Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Pierre Schiller]

I´d like to download, Jonathan Moore, where do I get the link to check them
out and give feedback?
Thanks.

On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Jason S  wrote:

> On 04/13/17 23:24, Jonathan Moore wrote:
> >   The bit that's most odd to me is using HScript style $ in VEX.   Is
> that VEX code that you've copy pasted from somewhere else?
>
> Actually, it was a Maya particle expression for making confetti, but I can
> see how you might have mistaken it for Houdini code.
> (processing P's N's and V's  in math op strings assigned to variables)
>
>
> On 04/15/17 7:07, Tim Bolland wrote:
> > I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par
> with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering.
>
> Agreed, yet quite specifically for FX using factory high level nodes.
>
> The reality is some of the assets you can make with Houdini, with very
> minimal scripting, can be far more complex and superior than what you can
> make with other applications. In fact, depending on the asset I would say
> making it in Maya would involve far more scripting and technical know how
> than the Houdini workflow.
>
> Actually  Houdini, using the same example, that very short (but not super
> easily authorable) confetti snippet, would be more or less the same
> formula.
>
> I just don't see 3D as a single software process anymore.
>
> Of course not, that was (is) an XSI thing.
>
> I'll use the best software to get the best results out, what ever that is.
>
> Excluding the one that "does it all" ?  (or to a quite large extent most
> of it all?)
>
> While it can of course be beneficial to export / import to/from apps to do
> specific things
> I think we can all agree that the least amount of roundtrips necessary,
> the better.
> (I've seen some pipelines that are absolutely horrendous in the amounts of
> exports/imports)
>
>
> The problem I think with either Houdini or Maya,
> is that the only way to do even a bit more than somewhat basic things, is
> -through- that complication.
>
> Also the reason I'd like to push for more visual approaches, is that if
> anything,
> Houdini has seemed to be getting -more- complicated, as opposed to less.
>
> Old vs. New Point SOP | SideFX 
> (hole thread is interesting)
> itriix::
> @P.x, @P.y, @P.z is how you would access the different components of
> the Position. Or @N.x, @N.y, @N.z for Normals.
>
> If the default is now:
> Set Constant Value to: 0, 1, 0
> Set VEXpression to: self + value * sin(radians(@ptnum))
>
> That's a lot of additional work - and possible “human error”, just to
> get a sine wave.
>
> It's beginning to feel much more verbose. It also doesn't have any
> visual clues as to how you might want to reference a particular attribute
> (such as position).
> While, yes, you see Position(P) in the drop-down menu, it doesn't
> visually show it being used like: @P.x, @P.y. @P.z
>
>
> In this case, it wasn't for the sake of more flexibility (or not mostly),
> but for more performance, or for -multithreading- specifically.
>
> Which can of course be very good reason to change things,
> but it's where we can see that approachability could have had much more
> relative priority.
>
>
> Hscript to Vex, might be compared to what Javascript is to C++ or rather
> -> C   (also for more flexibility no doubt).
>
> should i avoid hscript and copy stamp?
>   (hole thread is interesting)
>
> Artye  ::
> When you are learning, hscript and copy stamps are nicer.
>
> mestela ::
> For those cases the new for loops are the way forward, which I agree
> are tricky for new users to get their heads around (and most experienced
> users too for that matter).
>
> But its not just for 'learning', it's also for every day when making, or
> trying to understand what others did for different setups,
> or how fast we can understand what we ourselves may have done not so long
> ago.
>
> Vex  (or blank wrangle nodes with a text box in which you define what the
> node is/does),
> also replaces a bunch of nodes that although basic,  had some sort of UI.
>
> To the point of 'nodes' becoming little more than either separate or
> merged script containers?
> (often favoring vex over vops, simply because vops quickly becomes big,
> messy, with required separations or ins and outs.)
>
>
> Also because there doesn't seem to be THAT much things to address to make
> subnets more easily manageable/distributable.
> enough for them to actually be used around.
>
> And also because ::
> << Why isn't it working?!  Is a comma missing?  are all brackets
> balanced?
> wrong syntax? (specially when shuffling between vex, expressions, hscript
> and python)
> ... or a typo?
> or is it a wrong "connection". (textually represented 'connections')
>
> ARRGH! Deadline! >>
>
> Then scruitnizing docs, asking questions on forums about things that would
> otherwise simply be 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jason S]

  
  
On
  04/13/17 23:24, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>   The bit that's most odd to me is using HScript
  style $ in VEX.   Is that VEX code that you've copy pasted
  from somewhere else? 
  
  Actually, it was a Maya particle _expression_ for making confetti,
  but I can see how you might have mistaken it for Houdini code.
  (processing P's N's and V's  in math op strings assigned to
  variables)
  
  
  On 04/15/17 7:07, Tim Bolland wrote:
  > I would agree with that if the final result out of
  Houdini was on par with what Maya and other DCC's were
  delivering. 
  
Agreed, yet quite specifically for FX using
  factory high level nodes.
  
  The reality is some of the assets you can make with Houdini,
  with very minimal scripting, can be far more complex and
  superior than what you can make with other applications. In
  fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya
  would involve far more scripting and technical know how than
  the Houdini workflow. 
  
Actually  Houdini, using the same example, that
  very short (but not super easily authorable) confetti snippet,
  would be more or less the same  formula.

  I just don't see 3D as a single
  software process anymore.

  Of course not, that was (is) an XSI thing.
  
   I'll use the best software to get
  the best results out, what ever that is.

  Excluding the one that "does it all" ?  (or to a quite large
  extent most of it all?)
  
  While it can of course be beneficial to export / import to/from
  apps to do specific things
  I think we can all agree that the least amount of roundtrips
  necessary, the better.
  (I've seen some pipelines that are absolutely horrendous in the
  amounts of exports/imports)
  
  
  The problem I think with either Houdini or Maya, 
  is that the only way to do even a bit more than somewhat basic
  things, is -through- that complication.
  
  Also the reason I'd like to push for more visual approaches, is
  that if anything,
  Houdini has seemed to be getting -more- complicated, as opposed to
  less. 
  
  Old vs. New
Point SOP | SideFX  (hole thread is interesting)
      itriix::
      @P.x, @P.y, @P.z is how you would access the different
  components of the Position. Or @N.x, @N.y, @N.z for Normals.
  
      If the default is now:
          Set Constant Value to: 0, 1, 0
          Set VEXpression to: self + value *
  sin(radians(@ptnum))
  
      That's a lot of additional work - and possible “human
  error”, just to get a sine wave.
  
      It's beginning to feel much more verbose. It also doesn't
  have any visual clues as to how you might want to reference a
  particular attribute (such as position). 
      While, yes, you see Position(P) in the drop-down menu, it
  doesn't visually show it being used like: @P.x, @P.y. @P.z
  
  
  In this case, it wasn't for the sake of more flexibility (or not
  mostly), but for more performance, or for -multithreading-
  specifically.
  
  Which can of course be very good reason to change things, 
  but it's where we can see that approachability could have had much
  more relative priority.
  
  
  Hscript to Vex, might be compared to what _javascript_ is to C++ or
  rather -> C   (also for more flexibility no doubt).
  
  should i avoid
hscript and copy stamp?  (hole thread is interesting)
  
      Artye  ::
      When you are learning, hscript and copy stamps are nicer.
  
  
      mestela ::
      For those cases the new for loops are the way forward,
  which I agree are tricky for new users to get their heads
  around (and most experienced users too for that matter).
  
  But its not just for 'learning', it's also for every day when
  making, or trying to understand what others did for different
  setups,
  or how fast we can understand what we ourselves may have done not
  so long ago.
  
  Vex  (or blank wrangle nodes with a text box in which you
define what the node is/does), 
  also replaces a bunch of nodes that although basic,  had some sort
  of UI.
  
  To the point of 'nodes' becoming little more than either separate
  or merged script containers?
  (often favoring vex over vops, simply because vops quickly becomes
  big, messy, with required separations or ins and outs.)
  
  
  Also because there doesn't seem to be THAT much things to address
  to make subnets more easily 

Re: STmaps or UVmaps

[Francisco Criado]

Hi guys,

still couldnt resolve this issue, if anyone has a tip on this is more than
welcome!

F.


2017-04-07 9:49 GMT-03:00 Francisco Criado :

> Well,
>
> it seems our redshift version doesnt have that node :S (must be an old
> license) so..any other sugestiosng are appreciated!
>
> Thanks,
> F.
>
>
> 2017-04-07 9:06 GMT-03:00 Francisco Criado :
>
>> Thats exactly what i was looking for! Thanks Morten!
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Francisco
>>
>> 2017-04-07 7:20 GMT-03:00 Morten Bartholdy :
>>
>>> Do you mean rendering out a rgb pass for remapping textures in
>>> compositing in Nuke or similar?
>>>
>>> Plug a Redshift_State nodes uvwcoord into Surface and you should be
>>> good. See attached.
>>>
>>> MB
>>>
>>>
>>> > Den 6. april 2017 klokken 20:07 skrev Francisco Criado <
>>> malcriad...@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi guys,
>>> >
>>> > long time since i wrote to the group.
>>> > Im looking for a way to export stmaps or uvmaps from a geometry in
>>> > Softimage to use this later on post. The renderer is redshift, if
>>> anyone
>>> > knows a tip, is more than welcome!
>>> >
>>> > Francisco.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > --
>>> > Softimage Mailing List.
>>> > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>> --
>>> Softimage Mailing List.
>>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
>


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

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jonathan Moore]

And VOP’s would very probably be a challenge to you if you hadn’t started with 
ICE. They certainly are for the artists new to Houdini in the Modo community.

Much as I find Rohan’s tutorials lacking for experienced Houdini artists I 
agree they're great for those new to Houdini, even if they do teach bad habits 
here and there.


> On 15 Apr 2017, at 17:17, Gerbrand Nel  wrote:
> 
> I found his tutorials great for breaking that initial barrier into Houdini.
> They are fun and easy to follow.
> I personally have a mental block around code.
> I don't have fun writing it, and I don't feel proud after.
> Hopefully this will change one day, cause I know I'm missing out on allot of 
> power.
> I'm nearing 40 so I'm not holding my breath though :)
> Until then, I'll stick to vops and blueprints.
> G
> On 2017/04/15 5:22 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote:
>> I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from XSI’s 
>> ICE.
>> 
>> I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling 
>> perspective too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift ones) 
>> are also poor. But artist’s with no experience of procedural techniques find 
>> his tutorials very accessible. His approach to Houdini is to treat it like 
>> the 3ds Max Modifier Stack.
>> 
>> However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be applauded 
>> even if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only appreciate bad habits 
>> after you’ve learn good ones after all. :)
>> 
>>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the 
>>> more "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
>>> First it unties you from the tool
>>> Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
>>> If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go from 
>>> state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
>>> Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares >> > wrote:
>>> I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new 
>>> sidefx reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!
>>> 
>>> Jb
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore >> > wrote:
>>> 
 I agree Tim.
 
 When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly 
 that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that 
 allow you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth 
 of purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything 
 else.
 
 But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums 
 helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. 
 There are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX 
 (or Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old 
 fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. 
 The reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini 
 Indie's pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling 
 improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been 
 enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways. 
 And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts 
 tutorials together for hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that 
 nasty VEX stuff!  :)
 
 From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see 
 how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over 
 the next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find
ways of accommodating them without destroying the user 
 experience for the vast majority of houdini users - technical artists. 
 
 Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering 
 workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that 
 artists explore Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
 
 On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland > wrote:
 I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with 
 what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the 
 assets you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far 
 more complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. 
 In fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would 
 involve far more scripting and 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jonathan Moore]

I did mention that their the same ones from OpenVDB. Not everybody knows that 
the Masterclass files files released back at Houdini 12.5 are hosted at OpenVDB 
and more importantly that their still very relevant.

I did tidy them up a fair bit so they’d work as well as possible in H16.

> On 15 Apr 2017, at 17:12, Petr Zloty  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, but how exactly are your examples different from the ones available 
> directly from openvdb.org ? The look very same: 
> http://www.openvdb.org/download/ 
> 
> 2017-04-15 17:22 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore  >:
> I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from XSI’s ICE.
> 
> I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling 
> perspective too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift ones) 
> are also poor. But artist’s with no experience of procedural techniques find 
> his tutorials very accessible. His approach to Houdini is to treat it like 
> the 3ds Max Modifier Stack.
> 
> However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be applauded 
> even if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only appreciate bad habits 
> after you’ve learn good ones after all. :)
> 
>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel > > wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the more 
>> "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
>> First it unties you from the tool
>> Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
>> If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go from 
>> state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
>> Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares > > wrote:
>> I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new 
>> sidefx reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!
>> 
>> Jb
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree Tim.
>>> 
>>> When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly 
>>> that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that 
>>> allow you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth 
>>> of purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything 
>>> else.
>>> 
>>> But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums 
>>> helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. There 
>>> are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX (or 
>>> Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old 
>>> fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The 
>>> reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini 
>>> Indie's pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling 
>>> improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been 
>>> enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways. 
>>> And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts tutorials 
>>> together for hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that nasty VEX 
>>> stuff!  :)
>>> 
>>> From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see 
>>> how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over 
>>> the next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of 
>>> accommodating them without destroying the user experience for the vast 
>>> majority of houdini users - technical artists. 
>>> 
>>> Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering workflows 
>>> in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists explore 
>>> Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
>>> 
>>> On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland > wrote:
>>> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with 
>>> what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the 
>>> assets you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far 
>>> more complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. 
>>> In fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve 
>>> far more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of 
>>> course 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking 
>>> about modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better 
>>> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single 
>>> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best 
>>> results out, what ever that is.
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Gerbrand Nel]

I found his tutorials great for breaking that initial barrier into Houdini.
They are fun and easy to follow.
I personally have a mental block around code.
I don't have fun writing it, and I don't feel proud after.
Hopefully this will change one day, cause I know I'm missing out on 
allot of power.

I'm nearing 40 so I'm not holding my breath though :)
Until then, I'll stick to vops and blueprints.
G
On 2017/04/15 5:22 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote:
I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from 
XSI’s ICE.


I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling 
perspective too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift 
ones) are also poor. But artist’s with no experience of procedural 
techniques find his tutorials very accessible. His approach to Houdini 
is to treat it like the 3ds Max Modifier Stack.


However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be 
applauded even if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only 
appreciate bad habits after you’ve learn good ones after all. :)


On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel > wrote:


I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to 
the more "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.

First it unties you from the tool
Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go 
from state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and 
create.

Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.


On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares > wrote:


I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and
the new sidefx reel is going to look so different this
SIGGRAPH and next!!

Jb

Sent from my iPhone

On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore
> wrote:


I agree Tim.

When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it
is exactly that. In every nook and cranny you'll find
programming interfaces that allow you to use VEX and Python to
help package your project for a wealth of purposes. As Jordi
says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything else.

But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the
Modo forums helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their
tentative steps. There are a group of artists there that have no
intention of learning VEX (or Python for that matter), they're
primarily using Houdini for good old fashioned modeling, scene
layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The reason why is
simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini Indie's
pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling
improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus)
have been enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's
more esoteric ways. And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi
who specifically puts tutorials together for hobbyists telling
them they can ignore all that nasty VEX stuff!  :)

From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be
interesting to see how this the influx of very non-technical
artists influences SideFX over the next year or so. They may
recoil in horror or they may find ways of accommodating them
without destroying the user experience for the vast majority of
houdini users - technical artists.

Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and
rendering workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over
time I hope that artists explore Houdini's technical side as it
offers so many rewards.

On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland
> wrote:

I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini
was on par with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering.
The reality is some of the assets you can make with Houdini,
with very minimal scripting, can be far more complex and
superior than what you can make with other applications. In
fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya
would involve far more scripting and technical know how than
the Houdini workflow. Of course 'Horses-for-courses' as the
British like to say, if your talking about modelling
high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better
choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D
as a single software process anymore. I'll use the best
software to get the best results out, what ever that is.

Cheers,

Tim




*From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
  

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Petr Zloty]

Sorry, but how exactly are your examples different from the ones available
directly from openvdb.org? The look very same:
http://www.openvdb.org/download/

2017-04-15 17:22 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Moore :

> I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from XSI’s
> ICE.
>
> I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling
> perspective too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift ones)
> are also poor. But artist’s with no experience of procedural techniques
> find his tutorials very accessible. His approach to Houdini is to treat it
> like the 3ds Max Modifier Stack.
>
> However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be applauded
> even if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only appreciate bad habits
> after you’ve learn good ones after all. :)
>
> On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel  wrote:
>
> I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the
> more "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
> First it unties you from the tool
> Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
> If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go from
> state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
> Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.
>
>
> On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares  wrote:
>
>> I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new
>> sidefx reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!
>>
>> Jb
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I agree Tim.
>>
>> When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly
>> that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that
>> allow you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth
>> of purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything
>> else.
>>
>> But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo
>> forums helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative
>> steps. There are a group of artists there that have no intention of
>> learning VEX (or Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini
>> for good old fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift
>> or Octane. The reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by
>> Houdini Indie's pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The
>> modelling improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus)
>> have been enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's more
>> esoteric ways. And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically
>> puts tutorials together for hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that
>> nasty VEX stuff!  :)
>>
>> From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see
>> how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over
>> the next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of
>> accommodating them without destroying the user experience for the vast
>> majority of houdini users - technical artists.
>>
>> Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering
>> workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists
>> explore Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
>>
>> On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland  wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par
>>> with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the
>>> assets you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far
>>> more complex and superior than what you can make with other applications.
>>> In fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve
>>> far more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of
>>> course 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking
>>> about modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better
>>> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single
>>> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best
>>> results out, what ever that is.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com <
>>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> on behalf of Nicole
>>> Beeckmans-Jacqmain 
>>> *Sent:* 14 April 2017 22:52
>>> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
>>> *Subject:* Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted
>>> useful?
>>>
>>> textcoding will cost money to our clients:
>>> it's time consuming, and
>>> not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
>>>
>>>
>>> just watched today's houdini16 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jonathan Moore]

I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from XSI’s ICE.

I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling perspective 
too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift ones) are also poor. 
But artist’s with no experience of procedural techniques find his tutorials 
very accessible. His approach to Houdini is to treat it like the 3ds Max 
Modifier Stack.

However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be applauded even 
if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only appreciate bad habits after 
you’ve learn good ones after all. :)

> On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel  wrote:
> 
> I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the more 
> "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
> First it unties you from the tool
> Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
> If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go from 
> state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
> Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares  > wrote:
> I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new sidefx 
> reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!
> 
> Jb
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore  > wrote:
> 
>> I agree Tim.
>> 
>> When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly 
>> that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that allow 
>> you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth of 
>> purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything else.
>> 
>> But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums 
>> helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. There 
>> are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX (or 
>> Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old 
>> fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The 
>> reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini Indie's 
>> pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling improvements in 
>> H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been enough that they're 
>> willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways. And they have a 
>> champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts tutorials together for 
>> hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that nasty VEX stuff!  :)
>> 
>> From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see 
>> how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over the 
>> next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of 
>> accommodating them without destroying the user experience for the vast 
>> majority of houdini users - technical artists. 
>> 
>> Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering workflows 
>> in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists explore 
>> Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
>> 
>> On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland > > wrote:
>> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with 
>> what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the assets 
>> you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far more 
>> complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. In 
>> fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve far 
>> more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of course 
>> 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking about 
>> modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better 
>> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single 
>> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best results 
>> out, what ever that is.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>>  
>> > > 
>> on behalf of Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain > >
>> Sent: 14 April 2017 22:52
>> To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?
>>  
>> textcoding will cost money to our 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Olivier Jeannel]

I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the
more "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
First it unties you from the tool
Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
If I'm able to explode and rotate 20 primitives, making them go from
state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.


On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares  wrote:

> I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new
> sidefx reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!
>
> Jb
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore  > wrote:
>
> I agree Tim.
>
> When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly
> that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that
> allow you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth
> of purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything
> else.
>
> But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums
> helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. There
> are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX (or
> Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old
> fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The
> reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini
> Indie's pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling
> improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been
> enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways.
> And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts tutorials
> together for hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that nasty VEX
> stuff!  :)
>
> From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see
> how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over
> the next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of
> accommodating them without destroying the user experience for the vast
> majority of houdini users - technical artists.
>
> Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering
> workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists
> explore Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
>
> On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland  > wrote:
>
>> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par
>> with what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the
>> assets you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far
>> more complex and superior than what you can make with other applications.
>> In fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve
>> far more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of
>> course 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking
>> about modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better
>> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single
>> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best
>> results out, what ever that is.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> 
>> > >
>> on behalf of Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain > >
>> *Sent:* 14 April 2017 22:52
>> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
>> *Subject:* Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted
>> useful?
>>
>> textcoding will cost money to our clients:
>> it's time consuming, and
>> not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
>>
>>
>> just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
>> the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
>> is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic
>> workflow:
>> - i really mean by this that,  so much time and energy  you spend in
>> controling your workflow with textcoding,
>> the less time you  can possibly have to think about the image workflow
>> and plasticity.
>> this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual
>> repetitions
>> back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but
>> your artistic
>> attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.
>>
>> i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jordi Bares]

I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and the new sidefx 
reel is going to look so different this SIGGRAPH and next!!

Jb

Sent from my iPhone

> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore  wrote:
> 
> I agree Tim.
> 
> When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly 
> that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that allow 
> you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth of 
> purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything else.
> 
> But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums 
> helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. There 
> are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX (or 
> Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old 
> fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The 
> reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini Indie's 
> pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling improvements in 
> H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been enough that they're 
> willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways. And they have a champion 
> too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts tutorials together for hobbyists 
> telling them they can ignore all that nasty VEX stuff!  :)
> 
> From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see how 
> this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over the next 
> year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of accommodating 
> them without destroying the user experience for the vast majority of houdini 
> users - technical artists. 
> 
> Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering workflows 
> in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists explore 
> Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.
> 
>> On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland  wrote:
>> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with 
>> what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the assets 
>> you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far more 
>> complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. In 
>> fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve far 
>> more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of course 
>> 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking about 
>> modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better 
>> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single 
>> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best results 
>> out, what ever that is.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>>  on behalf of Nicole 
>> Beeckmans-Jacqmain 
>> Sent: 14 April 2017 22:52
>> To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
>> Subject: Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?
>>  
>> textcoding will cost money to our clients:
>> it's time consuming, and
>> not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
>> 
>> 
>> just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
>> the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
>> is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic 
>> workflow:
>> - i really mean by this that,  so much time and energy  you spend in 
>> controling your workflow with textcoding,
>> the less time you  can possibly have to think about the image workflow and 
>> plasticity.
>> this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual 
>> repetitions
>> back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but 
>> your artistic
>> attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.
>> 
>> i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a 
>> different angle.
>> as an artist this seems so evident though..
>> 
>> 
>> 2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler :
>>> I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow 
>>> control is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph.
>>> 
>>> Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D
>>> 
>>> Happy weekend.
>>> Andy
>>> 
 On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S  wrote:
 
 Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Softimage Mailing List.
>>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
>>> "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, 

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jonathan Moore]

I agree Tim.

When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it is exactly
that. In every nook and cranny you'll find programming interfaces that
allow you to use VEX and Python to help package your project for a wealth
of purposes. As Jordi says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything
else.

But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the Modo forums
helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their tentative steps. There
are a group of artists there that have no intention of learning VEX (or
Python for that matter), they're primarily using Houdini for good old
fashioned modeling, scene layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The
reason why is simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini
Indie's pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling
improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus) have been
enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's more esoteric ways.
And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi who specifically puts tutorials
together for hobbyists telling them they can ignore all that nasty VEX
stuff!  :)

>From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be interesting to see
how this the influx of very non-technical artists influences SideFX over
the next year or so. They may recoil in horror or they may find ways of
accommodating them without destroying the user experience for the vast
majority of houdini users - technical artists.

Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and rendering workflows
in Houdini that are less clumsy and over time I hope that artists explore
Houdini's technical side as it offers so many rewards.

On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland  wrote:

> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with
> what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the
> assets you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far
> more complex and superior than what you can make with other applications.
> In fact, depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve
> far more scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of
> course 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking
> about modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better
> choice, or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single
> software process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best
> results out, what ever that is.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com <
> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> on behalf of Nicole
> Beeckmans-Jacqmain 
> *Sent:* 14 April 2017 22:52
> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/
> forum/#!forum/xsi_list
> *Subject:* Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted
> useful?
>
> textcoding will cost money to our clients:
> it's time consuming, and
> not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
>
>
> just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
> the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
> is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic
> workflow:
> - i really mean by this that,  so much time and energy  you spend in
> controling your workflow with textcoding,
> the less time you  can possibly have to think about the image workflow and
> plasticity.
> this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual
> repetitions
> back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but
> your artistic
> attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.
>
> i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a
> different angle.
> as an artist this seems so evident though..
>
>
> 2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler :
>
>> I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow
>> control is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph.
>>
>> Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D
>>
>> Happy weekend.
>> Andy
>>
>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S  wrote:
>>
>> Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Softimage Mailing List.
>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>>
>
>
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com
> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
>
--
Softimage Mailing List.
To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
"unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Jordi Bares]

Indeed, specialised tools are the way forward, even more so when they are in 
the hands of specialised artists (modelling in ZBrush, texturing in Mari, 
crowds with Massive, portable textures with substance designer,…) 

Lately I keep thinking Houdini as an integrator is pretty much perfect due to 
the procedural nature of it and the ability to build advanced assets, but at 
the same time I wonder how artists will reposition themselves…

Interesting times.
Jb


> On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:07, Tim Bolland  wrote:
> 
> I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with 
> what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the assets 
> you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far more 
> complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. In fact, 
> depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve far more 
> scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of course 
> 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking about 
> modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better choice, 
> or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single software 
> process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best results out, what 
> ever that is.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>  on behalf of Nicole 
> Beeckmans-Jacqmain 
> Sent: 14 April 2017 22:52
> To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
> Subject: Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?
>  
> textcoding will cost money to our clients: 
> it's time consuming, and
> not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.
> 
> just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
> the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
> is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic 
> workflow:
> - i really mean by this that,  so much time and energy  you spend in 
> controling your workflow with textcoding,
> the less time you  can possibly have to think about the image workflow and 
> plasticity.
> this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual 
> repetitions
> back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but your 
> artistic
> attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.
> 
> i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a different 
> angle.
> as an artist this seems so evident though..
> 
> 
> 2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler  >:
> I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow 
> control is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph.
> 
> Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D
> 
> Happy weekend.
> Andy
> 
>> On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S > > wrote:
>> 
>> Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now?
> 
> 
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com 
>  with "unsubscribe" in the 
> subject, and reply to confirm.
> 
> --
> Softimage Mailing List.
> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with 
> "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.

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

Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

[Tim Bolland]

I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with what 
Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the assets you can 
make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far more complex and 
superior than what you can make with other applications. In fact, depending on 
the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve far more scripting and 
technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of course 'Horses-for-courses' as 
the British like to say, if your talking about modelling high-rez characters, 
then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better choice, or Maya if your more used to it. 
I just don't see 3D as a single software process anymore. I'll use the best 
software to get the best results out, what ever that is.

Cheers,

Tim



From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com 
 on behalf of Nicole 
Beeckmans-Jacqmain 
Sent: 14 April 2017 22:52
To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. 
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
Subject: Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful?

textcoding will cost money to our clients:
it's time consuming, and
not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands.


just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial.
the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches,
is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic workflow:
- i really mean by this that,  so much time and energy  you spend in controling 
your workflow with textcoding,
the less time you  can possibly have to think about the image workflow and 
plasticity.
this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual repetitions
back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but your 
artistic
attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs.

i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a different 
angle.
as an artist this seems so evident though..


2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler 
>:
I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow control 
is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph.

Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D

Happy weekend.
Andy

On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S 
> wrote:

Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now?


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

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