If you're doing combinatorics you don't model the shapes in isolation, you tweak a base and need to see the result on the combination, which might be one to four tiers of combinations away. You don't do combination sculpting without the rig because you don't do combination sculpting on the final shape half the time if you're sensible and can't waste a lot of time in kickbacks.
Doing shapes in ZBrush is doable, but they all need a lot of work after coming back in because by the nature of ZBrush you will have shit drifting all over the place. When they will add more than a single morph and a few simple vector operations to wire the morphs it will then be the ultimate tool for it, right now it's like trying to drive a truck out of a parking lot with a small gate. Blindfolded. On iced out ground. With a monkey hitting you on the head with a baseball bat every five seconds. Technically doable, but not worth the bother unless you get to show the mental breakdowns on TV and cash them in :) If you're doing cartoony or largely procedurally shaded stuff you can take a fair amount of drift. if you're doing something that has hundreds of rigid scales or precisely styled hair bound to the UV space it's an unmitigated disaster when you don't have something like Soft (or a shitton of stuff piled on top of Maya) around to do the work. On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Greg Punchatz <g...@janimation.com> wrote: > Raff while what you say is true about needing to check the results of your > sculpts in combination with with other shapes and deformers. There is no > reason those edits should not be done in the tool-set best suited to sculpt. > > Using something like Zaplink or a few scripts can make the back and forth > seamless. ICE made it so much easier to to pose based deformations and > corrective shapes using Zbrush to edit. > > That being said I still do a great bit of my shape work in soft, unless > its a very dense mesh, then I whip out the Z > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < > raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> The problem with ZBrush, or any modelling app that doesn't have your full >> rig in it, is that for things like combination sculpting they are useless, >> because you need to see multiple timelines of the shapes converging as you >> refine them for the result to be any good. It's also a ton easier to get >> combinatorics started in Soft since you can start any shape from any number >> of others with ICE. I so miss that in any other app (that last bit is >> literally the only one where Houdini could compete or even surpass Soft, >> actually, though it's somewhat painful to wrangle the shit together when >> you hit a certain degree of complexity and you end up spending more time >> making an uber rig than you do working the shapes' alignment). >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Jordi Bares Dominguez < >> jordiba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the notes, there has been quite a lot of changes but it is >>> true there are a few of your comments still pending, the most pressing to >>> me is speed and the viewport needs still lots of love. >>> >>> BTW, I was not advocating to use Houdini for modelling though, rather >>> use Zbrush to be honest and now that Zbrush is getting closer to a full set >>> of traditional modelling tools it is pretty obvious it is the route to go. >>> >>> My feeling is that character work is certainly more painful but at least >>> you get some serious gains and unfortunately there are no options so we are >>> in a transition moment. >>> >>> So far they are listening and moving forward so I will stick to Houdini >>> for the time being and keep an eye on others. >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> jb >>> >>> >>> On 16 Jan 2015, at 21:28, Raffaele Fragapane < >>> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of quality rigging, despite piles of papers trying to sell the >>> public on the contrary, is still manually tweaked. Taking things out of the >>> app where you have the full rig makes authoring a major pain. The most >>> basic example is shapes, doing shapes work in XSI for something like a >>> combination sculpting setup was as easy as it got, especially after ICE. >>> The way data is presented and accessible, the speed on large meshes, the >>> modelling toolkit, it all lent itself to that kind of work in a perfect >>> storm scenario. >>> Doing the same in Maya, comparatively, is beyond painful and requires a >>> pretty big staging effort to separate work and write accessory tools, in >>> Houdini you don't even have a particularly intuitive modelling toolkit, and >>> the handling of large meshes was pretty meh with it (at least up to 12, it >>> seems to be getting better and promising to be getting better again). >>> >>> The toolkit in general is pretty hard to impossible to give to a >>> modeller with little inclination to learn something like Houdini, while >>> with both Maya and Soft that's not a big challenge. >>> >>> I haven't tried the muscle system in a while, so my comment might be >>> dated to the point of not being valid, but the last time I did it was a bit >>> of a joke. No arbitrary topology for the deformers unless you cloth >>> collided (and the cloth solver was anything but acceptable), only some weak >>> superset of metaballs, rather slow, but at least it was relatively stable, >>> and overall clunky and requiring the lot a lot of micromanagement and a lot >>> of SOPs that often refused to play nicely with the rest of the app. >>> Mind, I haven't found a single commercial muscle system I would use if >>> they paid me for it, which is pretty embarrassing given when we needed one >>> for WWD we got a rather intuitive one done in just a few weeks that worked >>> for over 99% of the show meshes without manual intervention of any sort on >>> the sim, and literally only a dozen mesh fixes across over 800 shots. >>> >>> On top of all that, and again this is pre-14, most pre-13, it's slow. >>> Mind boggingly slow to articulate a decent animation rig. I suspect this >>> last point has been, or is about to be, superseded though since the >>> viewport has been getting some love. >>> >>> The main issue though remains that preparing an asset in Houdini remains >>> a long and involved process which very few people from other departments, >>> some times nobody, can be recruited into, it's born, lives and dies in the >>> hands of TDs. >>> >>> I've always had a soft spot for Houdini, and I'd give my money to SideFX >>> rather than many other companies any day of the year, but as a company >>> their commitment to character work of artistic or hybrid nature has always >>> been patchy (and I don't necessarily blame them for it) and subpar. >>> They have a lot of work to make up for it, but they seem to be slowly >>> doing it while making sure they don't lose their core business with FX and >>> end-to-end clients. >>> >>> I will certainly be looking at H14 as soon as some space for it in the >>> stash of stuff I need and want to do before clears up :) >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Jordi Bares Dominguez < >>> jordiba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> May I ask you to elaborate the “complex character rigging and tuned >>>> deformation”, I may be missing something. >>>> >>>> To start with you have muscles in Houdini which you don’t, let alone >>>> FEM simulations and a universal physics engine to cope with pretty >>>> sophisticated things… >>>> >>>> Certainly it is easier in Softimage and more artist friendly to setup >>>> but I see the rigging side as one very strong point. >>>> >>>> If you are talking about screen space corrections, blend shapes and >>>> advanced contact collision its certainly doable with the toolset. >>>> >>>> :-| >>>> >>>> thx >>>> jb >>>> >>>> >>>> On 16 Jan 2015, at 16:59, Raffaele Fragapane < >>>> raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It's only true for some definitions of rigging. >>>> If you need proceduralism of course it does spectacularly well, and >>>> assets are simply best of breed in the industry and have been for years, >>>> end of story. >>>> For the hand-crafted complex character rig and tuned deformation kind >>>> of job though, no, it's not nicer than Soft, and I'd be hard pressed to >>>> make an argument for it over Maya (which I consider pretty bottom barreling >>>> already without a ton of custom work). >>>> >>>> Some of the upgrades in H14 and some of the future roadmap do bode well >>>> for that though. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Gerbrand Nel <nagv...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well I say nicer, because there are allot of toys to play with. >>>>> I think rigging is the part where you need a non destructive >>>>> procedural work flow the most. >>>>> In Maya it feels like you have to make damn sure you are done with >>>>> step A before moving onto step B. >>>>> Houdini is flexible to the point where you become reckless with your >>>>> work flow :) >>>>> Bit more complex when you get started, but worth it. >>>>> The auto rig at the very least doesn't break like the soft one used to >>>>> in 2011 :) >>>>> G >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 16/01/2015 14:08, Mirko Jankovic wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Riggin nicer then Soft? >>>>> Will have to check it out then.. In maya rigging and enveloping is >>>>> huge crap and biggest reason that I don't wanna ago back int othat hell at >>>>> first place. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Gerbrand Nel <nagv...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> After trying to learn maya for about 6 months, learning houdini is a >>>>>> breath of fresh air!! >>>>>> It is not softimage, but I think its the only thing that will come >>>>>> close to the flexibility and power of soft for small studios and >>>>>> freelancers. >>>>>> Once you get into it, It is even more power. >>>>>> I tried learning it about 2 years ago, and gave up because I thought >>>>>> my time would be better spent getting better in soft (the future was >>>>>> still >>>>>> bright back then) >>>>>> Back then it seemed complicated, but after dealing with maya, it >>>>>> feels sooo much friendlier. >>>>>> The way I see it, you get the operator stack, and ice tree, all in >>>>>> one place, the network view >>>>>> So its one thing to learn. >>>>>> In Maya I feel like I have to learn new software every time I do >>>>>> something else. >>>>>> Rigging I found nicer than soft, and the animation editor in houdini >>>>>> feels like a polished version of the soft one. >>>>>> Houdini engine is still blowing my mind.. like it doesn't stop!! >>>>>> At $300 you cannot ignore this as a piece of your pipeline! >>>>>> I'll probably do allot of work in maya because I need to fit into >>>>>> teams of Mayans, but with the houdini engine, I can do the work in the >>>>>> software best suited for it, without forcing the rest of the team to >>>>>> conform. >>>>>> G >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16/01/2015 12:08, Mirko Jankovic wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> modeling and character riga nd animation wise it is I assume sitill >>>>>>> nt as suser friendly as SI right? >>>>>>> how us ievrall generalist and smalls tudio experience? >>>>>>> SI is more or less out of the box great steramlined solution.. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship >>>> it and let them flee like the dogs they are! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it >>> and let them flee like the dogs they are! >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it >> and let them flee like the dogs they are! >> > > -- Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it and let them flee like the dogs they are!
