Thank you for this detailed insight, Vincent. This makes me feel better, and almost eager to try Houdini now. I know it's very powerful, just a little worried about the day-to-day workflow.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Vincent Fortin <vfor...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is just my 0.02c regarding Houdini pricing... > > You can always negociate with SideFX. They are a very open company driven > by passion. > Studios interested in making a transition should discuss with Janet Fraser > ja...@sidefx.com > > Yes the extra $$$ for the floating license is weird. IMHO they should > revise that pricing. But otherwise, workstation license is 4,495$. Autodesk > users are often hesitant to pay for upgrades because they don't feel like > they're getting much in return. With Houdini you get blown away every > release. And your studio can have its say in the development roadmap. > > Mantra is a very solid renderer, actively developed by SideFX. I wonder > how much studios pay for their rendering needs? Mantra rendering is FREE > (aka unlimited). It's both REYES and Physical. > How much do studios pay for FumeFX (and Max and Vray when you don't wan't > to render in scanline), render layers that don't match and need to be fixed > in comp, cloth in Maya and issues related to supporting multiple > softwares/plugins, licenses or upgrades that IT needs to keep track of. Yes > ICE is an awesome little creation platform but has never reached maturity. > It can all be done in Houdini + more. > > Man time is often wasted in studios, Houdini has that philosophy that > everything can be offloaded to the farm, easily, without any or very little > development. How much time wasted with finding the right format for storing > your things on disk? XSI Models, pc2, collada, point oven, fbx, realflow > .bin. I'm sure you too have tried them all! Houdini's .bgeo stores > everything from points to volumes, nurbs, metaballs, custom attributes and > has always supported geometry with changing topology. Can be compressed, or > not. Can be made ascii. They have a standalone geometry viewer that is > pretty cool. Any data stored in a .bgeo can be used as rendering proxies. > But if you prefer Alembic, it is also fully integrated in the > software/renderer as well as out of the box Open VDB, Open Subdivs, EXR2 > and DEEP COMPOSITING (hello modernity!). > > How much time wasted opening 2GB scene files in Softimage or Maya? A > Houdini scene is always lightweight because of its referencing philosophy. > In fact , a Houdini scene is based on the UNIX file system. You can unpack > a full scene on your hard drive as a directory structure. It is true when > they say Houdini is a pipeline on its own. With built-in environment > variables, you can set up a small pipeline very easily. Often times I find > myself doing a full project within the same scene. Never had any > instabilities in years with Houdini. Never needed to "merge in an empty > scene" to fix some random scene corruption. > > They support every Linux flavors or Windows, or Mac. They have daily > builds and a 100% free learning edition with no time limitation. I see a > lot of potential in Houdini Engine for games or even for film if Bifrost > fails to deliver in a reasonable time frame. > > In fact I have become such a Houdini fanboy that every time I finish a > project I'm tempted to send flowers and chocolate to Toronto. > > Of course your mileage may vary but overall I don't think Houdini is so > overpriced considering all the problems you'll skip with it. I choose to > stick with the real passionate people, not the greedy blood suckers. All > the insecurity Autodesks generates regarding its development roadmap and > licensing schemes has been doing too much damage in its user base (includes > Maya for the last 10 years). Incidentally, if you visit the Houdini forums, > you'll find a community that is very mature, positive and helpful. > > Vincent > > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Angus Davidson <angus.david...@wits.ac.za > > wrote: > >> Mostly a lack of respect. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Ben Rogall [xsi_l...@shaders.moederogall.com] >> *Sent:* 04 March 2014 07:42 PM >> >> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com >> *Subject:* Re: Softimage transition audience poll >> >> Yep. Or $4495 for a workstation license and then $2495 per year. For a >> minute there it looked like Autodesk was doing something half reasonable >> with the free transition offer to Softimage + Maya. But then I saw that >> accepting that means that I would not be allowed to use Softimage at all >> after February 2016. I'm not even sure what Autodesk gains from that. >> >> Ben >> >> On 3/4/2014 11:00 AM, Francois Lord wrote: >> >> What I find interesting in the fact that people want to jump the Autodesk >> boat is that they seem to forget they have to buy a new software. >> For a company that relies entirely on Softimage, that decision is not a >> cheap one. Houdini is 7000$ for a floating license plus 4000$ per year! >> >> http://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=385&Itemid=190 >> >> In two years when Bifrost will be nearing maturity, Maya will become a >> lot more appealing if you stay on subscription. Be kind with your bean >> counter. >> >> just sayin. >> >> On 04-Mar-14 11:37, Alan Fregtman wrote: >> >> I've set up a poll out of curiosity... >> >> *Where will you transition to when Softimage falls?* Vote! >> >> http://strawpoll.me/1257710 >> >> (Multiple-choice allowed btw.) >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >
