Sure, conventions are always necessary, but more so with Houdini. Some people use Takes as passes, others use ROPs with object masks into subnets as passes. Or you could use a mix of the two approaches.
At least in Soft, passes are passes! A On 21 May 2014 at 22:16 Jordi Bares <jordiba...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is the same with any package the only thing is that Houdini artists tend to > be more of a peculiar type… you just have to make sure they stick to the > conventions like all Softimage users do (for example on how we setup passes) > > Jordi Bares > jordiba...@gmail.com > > On 21 May 2014, at 22:12, Andy Nicholas <a...@andynicholas.com> wrote: > > > Sure. There's certainly a lot of potential there. It's just that the > > openness > > means that the workflow is very open to interpretation. Houdini's a bit like > > coding, everyone has their own style so you can get in a mess. It's very > > easy to > > add in quick little "fixes" which other people might look on as hacks > > instead. > > > > A > > > > > > On 21 May 2014 at 21:25 Francois Lord <flordli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> And how would it fare as a lighting/shading/rendering hub? > >> I'm very hesitant to move to Maya just for it's lack of a true a pass > >> system. But then, there's only Houdini and Katana. We could add to the > >> list Modo and Clarisse (which I'm surprised nobody talked about here > >> yet) but we need Arnold. > >> > >> On 21-May-14 15:55, Andy Nicholas wrote: > >>> From my experience, it's still relatively slow. A lot of stuff is still > >>> single > >>> threaded although they've done a lot of work to improve that recently. Be > >>> ready > >>> to eat up a lot of disk space too, as you'll be caching stuff out all the > >>> time > >>> to make up for the lack of speed. > >>> > >>> > >>> Despite what many say about Houdini being great for particles, compared to > >>> ICE, > >>> the particles workflow is bloody awful. The nodes are super basic which > >>> means > >>> you have to roll your own out of VOPs, which are then super slow. ICE and > >>> Arnold > >>> are a dream for instancing, but Houdini drives me insane with slow and > >>> flaky > >>> workflows (although I probably need to update my knowledge since some of > >>> the > >>> new > >>> features have come out - e.g. packed primitives). > >>> > >>> > >>> Generally in production, expect not to see any significant results out of > >>> Houdini artists for the first 70-80% of the job. That can be a real pain > >>> for > >>> working with needy clients. Once you get past that point though, they'll > >>> be > >>> able > >>> to turn new versions out very quickly. Unfortunately, if it doesn't look > >>> good at > >>> that point you've got a crap load of work to redo, and it can really bite > >>> you in > >>> the ass if you don't have a good backup plan. > >>> > >>> > >>> When it comes to commercials, not a lot beats ICE and it's rigid body > >>> implementation for speed and ease of use, and I really miss not having > >>> that > >>> in > >>> Houdini. Doing simple stuff in Houdini's DOPs can require an hour of > >>> research > >>> trying to find out what data you need to modify, and how to actually > >>> implement > >>> it. > >>> > >>> I could go on a lot longer, but all I'll say is that you have to be super > >>> careful when you decide to throw a job at Houdini. Make sure you have R&D > >>> time > >>> built in if you haven't done a particular effect before. > >>> > >>> A > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 21 May 2014 at 19:42 Francois Lord <flordli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> So... > >>>> What are houdini weaknesses? What is missing in Houdini compared to > >>>> Softimage? Would you run a company only using Houdini as 3D app? Why not? > >> >
