Have a look at the transition guides I am writing, download them on your iPad and read them (it is fast to read, promise) so you can take an informed decision, be either Houdini, Maya, Modo, whatever you like.
My feeling is that a transition period with FX and rendering in Houdini to later decide to either buy more time or commit to package X is the safest route right now. Plus render nodes are free and believe me, that adds up really easily so with one FX license and normal ones you can go really really far. cheers Jordi Bares jordiba...@gmail.com On 21 May 2014, at 23:12, Francois Lord <flordli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, the only reason I have not yet dived into Houdini yet is because of > lack of time. As soon as I can, I will be reading those pdfs. > But I do have to choose my next move not too late, for me and for the company > I work for. Over here, we are 18 cg artists working in Softimage. No one is > excited to learn Maya, but Im not sure we can skip it entirely. Houdini seems > a good first step for look dev since Arnold is coming. We can keep rigging > and Animation in Softimage for a while. Modeling can be done in any package, > it doesn't matter. > > F > > > On 21-May-14 17:59, Andy Nicholas wrote: >> BTW, it's worth saying that despite all the faults I've mentioned, I still >> love >> using Houdini. Especially now that it's my main route of escape from the >> wonderful world of Maya ;) And for those who are looking for a tool to >> support >> complex effects, I'd totally recommend getting into it. >> >> If you haven't checked out Jordi's PDFs on SideFX's website yet BTW, that >> should >> be your first port of call as they're a great transitionary guide. >> >> >> 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? >
