I think we all are mixing a few things that may be leading you to think like that and may not actually be the case… correct me if I am wrong please.
> It is however not very straightforward to use for the average 3D artist, no > matter how experienced, nor is it easy to pick up. You need to be good at > math and know syntax well, and that is plain and simply taking ressources > away from the purely artistic part of the work which is why I do this. I want > to make great work, not need a science degree to do it. Houdini is very granular, true, and with that comes a bit bigger “vocabulary” of tools, for certain tasks you do need maths, but you will need the same in any other package if you try to do that same task. A good analogy would be scripting, arguably if you are forced to script something out is detracting from your art right? But now is commonplace and everyone assumes you are a better artist if you can script… same with everything, specially simple maths. > I used to think that 3D software would evolve to become extremely user > friendly so it would at some point be fairly easy for almost any user to do > even very advanced stuff, so the real difference in output would be how > skilled an artist you are. I would say it is getting simpler, but it is a moving target as the field itself is expanding every year. Just look at the evolution of fluid dynamics over the last 10 years… from nothing to this very sophisticated big/small scale fluids, various methods… it is expanding. > Obviously this is not the path SideFX has taken. It may be my future is not > with Houdini, but Soft is parked at the roadside, Maya is a mess still, and > the other competitors don't really come close to the level of these anyway, > so naturally I am looking in the direction which is developing rapidly and > outside of the dark side of AD. > > It is just that using Houdini seems like driving a car without a steering > wheel but having a graphical UI with trigonometry controls to do the > steering, and if you want more speed, no gas pedal, but go write an > expression that provides the proper mix of gas and air and change the > ignition timing. It is hardly intuitive and perhaps the goal is not to be > that, but imagine if this solid core architecture was given a better > interface, I am sure many more artists out there would jump the wagon > straight away and we would see even more fantastic stuff created with Houdini > plus make a lot of people more happy. I would use a different analogy but I know what you mean, nevertheless if you put it in context it looks quite different to me… Probably what you are trying to do nowadays would require a programer (in Maya for example) to implement, now you are trying to do it yourself connecting nodes without any intention on diving onto the nitty gritty of things (and yes, that involves some basic maths) but… is this realistic?? Probably not.. In my opinion, as the field expands and we need finer control we all are going to be exposed to more and more maths (probably pre-calculus for a long time) but even that will change for sure so I do believe it is only a matter of accepting this is a constantly evolving field and to stay relevant you need to study many things, from anatomy to maths. > I am guessing growing userbase and popularity is not a problem for SideFX, > and making their software more accessible is probably very hard, and takes > ressources away from developing new and better tools, but I really wish. I like the fact they keep expanding new horizons (Terrains? Proper muscles? New Booleans? etc...), supporting standards and embracing them quickly (VDB for example? Alembic? OpenColorIO?, …) while at the same time embracing modern viewport centric workflows and modern usability metaphors *without* crippling the main core attributes that make Houdini itself. I hope it makes sense jb > Have a nice weekend all :) > > Morten > > > > > > > >> Den 31. marts 2017 klokken 10:26 skrev Dan Yargici <danyarg...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> I think people need to accept that just as they understandably expect >> SideFX to push the software to be more approachable for themselves they >> really ought to try and push themselves in the opposite direction also. >> >> If there was a theoretical race to DCC dominance, I'd really favour Houdini >> right now. I think starting with so many of the hard things solved and >> working 'creative' workflows into the software is a far more enviable >> position to be in than having to go in the opposite direction. >> >> Really exciting times ahead as far as I'm concerned! >> >> DAN >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Jonathan Moore <jonathan.moo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I hate to sound inflexible in my views but Houdini is such a powerful >>> application because of its technical approach. >>> >>> >>> >>> Just because Softimage is no longer available and Maya is ‘problematic’ >>> (to say the least) shouldn’t mean that SideFX should have to change their >>> development strategy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I believe that SideFX have in fact done a fantastic job of listening to >>> customers that have moved to Houdini from other packages including >>> Softimage. The speed with which they implemented a suggested change ref >>> dropping VOP nodes over wires the other day is a fine example of that. But >>> there‘s a danger of allowing the ‘tail to wag the dog’ so that Houdini >>> gets changed for the worse rather than the better. I think SideFX have the >>> balance of things pretty much spot on. There’s still huge improvements that >>> can be made to the approachability of certain aspects of the user >>> experience but I it’s never going to transform into something radically >>> different to what’s available today. If anything, with so much of Houdini >>> moving away from Hscript style expressions to VEX expressions (for very >>> good reason - multithreaded performance) certain aspects of the Houdini >>> user experience are in fact getting more technical. >>> >>> >>> >>> The best way to learn how to adapt to Houdini is first to accept it for >>> what it is. And part of the Houdini user experience has always been >>> scripting and programming. That’s why it’s so often described as a 3d >>> operating system rather than a DCC. >>> >>> >>> >>> Apologies for spelling things out so bluntly but I can’t see Houdini >>> evolving into something less technical. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:softimage-bounces@ >>> listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain >>> *Sent:* 30 March 2017 19:57 >>> *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List. https://groups.google.com/ >>> forum/#!forum/xsi_list <softimage@listproc.autodesk.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: Houdini Digital Assets for Softies >>> >>> >>> >>> hi. yes, was forced to stop following this week's entagma taurus tutorial. >>> >>> again, these monthes i spend most of my time to write & storyboard. >>> >>> got recently interested by _computer_ 2d possibilities, new for me. >>> >>> but as discussion advances here, i am getting discouraged to be able to >>> talk in the future, about a project with a Houdinist. >>> >>> (i don't want to just supervize) because i am foremost a visual artist, >>> isn't it that Houdini should evolve upside down, >>> >>> so that Visual controls Math Thinking, and not the other way around. >>> >>> Procedural Innovation looked nice, so far, i guess? >>> >>> so, in a way i donot opt if a new community shift occurs between >>> >>> Maya artists and Houdini vop sop artists. or do you think it necessary, >>> and why? >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> Nicole. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2017-03-30 18:04 GMT+02:00 Morten Bartholdy <x...@colorshopvfx.dk>: >>> >>> >>> >>> I just also wish Houdini would be made more accessible for less >>> technically inclined artists like myself. >>> >>> >>> ------ >>> Softimage Mailing List. >>> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com >>> with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. >>> >> ------ >> Softimage Mailing List. >> To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with >> "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with > "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm. ------ Softimage Mailing List. To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com with "unsubscribe" in the subject, and reply to confirm.
