Indeed, specialised tools are the way forward, even more so when they are in the hands of specialised artists (modelling in ZBrush, texturing in Mari, crowds with Massive, portable textures with substance designer,…)
Lately I keep thinking Houdini as an integrator is pretty much perfect due to the procedural nature of it and the ability to build advanced assets, but at the same time I wonder how artists will reposition themselves… Interesting times. Jb > On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:07, Tim Bolland <tim_boll...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > I would agree with that if the final result out of Houdini was on par with > what Maya and other DCC's were delivering. The reality is some of the assets > you can make with Houdini, with very minimal scripting, can be far more > complex and superior than what you can make with other applications. In fact, > depending on the asset I would say making it in Maya would involve far more > scripting and technical know how than the Houdini workflow. Of course > 'Horses-for-courses' as the British like to say, if your talking about > modelling high-rez characters, then perhaps Z-Brush would be a better choice, > or Maya if your more used to it. I just don't see 3D as a single software > process anymore. I'll use the best software to get the best results out, what > ever that is. > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > From: softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com > <softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com> on behalf of Nicole > Beeckmans-Jacqmain <arc.ann...@gmail.com> > Sent: 14 April 2017 22:52 > To: Official Softimage Users Mailing List. > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list > Subject: Re: Anybody finding the Houdini example files I've posted useful? > > textcoding will cost money to our clients: > it's time consuming, and > not responding to the (cinema)scope of the producers demands. > > just watched today's houdini16 geometry workflow tutorial. > the only result of these avant-gardist mathematical researches, > is the corresponding repetitivity in any 3d exploration and cinematic > workflow: > - i really mean by this that, so much time and energy you spend in > controling your workflow with textcoding, > the less time you can possibly have to think about the image workflow and > plasticity. > this costs money and artistic quality. it brings some of the visual > repetitions > back to the sofwtare user, to handle them with code and expressions, but your > artistic > attention gets distracted away from your (clients') real needs. > > i am only saying this to be contradicted and seek the answer from a different > angle. > as an artist this seems so evident though.. > > > 2017-04-14 11:30 GMT+02:00 Andy Goehler <lists.andy.goeh...@gmail.com > <mailto:lists.andy.goeh...@gmail.com>>: > I don’t think so. As Jonathan mentioned already, conditionals and flow > control is often easier to ‘read’ in text form than it is in a node graph. > > Every tool has its place, so does code in text form :D > > Happy weekend. > Andy > >> On Apr 14, 2017, at 3:18 AM, Jason S <jasonsta...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jasonsta...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Shouldn't we be way past describing effects in text editors by now? > > > ------ > Softimage Mailing List. > To unsubscribe, send a mail to softimage-requ...@listproc.autodesk.com > <mailto: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.
