with ICE, you really need to roll your sleeves at first and get to grips with not that different approaches.

I a way I feel we tend to swing goalposts when we talk Softimage and Houdini, for example, Rendetree was a blessing but has quite a few gotchas as well, the same with ICE.

As for the show dependencies thingy, that's just it. I don't want to see more wires inside of a graph which is already very crowded, messy, and lacking structure. There needs to be a way to illustrate the structured connectivity at a high level so users aren't forced into the weeds to get basic information.

The way I organise it is by following the same approach than reading books, from top to bottom, from left to right. And when things get hairy I build subnetworks, netboxes and put down background images and notes to take the next guy in line with the way I have structured the scene.

With ICE or the rendertree in Softimage, the nodes were text-based so you could follow the logic while hiding unconnected ports. However, even ICE trees could get very complex very quickly, so the use of compounds were introduced,

Subnetworks in Houdini.

and while that helped, it wasn't the same as a schematic view as compounds could be recursively nested to very deep levels hiding the very information you sought.

Would you really want an schematic view like the one in Soft??? I left that behind since XSI 2.0 when I discover the explorer… tons more value in my humble opinion.

Houdini's nodes are very iconic, but not very descriptive as to what they do. You can see various node icon shapes, but that still doesn't tell you the logic in the same way as following an ICE tree or rendertree.

Are you comparing the same thing? ICE tree vs VOPs makes sense and they are not that different at all. Rendertree vs MATs make sense and again are not that different anyway.

ICE or rendertree vs SOPs does _not_ make sense to compare.

Nevertheless with regards with clarity, the only thing I miss from the rendertree is the ability to see thumbnails quickly and easily, something I need to requests at some point to SideFX.

The design/layout of the network view leads to lots of bloat very fast making it difficult to keep track of your work when you get beyond simple models.

A tip, use subnetworks, honestly. And if you don’t at least use net boxes that you can see in the data tree.

Also, you can have two network editors looking at the node and its contents at the same time, which makes it terrific with complex scenes with many levels of subnetworks.

While networks make a lot of sense for VFX work, they are often less than ideal for character driven work. Character work benefits more from straightforward relationships which are easy to identify and follow as characters are often a hub for other work such as VFX, simulations, attachments, constraint interactions, and other details which come later in the pipeline. People working in those later steps need to be able to quickly jump into the asset and immediately know what to do and where to do it. They can't be burdened with a messy network graph which they must study to the N'th degree before they understand where to start.

I am sorry but I don’t agree with this _at all_, I find much easier to follow the complex nature of a character and its relationships in Houdini than Softimage, may I remind you about following operator stacks, constraints, expressions buried in local transforms vs global ones, scripted operators, relationships with blend shapes, mixer curves vs curves? On a shitty curve editor? Or the mini editor for time-warps, groups assignments collisions, delta changes????? Then you add to the mix character maintenance, versions, multi-resolution… 

You need order in both applications and a certain approach everyone understands and comforts to but overall, you will see less concept clutter in Houdini although may be more wires. ;-)

cheers

jb

[Andy Chlupka (Goehler)]

On May 13, 2018, at 10:00 PM, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

An example of the boiler plate burden is exactly what was already discussed – modeling and tweaking as that's a good bulk of the early work. Bad first impressions can be a major deterrent.

Another example is the need to learn the various categories of operators (SOPS, CHOPS, VOPS, …). Sometimes nodes from different categories do the same thing. that adds confusion. If nodes from one category cannot work with a node of a different category, then that's a problem too. This is where documentation is sorely needed. It's not strictly a case of a SOP does this and a VOP does that, but rather a discussion about strategy. When is it appropriate to use the various OPs? When should a SOP be used in place of wrangled nodes, or vice versa? that is a huge void in the documentation and a place where users easily get lost and frustrated to the point they throw in the towel.

I wholeheartedly agree, further improvements are needed. Have you given this feedback?  

In short, Houdini has a lot of spring cleaning to do to tidy things up for the generalist. Right now it's an idiosyncratic development environment. It can be very powerful, but it requires a lot of inside knowledge to use it. The generalist doesn't want to (or need to) deal with the inside knowledge. They need something they can hit the ground running without fuss.

I’ve had three freelancers with very different backgrounds (maya, softimage) and I had them up and running in Houdini in 2-3 days. They were able to move on very quickly from there. Scene assembly, lighting and rendering.

None of them had a technical background, quite the opposite.

As for the show dependencies thingy, that's just it. I don't want to see more wires inside of a graph which is already very crowded, messy, and lacking structure. There needs to be a way to illustrate the structured connectivity at a high level so users aren't forced into the weeds to get basic information.

Help me understand, how is this not the case with the Schematic view? It’s still the preferred view for most of our animators.

With ICE or the rendertree in Softimage, the nodes were text-based so you could follow the logic while hiding unconnected ports. However, even ICE trees could get very complex very quickly, so the use of compounds were introduced, and while that helped, it wasn't the same as a schematic view as compounds could be recursively nested to very deep levels hiding the very information you sought. Houdini's nodes are very iconic, but not very descriptive as to what they do. You can see various node icon shapes, but that still doesn't tell you the logic in the same way as following an ICE tree or rendertree. The design/layout of the network view leads to lots of bloat very fast making it difficult to keep track of your work when you get beyond simple models.

I don’t follow, SOPs in current Houdini show the type name of the operator (node) above the node name making a graph quite readable. I can’t see how the render- nor icetree do better here, besides the default nodes having very descriptive names. Both approaches break once you introduce custom nodes (compounds/subnets) named shortsightedly (in most cases not named) by the user. 

While networks make a lot of sense for VFX work, they are often less than ideal for character driven work. Character work benefits more from straightforward relationships which are easy to identify and follow as characters are often a hub for other work such as VFX, simulations, attachments, constraint interactions, and other details which come later in the pipeline.

Networks represent spatial organization/view. No matter the task, some people prefer spatial navigation. Some prefer the hierarchical view for everything.

People working in those later steps need to be able to quickly jump into the asset and immediately know what to do and where to do it. They can't be burdened with a messy network graph which they must study to the N'th degree before they understand where to start.

Hmmm, I couldn’t save my live with either the explorer or the schematic in Softimage trying to figure out what a character rig does. To me this comes down to a level of expertise/familiarity to the task at hand. 

Cheers,

Andy

[Matt Lind]

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.

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. 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.

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. There is no consistent or uniform way of having information presented to you to get the high level picture of what's going on in the scene. There needs to be some base level of communicating to the user where things are placed, how they relate to each other, and so on, and not require the user to dig, dig, dig, dig, to get oriented to find ‘basic’ information. Someone can easily build a forest and hide 50,000 trees and other geographical features inside of a single network or subnetwork which appears as a single node in the network view, and even build it recursively. That is not informative. This is where Houdini needs to improve. In contrast, although it can be done, it's pretty difficult to hide those details in Softimage's Schematic view. You open the scene, BAM! you see the complexity right away.

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. Many of whom are not thoroughly trained and need to learn on the fly, and probably won't have a great deal of interest learning all the ins and outs beyond the bare necessities to get their job done to satisfaction. As production scales up, the quality of your users tends to drop because you have the matter of filling seats to crank out work by a specific deadline, and each seat has a salary cap. Therefore, whatever pipeline you have, it must accommodate these less than ideal users. Many generalists struggle with learning and/or forming good habits even when given good instruction as you're forcing non-technical people into a technical environment. It's alien to them in a migraine headache creating type of way because an artist is generally right-brained while technical users are generally left-brained. A schematic view is right-brained approach. Explorer/networks is a left-brained approach. While Houdini has a functional equivalent of a schematic view in the network view, it doesn't provide the same information the generalist seeks because it requires additional attention to detail to dissect the graphs in a more left-brained approach. Houdini needs more right-brained tools and interfaces to accommodate the generalist.

Matt

Message: 2 Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 22:48:16 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

This thread is getting really really useful, thanks Matt?

More comments below.

On 13 May 2018, at 21:00, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote: Another example is the need to learn the various categories of operators (SOPS, CHOPS, VOPS, ?). Sometimes nodes from different categories do the same thing. that adds confusion.

There are historic reasons for this to be the case, in the very early days those were completely different programs, that was then unified and finally new contexts appeared (like VOPs) and lately MATs

If nodes from one category cannot work with a node of a different category, then that's a problem too.

They deal with different data, if you look at it from that angle it makes easier to build your own strategy/style.

This is where documentation is sorely needed.

Agreed.

It's not strictly a case of a SOP does this and a VOP does that, but rather a discussion about strategy. When is it appropriate to use the various OPs?

My basic approach is to keep as much as possible in SOPs and rely on Wrangle nodes to parallelise tasks. While VOPs are fantastic I find that, like ICE, these networks get big quickly (even more so in Houdini) so I prefer VEX Wrangles right now.

Regarding CHOPs, I rely on them to do signal processing and rely on input/output devices such as MIDI or joystick to drive things. And of course constraints now that they are executed as CHOPs.

And that is pretty much it.

When should a SOP be used in place of wrangled nodes, or vice versa?

If you want to have full authoring control, go for Wrangle nodes, otherwise I default to SOPs as I want a simple yet robust data management and speed is not an issue.

that is a huge void in the documentation and a place where users easily get lost and frustrated to the point they throw in the towel.

In short, Houdini has a lot of spring cleaning to do to tidy things up for the generalist.

Agreed

Right now it's an idiosyncratic development environment. It can be very powerful, but it requires a lot of inside knowledge to use it. The generalist doesn't want to (or need to) deal with the inside knowledge. They need something they can hit the ground running without fuss.

If you ask me that is not the case with ICE, you really need to roll your sleeves at first and get to grips with not that different approaches.

I a way I feel we tend to swing goalposts when we talk Softimage and Houdini, for example, Rendetree was a blessing but has quite a few gotchas as well, the same with ICE.

As for the show dependencies thingy, that's just it. I don't want to see more wires inside of a graph which is already very crowded, messy, and lacking structure. There needs to be a way to illustrate the structured connectivity at a high level so users aren't forced into the weeds to get basic information.

The way I organise it is by following the same approach than reading books, from top to bottom, from left to right. And when things get hairy I build subnetworks, netboxes and put down background images and notes to take the next guy in line with the way I have structured the scene.

With ICE or the rendertree in Softimage, the nodes were text-based so you could follow the logic while hiding unconnected ports. However, even ICE trees could get very complex very quickly, so the use of compounds were introduced,

Subnetworks in Houdini.

and while that helped, it wasn't the same as a schematic view as compounds could be recursively nested to very deep levels hiding the very information you sought.

Would you really want an schematic view like the one in Soft??? I left that behind since XSI 2.0 when I discover the explorer? tons more value in my humble opinion.

Houdini's nodes are very iconic, but not very descriptive as to what they do. You can see various node icon shapes, but that still doesn't tell you the logic in the same way as following an ICE tree or rendertree.

Are you comparing the same thing? ICE tree vs VOPs makes sense and they are not that different at all. Rendertree vs MATs make sense and again are not that different anyway.

ICE or rendertree vs SOPs does not make sense to compare.

Nevertheless with regards with clarity, the only thing I miss from the rendertree is the ability to see thumbnails quickly and easily, something I need to requests at some point to SideFX.

The design/layout of the network view leads to lots of bloat very fast making it difficult to keep track of your work when you get beyond simple models.

A tip, use subnetworks, honestly. And if you don?t at least use net boxes that you can see in the data tree.

Also, you can have two network editors looking at the node and its contents at the same time, which makes it terrific with complex scenes with many levels of subnetworks.

While networks make a lot of sense for VFX work, they are often less than ideal for character driven work. Character work benefits more from straightforward relationships which are easy to identify and follow as characters are often a hub for other work such as VFX, simulations, attachments, constraint interactions, and other details which come later in the pipeline. People working in those later steps need to be able to quickly jump into the asset and immediately know what to do and where to do it. They can't be burdened with a messy network graph which they must study to the N'th degree before they understand where to start.

I am sorry but I don?t agree with this at all, I find much easier to follow the complex nature of a character and its relationships in Houdini than Softimage, may I remind you about following operator stacks, constraints, expressions buried in local transforms vs global ones, scripted operators, relationships with blend shapes, mixer curves vs curves? On a shitty curve editor? Or the mini editor for time-warps, groups assignments collisions, delta changes????? Then you add to the mix character maintenance, versions, multi-resolution?

You need order in both applications and a certain approach everyone understands and comforts to but overall, you will see less concept clutter in Houdini although may be more wires. ;-)

cheers jb

Matt

Message: 2 Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 17:28:12 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

below

On 12 May 2018, at 23:26, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't steer towards uber nodes. The larger a node gets, the more maintenance it requires and more taxing it becomes as a bottleneck. If a node gets too big, you may end up with a situation where it becomes really popular from having a larger feature set and everybody and his cousin uses the node in every project. At that point the node can become an albatross around the developer's neck because any tweaks to the node could cause negative ripple effect throughout the community should something go wrong. The whole point of having a node system is to guard against that scenario by distributing the workload and only use the features you need. Uber nodes would automatically add bloat to your workflow from the many features you often wouldn't use but have to come along for the ride.

I was referring to the kind of ?uber node? you find in Softimage where you don?t have to do all the heavy lifting? certainly I agree with you, monolithic Albatros is not the idea of uber-node I had in mind. :-)

I think what's needed are more dedicated nodes for modeling, texturing, and animation tasks to fill in the current voids. There also needs to be some more UI polish to work with modeling and character animation workflows. Both are merely the base level adequate. They need to improve into good or great.

My take is that in order to compete in the modelling market the edit SOPs and the Retopo SOP will have to be extended to bring a lot more functionality and this is where I see the non-procedural approach acceptable. Right now these are very limited compared with Softimage.

Houdini needs a few modules to account for workflows where a node base system simply doesn't make any sense or provide advantage. Think pushing and pulling points on geometry to sculpt a character, or tweaking texture UVs for game assets. Building a network with hundreds of nodes containing all the tweaks is counter productive beyond a handful. It would be better to make a dedicated user interface to work on that task in long session form, then merely bake out the stack of tweaks as a single node in the tree when all is said and done ? or something to that effect. Perhaps the user would apply markers to decide how many tweaks can be bundled together as a single node upon completion in the same fashion a user can define an arbitrary point as a restore point when updating Windows.

We are on the same page here as well.

The FCurve editor is mostly OK, but the layout of tools on all sides of the windows needs a rethink. While they're making good use of screen space, it puts more burden on the mind of the user to keep track of all the tools and be more conscious of pointing and clicking with the mouse when tweaking FCurve Key values so as to avoid inadvertently clicking a tool placed on the perimeter of the FCurve editing workspace. Sometimes it's better to have emptiness on one or more sides of the workspace.

Indeed, this is really user experience refinements rather than anything else, imho it is quite good already and love the grouping system. Dopesheet needs some love though.

What needs most attention is management of large networks of ops as when dealing with character rigging as you need some degree of assessment of how the character's parts are hooked up to function. A schematic view makes that fairly straightforward and the parts that are overdriven by expressions or other tools are easy enough to locate with arrows and wires connecting them. Doing the same in Houdini on a complex character is quite a chore as the trees of nodes don't necessarily illustrate the patterns of parent/child relationship or trickle down behavior one would expect to be able to follow. This makes the process of rigging a bit counter-productive from an organizational standpoint and puts extra burden on new users or users who haven't seen the asset before and need to become familiar with it before they begin work. It requires a great deal more study to get up to speed.

Do you know about the ?show dependencies? right?

What most non-technical artists complain about is the lack of attention to detail in getting boiler plate tasks done. Not because the application isn't capable, but because it requires a lot more time and energy than should be necessary. It's kind of like having to rebuild your car from scratch every time you want to go grocery shopping. Even if all you have to buy is a carton of milk, the effort to get there is just not worth it. Furthermore, the houdini manuals aren't particularly good at describing how to make use of the system for these types of tasks.

I am not saying you are wrong but? could you point to some? I would love to analyse those and may be we can find ways to address those and minimise the friction.

There's documentation on individual nodes and interfaces, but there really isn't anything to tie it all together in a harmony that makes sense to the end user. One hand isn't talking to the other. I am a technical user and found this to be the most frustrating part of learning Houdini. While there are videos, the last thing I want to do is spend hours and hours scrubbing through videos to find the one nugget I need to get to the next step of the task.

Very much agree the documentation efforts need a further push? these have been left behind by the rapid development and lost tons of examples that helped a lot.

I would like to use Houdini, but am choosing to not pursue it until I see more adoption for character and modeling work.

FYI I am rigging and animating a human character in Houdini as we speak? For a film.

jb

Matt

Message: 1 Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 09:34:28 +0100 From: Jordi Bares <jordi...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: "Official Softimage Users Mailing List.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_forum_-23-21forum_xsi-5Flist&d=DwIFAw&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=fzmLZpiCcc3jRaGy_z5hZ4ClOjRIY3U-E2uo1Q-Lyk4&s=yE_cOiolcVwkjZL5q7mTHV8iEoTF02ZHO8yCBQqtWJ8&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net_wf_click-3Fupn-3D5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6mg4oLGBuQENbeDkYXezg3m6vjHxJcC6rUMd8QE2MtqzowgyFFK4aAsDEzrdrVTV4Q6qbgbc-2D2FgnnpGob6G467zR75G56-2D2BuWz1AMtPXsoVdDXV-2D2BcQeKP7tI8SfI-2D2Feh9je45J8SGNt7RpMTV0RRx7u7ipqHdfH8mUievo2c62JbpLwyOU1kOPaRg2-2D2B2LXheI89DD7bUnzqVaJnQEBTdW08bxgXJLrEoHtcUb0Os6TNOgzkIKzPZXURWx-2D2FSJePMnVU8LRJWmAfJUhgo104PS4WFp-2D2FfJ3N5rbRuTadZflH0O-2D2Fh0M2h4yxib0ouX7j-2D2B2tixig6uQ8oA9tHKwbpeDBX96kNmyQeXTP2xyJ8o0enQb8fdkpC1N1yrj-2D2F86ylX3Yd13AvqA-2D3D-2D3D-5FxtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt0FbiUxYtn6yHlWA6xMWzORS-2D2F6ttvh3H2Y5-2D2BUmxGSznlWx5UUUkEobyfEw-2D2BiM367AP-2D2F2XQKmV2D4mSPo

d0uxfPBRyHoMPVcTQ3u5ViiG-2D2FSxwvVlovR-2D2Bd33Wj6tQWLeP0bPIu0AzS3tHWfMRcSIq5Fw2tPM0TkZOzmtTebnuScUeNq5QpxhBYr3ZQEHM59IwSB8-2D3D&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=IMplZKKOuoDL5uedA4ZHoOaQBRAMft5emUuoFQMHNSI&s=ZD5phH36xldJOBNE4TI1rvbJtCJmq5qoZdWa3UrwUpY&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net_wf_click-3Fupn-3D5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6mg4oLGBuQENbeDkYXezg3m6vjHxJcC6rUMd8QE2MtqzowgyFFK4aAsDEzrdrVTV4Q6qbgbc-2D2FgnnpGob6G467zR75G56-2D2BuWz1AMtPXsoVdDXV-2D2BcQeKP7tI8SfI-2D2Feh9je45J8SGNt7RpMTV0RRx7u7ipqHdfH8mUievo2c62JbpLwyOU1kOPaRg2-2D2B2LXheI89DD7bUnzqVaJnQEBTdW08bxgXJLrEoHtcUb0Os6TNOgzkIKzPZXURWx-2D2FSJePMnVU8LRJWmAfJUhgo104PS4WFp-2D2FfJ3N5rbRuTadZflH0O-2D2Fh0M2h4yxib0ouX7j-2D2B2tixig6uQ8oA9tHKwbpeDBX96kNmyQeXTP2xyJ8o0enQb8fdkpC1N1yrj-2D2F86ylX3Yd13AvqA-2D3D-2D3D-5FxtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt1ZpP5RSY8m3j3fC3Llx6XJJJcGSKy2rnhFCwKBcQ-2D2FEivZuddy-2D2FtIgmtY6BX Rq3bXlgHt80z2VD2zzPUbYqMGDSg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.n-21&d=DwIGaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=spocNpjoawPeFAn54YEPp3uJko5CxRZl-sVmDreZ7bQ&s=Dj8HzXVj75PlfMQSdLc7H740y2AxK_PhdGrQXV1wUVk&e= et/wf/cl

ick?upn=5SmYwFIJXHmC5X9wAP0G6mg4oLGBuQENbeDkYXezg3m6vjHxJcC6rUMd8QE2MtqzS3nHFJpHH1mihN2vNWVF73yH4QzPTUaj-2BU-2FV4xCvLLTnZ7suFMzmFdGmjVRnYdJAxVY-2F5M380PkfQ8TNK8ovM5rxNeeTCOnkRGaT-2F-2Fqta38pWvWMaql23pwdaAWmes-2Fu-2FwoONKissOPCP2dnxYlCF1qRNWEOp0nYdAwcc9rC5IUfIdQsFs-2BflMjQs4kZWTvisQvKyIYVsNejBnTdqQxGuSkaI3zZNVtkWlyb616AJva8HG-2FDmAdn24eoqkkGy9efRXhSxJLvTt0nNKhLpnK5GuMonI1D4oPK9Mk4Qb3H4GH6wrsUCnQ8MdVHNwjndlcWsXlBh3-2FAjCQ5TQ-2Fcz-2BGSUI2D0eopQPihZX7BgpD5mRk62-2BOUDFV9Wh6HjMbXBxaMDgdeMAA75MiszMbLTxp7q0AY0j9tYxuOCBItkyf-2FMhFHHZtxjbC8BEPpI6pYeeIOO3ugm9zRD7Qo-2Bhz5wGuSluhlqfrdpByVf2Q9EW3RtNyfWZP1nPTEUNh-2B29En3Ew4n5vgQrvl0PzV8D8pwHIL-2BadpURMQ0BUAVEz15eGavBOfw-2BpdMhVz5dtL72-2FhjUivbtC2oKQ-2FMfH-2Bqt2VzlQOu2YZL90bNbdYBNq4AntJn5tBhHu-2FvrUMXSCny9muqCv4CJItUenAT9hSReXJKxZbF-2B6bR-2BK4p8l2dlsnE5Uh9YdlyThxJwILv2-2FUpiKNPze-2BMbrBzaQqDGd-2Bd9RUh5okxoUl-2BluI-2B8h-2BhPBG1lRZ-2BElgdbTyxa3U5qUJeow6ameyLXH7nzqStV6NGXviMfSgHaLyRwpyO9idmOgtEA4AUNhiDT3bzqBLCc5tGg1oZV9IMzBoh-2BFcTlnHwHJY-2BZ5-

2BaNvTp7mLt7Tf7KdLRZVgZdM-3D_xtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt0FbiUxYtn6yHlWA6xMWzOR5KZb9E7a8wc3VuhMdHmv77zzfHyxeMFAkkasbWbtueXvvZVoHGY2qUylaqPHvcLQ08I8xNto5aolwEiOqPBCFeu8-2FAqa5pbvizKaG0Jd-2BVGnrCoxqehjmabf-2B2LvebA05-2FykELK1OQ15tahPc1KtEUkVepKRXJ645g-2BO5dUNybo-3D>

UaDfO4zTapneePB0aoSve4cxp5aGXhetvS-2D2BKHLRPZ1XRT7YsM4sJM4WoSQVHdbI3PT2EoRlpdGZVMT8RzwOJdhepaUj9cKapbsZ-2D2BdHcP5Q-2D3D&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=Z6U0dqiDr9C7tT20jA4wmvFpZvvnUEa2y4sqeer3g7A&s=IIeJjTqMRI5D1mw5DEFqoSsTFp_zygLF0Kv82bXg7wM&e=>" <soft...@listproc.autodesk.com> Message-ID: <28C8FB7A-0412-47D4...@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"@Matt, Exactly my thoughts (but clearly better explained)I would certainly advocate to improve things in terms of node functionality or assisting better in certain aspects (blend shape manager, exporting bundles in and out, or adding hierarchical overrides in takes, or adding certain tools we use every single day, or bringing more ?uber nodes? to VOPs so we don?t have to be so granular) but always without sacrificing proceduralism or breaking their core design.Jb------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softi

mage-r...@listproc.autodesk.com with ?unsubscribe? in the subject, and reply to confirm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed? URL: http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/private/softimage/attachments/20180513/cbcb9324/attachment.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net_wf_click-3Fupn-3D4NJpoo1h1GOdyqBB3sJimai-2D2BQC-2D2FGskUXuPx0XSl6rNdr5Gg0XscjA7dk-2D2BFQcvfCTrPyNVTe21bXODeNjelkdcj7ocyG7Qzl-2D2FhzVov6tKwKhbBDR2u3exFK4IROOT921VAcHZqAtQcS5XkMLA-2D2Bi88Gw-2D3D-2D3D-5FxtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt0FbiUxYtn6yHlWA6xMWzOR1oq5nZzpKiTYATKS3biXZT0Z4eyUP-2D2BXNFmOwuq-2D2BAXRAfqoO606O5ZityVBYlOSyb8Uq0jPNemAKF1J1OG4KuAFEh1-2D2BcB8Fg57yi21OI2bs5sYAb1O49A6-2D2FeQlD3DdNtWeBi-2D2FQuuhfd8rPafdOx4ygh4BmKGN9gixNANOA0pmjcQ-2D3D&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=IMplZKKOuoDL5uedA4ZHoOaQBRAMft5emUuoFQMHNSI&s=oCQ0_GsrewW_gH52NA-CSSmYckUXPPannw4iXB4Cldo&e=>

------------------------------___________________________________________

Softimage mailing list Soft...@listproc.autodesk.com http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/listinfo/softimage <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__u7507473.ct.sendgrid.net_wf_click-3Fupn-3D4NJpoo1h1GOdyqBB3sJimai-2D2BQC-2D2FGskUXuPx0XSl6rNdaJFGAiSAtRlLIFMPKKS9zYUVvw6tqP6OR-2D2BwHxAPVGvQ-2D3D-2D3D-5FxtAIgyeGUkaFYUSrrLyyFGCT559IxnI2CalBtcQNCt0FbiUxYtn6yHlWA6xMWzORoz4TPI1olXS9CMFIjf-2D2FBvtTrNC-2D2B7GUdhPwq-2D2BmxPjzPqy2Tqmj-2D2F5HnOFcV50B2duYt71-2D2BhcMd-2D2BgI3qJgYk5lBitbafdOxB4XDzbEiLouZBkgoTUGaqVI73l5kHEIkMDEkd-2D2F-2D2Fwm2XjSbz7il-2D2FJgTzBdVyXcrAq2bdKTqGvCTzdd-2D2Bo-2D3D&d=DwIFaQ&c=76Q6Tcqc-t2x0ciWn7KFdCiqt6IQ7a_IF9uzNzd_2pA&r=GmX_32eCLYPFLJ529RohsPjjNVwo9P0jVMsrMw7PFsA&m=IMplZKKOuoDL5uedA4ZHoOaQBRAMft5emUuoFQMHNSI&s=10nSXwU8d4fltdDDJx95_rWu6WDeLuzZYu5G9P6G1gg&e=> End of Softimage Digest, Vol 114, Issue 60 **************************************------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with ?unsubscribe? in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed… URL: http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/private/softimage/attachments/20180513/88e3112f/attachment.html

------------------------------

___________________________________________ Softimage mailing list Soft...@listproc.autodesk.com http://listproc.autodesk.com/mailman/listinfo/softimage

End of Softimage Digest, Vol 114, Issue 62 **************************************

[Anto Matkovic]

About epiphany :) expected after few months or so, well, still nothing here :), after four years and more than thousand of hours in front of H. 

I'd say, H is really special case, where usual story about adaptation to another DCC doesn't work.

First of all, this app is already 'adapted' to all wishes of coders, to level unseen in DCC world. OK, these people were before, anyway, they obviously did not tried to adapt self to 3d standards, it seems to me they did everything to adapt H to their habits.

If anyone is example unwilling to adapt, well that's Houdini people :). In times of H13, they tried to explain me why I don't need HTML help (which btw is working with fifty fifty success here, all these years), why H textport is better, so on. For small example (one of many) how that works from another side: Houdini allows to write expression in number input field directly, which us probably great for coding, but.... whenever I've tried to animate in H, because I have habit to do not care about mouse position when entering K key, this was taken as expression not able to evaluate, next mouse-keyboard action caused crash. Whenever I felt relaxed enough to forget where I am, it was Houdini to explain me. For similar problems in Maya, it was just remapping of S key to something harmless.

IMO, only way to adapt to and love  H is just to forget any view port interaction, to do not use view port for anything else than display - then, generally it's fine, question is how much someone is able to reallocate to 'no view port centric ' method. Animator or modeler, not that much.

Second, apps like SI, Maya, Max, C4d or Blender, they are similar in many ways, so actually *is* possible to use one as another, at least in introductory phase. When I started with SI, I used a few scripts to allow Max style of transform offset for around first two years, always tried to avoid SI dopeshit, and.. still I'd consider my SI experience as successful. I disabled Blender cursor as much as possible, Blender is still usable.

Third, 'speaking with Martians'. At some point I've figured out that only available quaternion interpolation in Animation Editor is qlinear() thing, so no TCB keys or anything like. When complained on forums, got long answer about quaternions and math behind, explaining to me idiot, that such type of only linear interpolation is smooth enough by self (by the way I'd say it is only and only if there is constant angular speed across keyframes, otherwise is not). It was one of developers I think, clearly not showing the understanding of basics. Now what, I have to submit RFE hoping for feature granted in Maya, Max, Blender for decades. Have no energy for that, there are another options.

Fourth... Maya is... Maya, it is a norm, industry standard, hundred of movies, possible careers, first DCC I was learning, huge user base. If I am good in one field and dislike the another, someone else could take the counterpart, that's it. It is bad, but not *that* bad to move on. Same works with Max and C4d, more or less.

Anyway, just to put something positive, and of course shameless plug: I'm slowly working on streamlined version of this thing

http://forums.odforce.net/topic/23842-no-skin/

For some unknown reason this one seems to be most popular of all things I've tried to present to Houdini people (most popular in Houdini world means a lot of conversation with another authors or like-to-be-authors and no one end user, as usually :)). This time I'd try to make it as much 3d app independent (no chops, no VEX code), relying only on VOP structure and simple mocap style rig, there should be some way of interpolation to make it faster, so on. To be honest, I wanted to redo it in Fabric, but, we are where we are, hope to have something to conquer the 3d world :) sometime in summer.

---

[Andy Chlupka (Goehler)]

On May 14, 2018, at 1:01 AM, Matt Lind <spey...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

I think it does… Using Subnetworks, allows you to keep the top level very simple, just like collapsed nodes in the schematic. Tools like network boxes allow for documentation right there, same as icetrees. Color coding nodes can group them in a visual way. These all aid to reduce complexity and provide overview. 

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, this is fine for people who are proficient at those tasks. You make it sound so simple, yet understanding someone else's rig is never done in a matter of seconds. Not to other riggers, and especially to generalists. I would agree, that there’s more help in Soft finding the details, but not in a first glance overview.

Again, we're talking about the big picture. Explorer??? that’s for micro-level work when you want the dirty details on an object. 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.

And where exactly do we draw the line between ‘technical’ and 'non-technial’ users? At the macro level shouldn’t it benefit both? I guess I’m failing in grasping the broad term of generalist. I strongly believe, all of our staff would fail so hard if they had to use Max or Maya tomorrow coming from Soft.

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. There is no consistent or uniform way of having information presented to you to get the high level picture of what's going on in the scene. There needs to be some base level of communicating to the user where things are placed, how they relate to each other, and so on, and not require the user to dig, dig, dig, dig, to get oriented to find ‘basic’ information.

Are you still refering to the schematic? Because I’d generally describe them just as messy, unorganized ;)

Someone can easily build a forest and hide 50,000 trees and other geographical features inside of a single network or subnetwork which appears as a single node in the network view, and even build it recursively. That is not informative. This is where Houdini needs to improve. In contrast, although it can be done, it's pretty difficult to hide those details in Softimage's Schematic view. You open the scene, BAM! you see the complexity right away.

:) Honestly? It’s just as easy to shoot someone else in the foot with said scenario in softimage (nesting point clouds, instancing groups) In the end you’re dealing with complexity and I fail to see how the schematic helps to decipher that in seconds.

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. Many of whom are not thoroughly trained and need to learn on the fly, and probably won't have a great deal of interest learning all the ins and outs beyond the bare necessities to get their job done to satisfaction. As production scales up, the quality of your users tends to drop because you have the matter of filling seats to crank out work by a specific deadline, and each seat has a salary cap. Therefore, whatever pipeline you have, it must accommodate these less than ideal users. Many generalists struggle with learning and/or forming good habits even when given good instruction as you're forcing non-technical people into a technical environment. It's alien to them in a migraine headache creating type of way because an artist is generally right-brained while technical users are generally left-brained. A schematic view is right-brained approach. Explorer/networks is a left-brained approach. While Houdini has a functional equivalent of a schematic view in the network view, it doesn't provide the same information the generalist seeks because it requires additional attention to detail to dissect the graphs in a more left-brained approach. Houdini needs more right-brained tools and interfaces to accommodate the generalist.

[Jordi Bares]

It is interesting to note that your OBJ context is meant to show the “big picture” like Softimage could never do. My suggestion is to avoid using the given contexts (SHOPs, MATs, CHOPs, etc…) and do everything as a CHOP network, a MAT network, etc… _inside_ the OBJ, this way you get;

- The full picture

- Full modular design (assets embedding all the nuts and bolts for example)

- The ability to build HDAs and version up and down those…

etc…

Hope that helps… ultimately I still remember having to explain Softimage users the norms and conventions on using the Passes system, Partitions, Groups and Layers in Softimage the “company way” so we all worked the same way because the Softimage does not guide here either… and rightly so it _should not_.

cheers

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

Good stuff Matt. Couldn't find anything to disagree with there.

[Alastair Hearsum]

I think this is the overarching issue. It still feels like separate developers with their own sphere of interest not being unified into a cohesive product. As I said before they really really need someone like Steve Jobs who won't take no for an answer to knock some heads together and really get them to take the user experience as seriously as they do their technology.
The task seems clear to me. How its done is for someone who thinks abou this stuff for a living.

On 13/05/2018 22:48, Jordi Bares wrote:

There are historic reasons for this to be the case, in the very early days those were completely different programs, that was then unified and finally new contexts appeared (like VOPs) and lately MATs

[pa...@bustykelp.com]

Hi Andreas,

 

When I say a shape manager, I don’t mean the part that applies the shapes as a deformer. I know that’s very easy to do and I never really use that part in Softimage I mostly use ICE. I do a lot of stuff with the deltas of Blendshapes that aren’t necessarily using them in a ‘traditional’ way.

 

(When I do mix blendshapes together in ICE, I dont just mix them in a linear additive way. I might have multiple streams that override other streams using the power of the nodal network ICE allows.  I know I can do the same in VOPS. However often I’m using the difference in the angle of surfaces to Rotate shapes. This is nowhere near as easy in Houdini as there aren’t many inbuilt geometry attributes to look up( like Point reference frame) and Matrices didn’t appear to be allowed as attributes. I found my trees were 4 times the size to achieve the same results as I had to keep manually constructing things like Point reference frame and found I couldn’t just make it as a freestanding ‘compound node’ as it needed input wires ( although you probably can with VEX)

 

Anyway.  What I’m talking about is a tool that helps with the creation of shapes that are , for example in context of the current pose of the skinned mesh. Or making a shape that is a corrective, in context of 2 or more other shapes that are applied, and that kind of thing.

All this is doable without a shape manager of course, but it takes longer, and can become tedious when you have to keep doing it. Its very nice to have a tool to make this happen in a no-brainer way and not have workarounds that undermine and stall the flow of enthusiasm.

 

 

From: Andreas Böinghoff

Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 4:35 PM

To: soft...@listproc.autodesk.com

Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

 

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Jordi Bares]

On 14 May 2018, at 00:01, Matt Lind <spey...@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

[Jordi Bares]

On 14 May 2018, at 09:59, <pa...@bustykelp.com> <pa...@bustykelp.com> wrote:

Anyway.  What I’m talking about is a tool that helps with the creation of shapes that are , for example in context of the current pose of the skinned mesh. Or making a shape that is a corrective, in context of 2 or more other shapes that are applied, and that kind of thing.

All this is doable without a shape manager of course, but it takes longer, and can become tedious when you have to keep doing it. Its very nice to have a tool to make this happen in a no-brainer way and not have workarounds that undermine and stall the flow of enthusiasm.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is not a standard thing in any package actually… I wish it was though.

jb

[Alastair Hearsum]

Is this trolling? I'm not sure. But I feel I have to keep shooting this kind of thing down. Without naming names you know the guy that created a very complex feather system in ICE here at Glasswork, on the job. We have been using Houdini as you know for a few years now, so with the combination of a technically minded artist who operates at a high level exposed to Houdini for few years who is still tearing his hair out in frustration points to the issues with Houdini. 
They need to seriously look at improving their user interaction. Its not just about getting used to it.

[pa...@bustykelp.com]

In soft, you can make a shape in Secondary shape mode and have it reverse the skinning and save the shape, and in Maya, the new Shape manager allows the easy creation of corrective shapes in context of others.

 

How are blendshapes stored in Houdini? Are they always procedurally generated from other meshes, or can the delta be saved somehow as an attribute.

 

 

From: Jordi Bares

Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:19 AM

To: Paul Smith ; Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list

Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs?

 

 

On 14 May 2018, at 09:59, <pa...@bustykelp.com> <pa...@bustykelp.com> wrote:

[Jordi Bares]

The opposite of trolling actually, I hope it is obvious I only mean to share my experiences and ideas on how to get the best possible Houdini ride.

But I won’t insist any more on the “try it” part…

jb

[Alastair Hearsum]

I didnt mean you were trolling I meant is what I am doing trolling? I'm popping up and shooting everything down.
I'm just trying to get an aknowledgement that there is a huge gap to be filled in the user experience of Houdini and its something they dont take seriously enough

[Jordi Bares]

Misunderstood it, sorry

:-)

Well, it makes sense to carry on telling them so and showcase things that you like… they are very responsive and have changed countless UI things already

jb

[Anto Matkovic]

Shape editor in Maya 2017 has a Bay Raitt style shape fixers. Some comments are here:

http://www.chrisevans3d.com/pub_blog/adsk-ships-posespacedeformer-ignores-clavicle/

Also, Blender addon called Animation Nodes (kind of nodal control of everything in Blender, plus per-point deformations) technically allows to build dependent shape keys, so sooner or later, there will be some interface on top, I guess.

---

Anyway.  What I’m talking about is a tool that helps with the creation of shapes that are , for example in context of the current pose of the skinned mesh. Or making a shape that is a corrective, in context of 2 or more other shapes that are applied, and that kind of thing.

All this is doable without a shape manager of course, but it takes longer, and can become tedious when you have to keep doing it. Its very nice to have a tool to make this happen in a no-brainer way and not have workarounds that undermine and stall the flow of enthusiasm.

Correct me if I am wrong but this is not a standard thing in any package actually… I wish it was though.

jb

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimag...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

[Alastair Hearsum]

I do tell them but I feel its just tinkering. Its not just changing icons or the way lines fade if you have lots of long lines. It is that but its more. Softimage apperaed to have had a thought out unified structure/mode of operation/ user experience/user interface (and everything else around those areas) before the guts, the technology was put in. It appears the opposite with Houdini.

I went to the design museum the other week and the thing that caught my eye was the display about how the British road signage sytem was developed (60s I think) into to what we know and love (me anyway). Prior to that it was up to each local authority to decide how their signs looked. It was a bit of a mess. I see a paralle with Houdini. It needs a serious designer to spend a lot of time to knock it into shape.

[Jordi Bares]

Indeed I understand what you talking about.. it is quite major endeavour so surely will take a bit to poking for them to invest so many resources..

And yes, I went too a week ago to the Museum of Design and it was great to see the road signage that has become the gold standard in the world… genius design because it was based on functionality rather than aesthetics, it just happened the work was so excellent that defined the aesthetics to come for the next years.

jb

[Alex Doss]

Come on Big Al, I just refuse to believe you dont like the new bone icon in houdini:

(you could customize it to heart shapes, if you're more of a cats person)

It was developed from scratch, cant get more unified than this!!

Refer to Autodesk's major update in Softimage:

Message: 2 Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 18:44:10 +0100 From: Alastair Hearsum <alas...@glassworks.co.uk> Subject: Re: Houdini : non VFX jobs? To: softimage@listproc.autodesk.com

I think there is real danger in pinning all this grumbling on lack of familiarity and not acknowledging that there are some fundamental design issues . The first step to recovery is to admit that there a problem. As everyone knows there is some fantastic technology in there but its strung together in an awful way. Its like putting the organs of a 20 year old in an octagenarian; each organ very capable in its own right but not in the ideal host to get the best out if it.

------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with “unsubscribe” in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Alastair Hearsum

Creative Director of 3d

    

See our latest work here

The Penthouse,
5th Floor,
87-91 Newman Street
London
W1T 3EY
T +44 (0)20 7434 1182
glassworks.co.uk

Glassworks Terms and Conditions of Sale can be found at glassworks.co.uk

(Company registered in England with number 04759979. Registered office 73 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3QQ.
VAT registration number: 198083762) 

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and attachments are strictly privileged, private and confidential and are intended solely for the stated recipient(s). Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this transmission is received in error please kindly return it to the sender and delete this message from your system.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Alastair Hearsum

Creative Director of 3d

    

See our latest work here

The Penthouse,
5th Floor,
87-91 Newman Street
London
W1T 3EY
T +44 (0)20 7434 1182
glassworks.co.uk

Glassworks Terms and Conditions of Sale can be found at glassworks.co.uk

(Company registered in England with number 04759979. Registered office 73 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3QQ.
VAT registration number: 198083762) 

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and attachments are strictly privileged, private and confidential and are intended solely for the stated recipient(s). Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this transmission is received in error please kindly return it to the sender and delete this message from your system.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

 

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

-- 

Alastair Hearsum

Creative Director of 3d

    

See our latest work here

The Penthouse,
5th Floor,
87-91 Newman Street
London
W1T 3EY
T +44 (0)20 7434 1182
glassworks.co.uk

Glassworks Terms and Conditions of Sale can be found at glassworks.co.uk

(Company registered in England with number 04759979. Registered office 73 Cornhill, London, EC3V 3QQ.
VAT registration number: 198083762) 

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and attachments are strictly privileged, private and confidential and are intended solely for the stated recipient(s). Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Company. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If this transmission is received in error please kindly return it to the sender and delete this message from your system.

 ------
Softimage Mailing List.

To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

------
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-request@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

--

Alex Doss
Mobile: +31 (0) 6 5437-2515
web: www.alexdoss.com