I found his tutorials great for breaking that initial barrier into Houdini.
They are fun and easy to follow.
I personally have a mental block around code.
I don't have fun writing it, and I don't feel proud after.
Hopefully this will change one day, cause I know I'm missing out on allot of power.
I'm nearing 40 so I'm not holding my breath though :)
Until then, I'll stick to vops and blueprints.
G
On 2017/04/15 5:22 PM, Jonathan Moore wrote:
I agree Oliver. But we have the advantage of having first come from XSI’s ICE.

I personally find Rohan’s tutorials bad from a procedural modelling perspective too and his rendering tutorials (especially the Redshift ones) are also poor. But artist’s with no experience of procedural techniques find his tutorials very accessible. His approach to Houdini is to treat it like the 3ds Max Modifier Stack.

However, anything that makes Houdini more approachable has to be applauded even if it teaches bad habits along the way. You only appreciate bad habits after you’ve learn good ones after all. :)

On 15 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Olivier Jeannel <facialdel...@gmail.com <mailto:facialdel...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm not a big fan of Dalvi's tutorials. They are nice, but going to the more "fundamental" learning is the only way imho.
First it unties you from the tool
Second the execution speed. (Wich mean vex and or vop)
If I'm able to explode and rotate 200000 primitives, making them go from state to state and controling them exactly I'm free to test and create.
Not the over way around waiting for some sop to be made.


On Saturday, April 15, 2017, Jordi Bares <jordiba...@gmail.com <mailto:jordiba...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    I think we are going to see a massive change in perception and
    the new sidefx reel is going to look sooooo different this
    SIGGRAPH and next!!

    Jb

    Sent from my iPhone

    On 15 Apr 2017, at 12:46, Jonathan Moore
    <jonathan.moo...@gmail.com
    <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jonathan.moo...@gmail.com');>> wrote:

    I agree Tim.

    When people talk about Houdini being a 3d Operating system, it
    is exactly that. In every nook and cranny you'll find
    programming interfaces that allow you to use VEX and Python to
    help package your project for a wealth of purposes. As Jordi
    says Houdini is as much an integrator as anything else.

    But I've been spending the weeks since H16 was launched on the
    Modo forums helping a bunch of converts to Houdini through their
    tentative steps. There are a group of artists there that have no
    intention of learning VEX (or Python for that matter), they're
    primarily using Houdini for good old fashioned modeling, scene
    layout and rendering with Redshift or Octane. The reason why is
    simple price. These are hobbyists attracted by Houdini Indie's
    pricing and access to 3rd party GPU renderers. The modelling
    improvements in H16 (especially the booleans and radial menus)
    have been enough that they're willing to put up with Houdini's
    more esoteric ways. And they have a champion too in Rohan Dalvi
    who specifically puts tutorials together for hobbyists telling
    them they can ignore all that nasty VEX stuff!  :)

    From hobbyists come professional artists so it will be
    interesting to see how this the influx of very non-technical
    artists influences SideFX over the next year or so. They may
    recoil in horror or they may find ways of accommodating them
    without destroying the user experience for the vast majority of
    houdini users - technical artists.

    Personally I think it is possible to make modelling and
    rendering workflows in Houdini that are less clumsy and over
    time I hope that artists explore Houdini's technical side as it
    offers so many rewards.

    On 15 April 2017 at 12:07, Tim Bolland
    <tim_boll...@hotmail.co.uk
    <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
        
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com');>
        <softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com
        
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com');>>
        on behalf of Nicole Beeckmans-Jacqmain <arc.ann...@gmail.com
        <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','arc.ann...@gmail.com');>>
        *Sent:* 14 April 2017 22:52
        *To:* Official Softimage Users Mailing List.
        https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/xsi_list
        <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/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
        <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
            <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
            
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
        
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
    <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <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.

Reply via email to