You don't have to work with houdini the way you describe. Even though there is a procedural nature to the application, you don't have to make every single asset you do a super tool. It's up to you, the software doesn't force you into any workflow.
If you know you will be sharing an asset with other members of a team then yes this approach makes sense. In regards to the tutorial you mention, from Keith Johnson. He in fact approaches the task on a very softimage way. From all the tutorials I've seen, this one actually doesn't get bogged down on proceduralism. https://vimeo.com/122274907 https://vimeo.com/125116427 Best, Cris On 10 June 2015 at 16:59, Jason S <jasonsta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed that's why I corrected myself, having recalled SideFX (also) > having their own publicized SI team > which referred to workflow and not ICE which indeed leaves not much to be > desired functionality-wise for Houdini > except maybe also the 'workflow' or general ease-of-use of ICE... (despite > also being not always easy for everyone).. > > But speaking of workflow, there was a recent Video from someone adopting > Houdini, > which I think shows exactly both the main strength and the main drawback > of Houdini at the same time. > > Making a neat and quite detailed retro neon sign, with lightbulbs, neon > fixtures and all that, > at the end he could dynamically change the amount of fixtures, or > dynamically change basically anything. > > But the time (and complication) involved setting everything up.. in my > opinion is worth it if you need a bunch of similar but different things, > being faster to redo different variations once the setup is there. > > And although the fact that you could also do an almost entirely (or > partly) procedural dynamic sing (or whatever) setup in XSI is besides the > point, > (being perhaps less, but also very non-destructive, perhaps like what > AfterEffects is to Nuke at least for the stack) > the point is you don't -have- to keep everything dynamic if you don't need > to, > and get things done in a jiffy with much less head scratching or chin > rubbing , and you can then say, ok next? > > That while having quite a bit of things that really don't take any more or > less time making (or leaving) them dynamic or not, > and involves somewhat minimal history stack management (which otherwise > you barely know it's there until you need it or want to clear it) > if and when needed to remain fully procedural, perhaps with compounds with > exposed params or custom parameters driving operator properties and such > (for quick editing in unified property sets -if- necessary). > usually being a pretty tiny percentage of things, like we end-up freezing > most of everything that doesn't need to remain live once their done. > > Making it not only a good compromise between fully procedural and > non-procedural, but also a best both worlds in many respects. > > But I guess Houdini doesn't have something that drives many Houdini users > away... > which doesn't matter if you're at a place who doesn't care about 'dead' > labels while waiting for better things, or for things to become better. > > That being said, even when only looking at what can work best, Houdini of > course obviously (also) has it's own strengths uses and place. > > > > For Fabric, although I think adopting a visual development environment is > a step in the right direction, > I personally would hope they would move still quite a bit further away > from being a "mostly for TD's" thing, > and would also feel more confident if it wasn't subject to what host DCC's > allows to be accessed being probably widely varying from a DDC to another > concerning it's scope or reach. > say if it could be fully unrestrained in it's own standalone environment, > cause ICE apart geo and rig processing, can (very interactively) get & set > pretty much anything in a given scene, weight maps, uv's, CAV's, > particles/strands, materials, any animatable parameter can be ICE driven or > drive other ICE things, ... and above-all, all in a very (yet relatively) > non-'overtechnical' setting. > > I guess time will tell. > > cheers, > > > On 06/09/15 23:09, Raffaele Fragapane wrote: > > Should probably add, modelling too, and you can pretty much swap animation > and modelling in my mail above and all of it remains pretty much true :) > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Raffaele Fragapane < > raffsxsil...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> They never said anything involving ICE AFAIK. >> >> They did mention that they are trying to make Houdini more pleasant to >> use, and want animation (the user facing, artist oriented part of it) to >> receive more attention, and that they have a Softimage developer on board >> contributing to that. Both those statements are true. They are doing good >> work in those regards, and part of that work is done by an ex Softie. >> >> To my knowledge that's the extent of it. I've yet to see or hear ICE >> mentioned at all, let alone ex developers of it, by SideFX people. >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Andy Goehler < >> lists.andy.goeh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 05, 2015, at 22:02, Jason S <jasonsta...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> …Houdini says has an ICE team… >>> >>> >>> Do they? I don’t recall, have any sources? >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it > and let them flee like the dogs they are! > > >
