+1 on what Matt said
I spent a year in maya, and a year in houdini.
For me it personally comes down to the following.
Almost all things will initially happen quicker in maya,..... and then
you start praying!
You pray the client doesn't change anything!
You pray you didn't forget anything in step 4 of your 15 step pipeline.
AND ABOVE ALL YOU PRAY THE BASTARD DOESN'T BREAK.
In Houdini on the other hand, I feel relaxed. I know I can probably
change anything at any time without destroying anything, or re-doing too
much work.
This is the most important aspect of houdini most people overlook when
they try it.
I've seen a few people leave houdini after a few days, because they feel
they can get the same thing done quicker in maya..
They then see me leave... every day... at 5pm, cause my client changes
took 2 hours while theirs will take the whole night.
I know you said you mostly do animation and gaming. Houdini is not
famous for animation, but to be honest with you, this is probably
because most people who use houdini overlook the awesomeness of chops.
Just look at this for a quick intro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiaNyYnzEQM
G
On 24/11/2015 02:14, Matt Lind wrote:
This really depends on how you fit into the game development side of
the equation.
I've worked on games in most genres and formats. In my experience,
game assets are typically very iteration heavy because they must
remain live at all times (compare to Film/video assets which are
mostly locked down once images have been rendered because you can't
continually re-render the entire film). It takes people time to make
those revisions, which is the most valuable resource and also the most
mismanaged.
I steer towards iteration friendly workflows as iteration tends to be
the #1 time/money loss in game development art pipelines.
It's almost a guarantee any game asset will be revised, and revised
many times - especially if the engine and other underlying components
of the game are not settled. Iteration is often overlooked as a
factor when evaluating software and making schedules. Too often
people focus on trivial details such as number of mouse clicks or
creating asset version 1, when instead they should be focused on the
500+ revisions that come later. If iteration is heavy in your
pipeline, consider Houdini. What you give up in playback speed or
other things you take for granted, you can earn back on the reduced
iteration factor.
Don't worry too much about who has plugins for getting stuff into an
engine as all the major players have that capability. And even so,
many studios opt to write their own exporters because they need
support for features not included in the plugins. Instead, focus on
reliability over the life of the product, not just the current version
being demo'd by the sales guy. Remember, you'll have to update your
DCC at some point. If it must rely on multiple service packs every
release to get right (or merely usable), what message does that send?
Think about how that affects production during crunch time. Also
think about the opposite - do you have the option of riding a
particular version without being forced to update? It would really
suck to be forced to update into a regression of an important feature.
Matt
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 13:31:20 +0100
From: Daniel Kim <danielki...@gmail.com>
Subject: Have a question an alternative tool
To: "softimage@listproc.autodesk.com"
Hey guys.
I just like to ask if you guys found 3D software as alternative tool.
I am also looking for a software, but it is hard to decide one. What I am
doing is mostly animation and game works, not motion graphic or
simulation
stuff.
So far MODO seems nice, but many colleagues suggest me Cinema4D. I also
like to know what you guys chose. If you guys also can put short comment
what is good about that software, that will be thankful.
Cheers
Daniel
.
