Hehe! There you go, another variation ;) I've not tried that one, but that sounds like a better way of going about it than my previous attempts with instancing into subnets.
On 21 May 2014 at 22:57 Jordi Bares <jordiba...@gmail.com> wrote: > I do miss XSI passes a bit… The thing as you know is that there is no the > concept of passes, you can mimic it although not 100% so people just find > their approach and become very proud of it not knowing XSI has the very finest > system since day 1. > > I never use takes for passes but for overrides and use ROPs together with > bundles instead of explicit references of "object merge" style approaches. > > The thing I am not sure i want to give up now is the approach of ROP networks > dependencies so I can trigger very complex setups and simply go home. > > ;-) > > Jordi Bares > jordiba...@gmail.com > > On 21 May 2014, at 22:51, Andy Nicholas <a...@andynicholas.com> wrote: > > > 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? > >>>> > >> >
