Houdini 15.5 Released!
polycounter lvl 8
Hello! We are pleased to announce the release and availability of Houdini 15.5 today! You can find videos that cover the various new features, which you can further explore using the free learning edition of Houdini. And here is a quick overview video of some of what's new for modeling, rendering, crowds and more! For full feature list, visit SideFX.com
-fianna
Houdini 15.5 | What's New from Go Procedural on Vimeo.
-fianna
Replies
Well, that's kind of a trick question if I can be totally honest. There's so many factors like personal preference of software package, what you want to do with the package, strength of the tool (and along with that weaknesses), the relationship with the developer, integration of the tool into pipelines, job opportunities and the list can go on. I don't think that I can answer why you should use any software over another because my view will anyway be biased. I'm just excited to be working in a software development company that is flexible, open to customer feedback and loves the industry.
Going back to Houdini - historically, it was focused on the VFX end. But this release and future releases will be working towards having more modeling tools, etc...for game artists, for example. Yes it is a pretty technical piece of software and mostly it's been used in that light. But like any other software package, it has its own logic and once you switch your brain to think differently in how you work, it can cater to both technical users and artists alike. And of course, we are aware of places that we're not onpar yet with other packages... we know there is more work to be done
Look at this amazing tool for Maya. The guy made it by himself in three months by writing tons of code.
Could you do the same in this application?
It's not a question of whether its better than the likes of Maya or Max. It just different and offers a different approach.
The thing to remember about Houdini is that its 100% procedural in just about everything it does. Get your head around that and you'll find Houdini a great package to use. You might think that Max's modifier stack or Maya's construction history and nodal approach are the same, but they don't even come close to what Houdini can do.
It's Houdini's procedural nature that lends itself to doing particles, effects, fluids etc. Which is why it gets used alot in film vfx.
Houdini has always been used in games, but in recent years its really started to target the sector with specific tools and enhancements to its usability
I always see the same excuse when Houdini shows up. It's 100% procedural etc.
If you want it to be used by artists, why don't you show us it, not just talk about it.
No, it doesn't make sense to substitute your traditional poly modeling tools for Houdini, since you can make traditional models much faster in Maya; Modo or your weapon of choice.
BUT
Point of 100% procedural workflow is that you end up with assets which are configurable, either in Maya / Cinema etc., or in Unreal Engine. So for example, you can have asset with controls for modifying that asset / model - let's say you have staircase model, you can have controls for number of stairs, choice of staircase with or without handrail, type of handrail, shape of handrail, beveled or hard angled stairs etc etc, so you can use single staircase asset for whole game, with numerous variations, and you have to model just one procedural staircase model.
You can build characters like that, terrain, racetracks, whole levels etc.
"Another wanna be 3dsMax/Maya." comment is clueless.
If you're going to complain about their software, at least do it productively, instead of just shooting it down right away.
nodeway dunno why but the sarcasm is super strong on this one xD
Just to give my 2 cents to the discussions : Houdini isn't on par with Maya/Max/Modo/Blender when it comes to modeling for games yet.It has a lot of powerful modeling tools but some of them are just too much complicated for your average environment artist to set them up.
What makes Houdini really special is the way it deals with data,specifically procedural data.
Just to give you a little example : as Nodway stated I've worked on Quick pipe for three months and have written more than 2000 lines of code as we speak.Houdini can be used to create something like Quick Pipe in a weekend,but with a lot more features and flexibility.
This is all awesome and stuff,but what's even crazier is that you as a game artist can make these tools if your brain understands how nodes work,and another thing that pushes this software to the next level is the portability : With the Houdini Engine installed for Maya,Max or Modo,you could basically take a weekend to recreate Quick Pipe and make it compatible in all these softwares.
Why aren't people using it then ? because SideFX is and have always been having a bad time communicating with game artists with what is probably the best CG software in the entertainment industry.I would also recommend them to hire more game artists that can make tutorials,breakdowns,etc... about Houdini.Allegorithmic did this and the whole industry changed.What are you waiting for,SideFX ?
Oh, I'm doing it productively. You just didn't noticed what I have done here.
If you guys didn't noticed yet, I have Houdini Slack in my signature.
As a Houdini user since around 2007 (that's Houdini 6-7 era), I have seen over and over again how they always use the same excuse to explain how awesome Houdini is. In this topic of course they used it again.
Does it convince technical guys? Yes.
Does it convince artists? Nope.
What would convince them is something I deliberatelly mentioned in this topic as a bite, and only author of this bite (@Fansub) noticed, would be to make tutorial from start to finish how to make such tool in Houdini, and then present it working not only in Houdini, but also in Maya. It's a perfect example for them. Make comparision how much less work you have to do to create such tool.
But why make tutorial? We can have another overtalked topic about how awesome 100% procedural Houdini is. Which is not true by the way.
They made similar mistake before. Created tutorial about making terrain tools in Houdini. The only problem was, they never showed how to pack them into something functional that you can use OUTSIDE of Houdini. In Unity, UE4 or Maya.
And it's been like this for years,or maybe more than a decade.Houdini is to modeling what Substance Designer is to texturing,but without proper support and some basic technical skills you just can't understand what Allego was talking about a few years ago,and SideFX has been in this position for too long.
On the other hand,i'm really glad to see more tools integrated into Houdini
However when it comes to Houdini, there are plenty of videos now showing a pipeline of data and tools into the likes of UE4. And the introduction of Houdini Engine, or Fabric has made that even easier.
Houdini is definitely on an equal footing with packages like Max, Maya and Modo, its just the its approach to workflow that maybe puts people off. There have been some massive improvements to the UI and workflow to make Houdini more 'artist friendly', however I believe SideFx are probably realistic about how/if they can convert your typical Maya/Max user for some of their work.
To go up against Maya and/or Max on an equal footing is pretty hard. As this thread has already proved you're not just going up against the software but a huge userbase that are fiercely loyal and who have somewhat ingrained workflow muscle memory.
SideFX also probably know this, so if they can't turn everyone over to to Houdini, the aim is to try and ensure you're peoples second 3d software in their pipeline. And there's alot of people who have Max/Maya and Houdini in their pipelines, not just vfx but games too.
I really like the idea of a procedural workflow, but I lack a lot of the math fundamentals to really dig in and get good at it. I'm not trying to shit on the software here. Given the open nature of the software, it puts a lot on the user to create some of the basic nodes to get the job done. Substance has come a long way, but I think that's a good example in practice. Houdini's been around long enough, but nobody has stepped up to the plate to show us what can truly be done to my knowledge.
But say I wanted to go really crazy with sci-fi guns; current-gen with all that high poly detail. How much time would I be looking at to produce a network that can assist with it? It would have to take the role of the concept and modeling while being interactive with the end result being as close to game ready as possible. Basic forms would be easy enough, but then what about all the fancy panel lines, flanges, bevels and so on? It sounds like a mountain of work, but with a good payout if the supergazillions of guns are worth the time invested. And hopefully you'd end up with enough custom work in your toolbox to work on whatever comes next.
Personally, you don't need to be a math wiz to produce good results. Just simple logic like being about to select 1 out of 2 polys, then perform this actions etc.
I like how in the beginning of their GDC reel they explain just how much "stuff" is just needed these days, and its not just games but tv, film etc.
I'm an artist but i don't want to spend time making something that wont get a lot of attention but needs to be made. For example, i got sick of making eyes, and textures for eyes a lot of the time they rarely are seen that close up so i made a procedural eye asset. Creates all the geometry, uv and procedural texture. Wasn't tough.
edit://
I saw someone ask for an example. Here is a former XSI user who created a cactus asset. Imagine making that and then a sup says.... yea i want less spikes...... you do it, come back and they say or make it more bumpy. Texturing cant even begin. This tool does it all.
http://www.gametutor.com/
I've been having fun learning houdini the last year, I've not been using it as much as I want too, partly because it requires a different mindset than traditional modeling.
It's cool seeing them improving their modeling nodes, comes in handy.
@pior That one is good, making something that is useful and not just for the tutorials sake, putting some love into the models and textures I recon it can look good.
@Mant1k0re True that, guess that has been the case with houdini that tutorial assets did not look very impressive.
Since it often aims to showcase the procerdualness of it.
Really got to use imagination on how it could look with some more work.
Also sidefx themselves seems to be doing a push towards better modeling/uv tools, making it more comfortable to learn and use.