Korny Klown2
The reason is, because no serious modeling artist wants to struggle with Houdinis so called “modeling toolkit”, for f@%& sake! Accept that!
God, this kind of ignorance and arrogance makes me angry.
This thread is over for me.

I have zero problems with modeling in Houdini. How detailed model you would like to see to believe that there are no problems with creating one in Houdini? Any picture for example?

You seem angry or upset because Houdini isn't as good of a modeler as the other applications…? I mean, Max isn't as good as ZBrush or Mudbox for certain types of models… do you want them to focus on making sculpting tools in Max or Houdini that are just as good? Some workflows make sense in one package, that won't work as well in another.

Like Max, Houdini does a lot more than modeling. However, it's very foundation is node-based. For Max it's an afterthought. In Houdini character modeling is definitely not it's strong point,however Procedural modeling is definitely a strong point. The way Houdini deals with attributes is just unmatched in any other app. So, yes having MCG for Max is a great addition for it, (though Genome has been out for a few years now) and you will definitely be able to do a lot more procedural based modeling with it now. If you're happy with Max for modeling, and you are a modeler, then sure, there's not really as much of a reason to switch to Houdini now for you. Houdini though still has a lot of advantages, since it's built on that foundation.

That being said, most customers probably aren't using Houdini for modeling the characters and props and environments, or rigging and animating characters. The entire UX thing is definitely an area that SideFX is most definitely working on however. They do seem to be broadening their horizons a lot on that front, but they probably aren't going to stop focusing on what the majority of their customers use it for (i'm guessing for fx). It just takes a lot of time.

Korny Klown2
[
God, this kind of ignorance and arrogance makes me angry.

No, your anger stems from a incomprehension that Sesi have said they are are working in this area.

All quality work requires effort, time and energy.

Ok, although I said this thread is over for me, I still wanna reply to this nice post, because it is the kind of discussion I was hoping for (thanks Solitude):

Solitude
You seem angry or upset because Houdini isn't as good of a modeler as the other applications…?

No, my angre is primarily based on Martys arrogance implying that I'm not as experienced, he is so much better, blah blah blah, with a condescending tone of “…we were probably using them were you were a toddler!”. And I also get challenged to show my work first, to see if I'm actually good enough to talk to such an elite society and his 3D majesty MartybNz.
It's not what you say, but how you say it.

Solitude
In Houdini character modeling is definitely not it's strong point,however Procedural modeling is definitely a strong point. The way Houdini deals with attributes is just unmatched in any other app.

Finally someone neutral enough to admit that Houdini has weak spots, too, thanks.
Indeed Houdinis procedural modeling is the best around, especially with the the attributes and stuff but isn't it sad that such a huge potential gets wasted by focusing just on that. I mean, as I said, probably not all Houdini users are using Houdini because they explicitly want to access the data that deeply. Maybe they were just looking for some procedural, node-based modeling tools and since there was no real alternative, they chose Houdini. But now, with releases such as Max 2016, do you see the danger that some of them are now returning to their familiar Max and/or that the ones thinking of integrating procedural modeling in their pipeline now don't have to try Houdini out anymore. That could mean a significant nosedive for Houdini sales figures. That's what I mean when I say “serious competition”.
Of course there will always be TDs that really need the all-accessable-data concept of Houdini, but that's probably the minority. Most people probably just want to scatter trees and rocks on a terrain or want to model procedural buildings or cities, you know what I mean? If they don't need to change to Houdini, for tasks like that, anymore, that could really thin out Houdinis user base, don't you think?

Solitude
The entire UX thing is definitely an area that SideFX is most definitely working on however. They do seem to be broadening their horizons a lot on that front…

Yeah, that's true and I really like the H14 version and the direction SESI sets the sails to, but time is running fast and what if this is just Autodesks beginning? What if they see increasing sales figures for that Max 2016 version and decide to keep on developing the procedural tools to alienate more SESI customers?

Well most of users that wanted to scatter few trees had plethora of plugins for 3dsMax anyway.

Softimage had ICE (which was far advanced than this graph) and even better modelling toolset, and all that was not enough, sales was not up and eventually it was killed.

It is not that simple as you presented.

You need to look at pricing scheme too, for example why would I pay for 3dsMax that much when I can have Indie Houdini for 200$ per year? From that perspective I do not see anything attractive in it. IMHO this Graph is only to keep existing 3dsMax users happy and stop thinking about other solutions.

SreckoM
…why would I pay for 3dsMax that much when I can have Indie Houdini for 200$ per year?

Unlimited render resolution, Maxs famous modeling tools and modifiers, stuff like that probably. Of course SESIs new pricing scheme is really attractive but for me it wasn't enough to tip the balance.

SreckoM
IMHO this Graph is only to keep existing 3dsMax users happy and stop thinking about other solutions.

Well, if so then this strategy is far more successful than expected because when I wanna come away from Maya and switch to a more procedural approach. And when I'm watching this [youtube.com] I'm seriously asking why Houdini? From what I've seen so far it seems to be capable of everything procedural I need, without forcing me too much into that procedural structure.
I will keep watching 1-2 years how things will evolve so I hope Houdini/SESI will get its act together.

Korny Klown2

SreckoM
…why would I pay for 3dsMax that much when I can have Indie Houdini for 200$ per year?

Unlimited render resolution, Maxs famous modeling tools and modifiers, stuff like that probably. Of course SESIs new pricing scheme is really attractive but for me it wasn't enough to tip the balance.

It is unlimited in Indie… for stills. For animation is 1080p. As Indie I don't have enough firepower to render animations even in 1080p in reasonable amount of time.

BTW. For the price of 3dsmax + Vray + Realflow + FumeFX, I can have:
Houdini Indie + Modo + Zbrush + Substance Designer/Painter + update computer.

Each of those programs is fast and not bloated. I do hope that you are not trying to tell me that Max is better than all those programs together?

SreckoM
… And when I'm watching this [youtube.com] I'm seriously asking why Houdini? From what I've seen so far it seems to be capable of everything procedural I need, without forcing me too much into that procedural structure…

If that's all you wanted, why you didn't switched thru all those years to Softimage? It had all you needed, right?

Still after so many years Max doesn't have even simple fluids. Dynamics are a joke. And so on…

Korny Klown2

SreckoM
…why would I pay for 3dsMax that much when I can have Indie Houdini for 200$ per year?

Unlimited render resolution, Maxs famous modeling tools and modifiers, stuff like that probably. Of course SESIs new pricing scheme is really attractive but for me it wasn't enough to tip the balance.

SreckoM
IMHO this Graph is only to keep existing 3dsMax users happy and stop thinking about other solutions.

Well, if so then this strategy is far more successful than expected because when I wanna come away from Maya and switch to a more procedural approach. And when I'm watching this [youtube.com] I'm seriously asking why Houdini? From what I've seen so far it seems to be capable of everything procedural I need, without forcing me too much into that procedural structure.
I will keep watching 1-2 years how things will evolve so I hope Houdini/SESI will get its act together.

Great, then 3dsMax app should be your choice.

FX/Dynamics/Fluids is main focus for Houdini, they rule in that area, it is understandable that they will mostly focus on that. Also SESI is not large as AD. It will probably take some time for Houdini to have modelling tools like Maya. Same as it will take some time for Maya to match Houdini in FX field.

I have Zbrush, Blender, 3dCoat and that cover all my modelling needs. And everything perfectly connects to Houdini thanks to way it is build.

I am character modeller I would use app that is built for that, MODO, Blender as Houdini can't match them in that department.

Korny Klown2
No, my angre is primarily based on Martys arrogance implying that I'm not as experienced, he is so much better, blah blah blah, with a condescending tone of “…we were probably using them were you were a toddler!”. And I also get challenged to show my work first, to see if I'm actually good enough to talk to such an elite society and his 3D majesty MartybNz.

Not sure what the issue is with showing first work. Attached is a 462 hour / 20 day single frame radiosity render from 1995, and some 3d stuff from 1991; inspired by 21+ viewings of T2. Almost captures ILM's quality

Rendering log:
—- “19/6/95 Suspend Raydiosity”
Program version: 1.5.1
Rendering begins: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 8:45:32 PM
Rendering method: Raydiosity™
Rendering size: (640, 480)
Rendering frames: 0 to 0
Frame rate: 15
Camera settings:
Focal length: 53.334229
Scale: 0.079066
View center: (320, 240)
From point: (68.736847, -118.051460, 111.603088)
To vector: (-0.624630, -0.121869, -0.771353)
Up vector: (-0.076695, 0.992546, -0.094710)
Rendering done: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 3:23:47 AM
Elapsed time: 462:38:15

I would be mostly worried about them actually improving node graph in future versions. I tend to refer to Max as the plugin graveyard. Autodesk buys some plugin/tech, adds it to a release then never looks at it again.
I'm not saying that will happen but their track record is not good.
Look at the way Alembic was implemented in both packages.

Max got it “kind of” working and then got to say “we support alembic”. Never to be looked at again (could be wrong, maybe they have had another go but not for a few releases)
Houdini added it. then immediately reworked it to be way better and are still updating it.

I think this says a lot about the thought process of each company. Autodesk want it to look good on paper, sideFX want it to work in production.

Hey Kormy, is difficult to not start blaming about these software war topics.
But following you logic, looking at all the usability, modelling and animation updates in Houdini, and having an idea of what is coming in 14.5 and 15, well I will be more afraid on the Autodesk side.
Houdini has a lot of weak areas, but at the speed Side FX is trying to improve the software is way faster an aggressive than Autodesk.
And Houdini has something that no one of the Autodesk products have: a great design and solid rocks foundations from the core of the software, is not a collection of patches.
So, in the long term I think Houdini is going to keep growing, I don't think Max or Maya is going to steal some of its user base.

Let me just repost what MCG creator said when one of Softies asked about when/if MCG will support interactive and particles:

We could definitely consider making MCG interactive and adding support for particles. I would suggest adding those requests to http://3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com. [3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com.]

Basically, if enough people will suck their b*lls long and hard enough, they will kindly CONSIDER adding interactivity to MCG. Why they didn't made it interactive from the start?

This is approach of Autodesk to their clients and software they make.

Anyway, have a nice sucking!

Adding nodes and nodeeditors to a software doesn't make a software better. As simple as that. The maya node editor just revealed how messy the undelying structures are and the nodebased material editor in max didn't improve that material editing much. It made it worse in some cases situations.
And max is already a patchwork of software stuck on top of one another and far from a homogenous architecture - some parts are older than maya and SI.
Also the peformance with complex scenes has never been good, I have my doubt that more procedural calculations will improve anything in this regard.

Constantin X
The idiot move they did with Softimage(a better software then Max and Maya COMBINED) has created a huge stir in community. Much bigger then they anticipated, and now they try to contain the bleeding.

I think or hope that you're referring to XSI's community, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about - there was no stir in Maya and Max's user-base related to Softimage's EOL. The news might have reached their ears but happily carried on with their work in their s/w of choice.
Max and Maya's user-base is anesthetized by the apparent safety they live in which is not entirely unjustified since there's safety in numbers.

Apart from a few exceptions, they live in a bubble and one has to cut through a lot till they reach to those exceptions. I've talked with a few “3d people” in small studios and whenever I've mentioned other s/w other than Max/Maya that has some X feature that works better, a blank lifeless stare on their face quickly appears as if you activated a hypnotic state via a keyword.

OneBigTree
Adding nodes and nodeeditors to a software doesn't make a software better. As simple as that. The maya node editor just revealed how messy the undelying structures are and the nodebased material editor in max didn't improve that material editing much. It made it worse in some cases situations.
And max is already a patchwork of software stuck on top of one another and far from a homogenous architecture - some parts are older than maya and SI.
Also the peformance with complex scenes has never been good, I have my doubt that more procedural calculations will improve anything in this regard.

Spot on. Adding a node framework to 3ds Max is like putting makeup on a sow to make it prettier - you technically achieved that, but you're not far off from where you started.

mantragora
Let me just repost what MCG creator said when one of Softies asked about when/if MCG will support interactive and particles:

We could definitely consider making MCG interactive and adding support for particles. I would suggest adding those requests to http://3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com. [3dsmaxfeedback.autodesk.com.]

Basically, if enough people will suck their b*lls long and hard enough, they will kindly CONSIDER adding interactivity to MCG. Why they didn't made it interactive from the start?

This is approach of Autodesk to their clients and software they make.

How the hell Max users can use this if there is no debug tool and if there is no preview ?

Node based system, for me need to be the oposite, a way the devellop and progress interactively, manipulating nodes.

I guess it's the way 90% of the people work… blindly.
A small example could be the rendering system, As far as i know Max haven't a decent progressive rendering system while I first got one in 2003 with fprime. But nothing changed while normally every 3d artist should have switched to lightwave ;-)

mantragora
Basically, if enough people will suck their b*lls long and hard enough, they will kindly CONSIDER…

kinda reminds me of the viewport and COPs in H

tamte
I see it as a very nice bridge for MAX users to learn a bit of procedural concepts and get all excited about the power it offers, then it will be easier for them to switch to Houdini

+1

To answer your original question, nope I don't feel a thing at all.

Different application. Different users. We all have our preferences.

My studio use Maya primarily so I'm stuck with that. I learn Houdini and Modo in my spare time and I'm happy. I don't feel comfortable at all in MAX.

Well, after all these months, I have to say that MCG wont change the world.
I made a few modifiers on the first day and I use those all the time, but thats it. Basically we can have an editable array/spacing tool function now and thats great, and its really easy to make a floorgenerator tool now for herringbone floors etc so simple things are easier now, but overall MCG feels poorly documented and not user friendly at all.
Dont get me wrong, that 1% of the users who will use it, will love it. Those few tools I made for myself are really useful for me but still… probably I overestimated to number of the MCG users with that 1%.
Its annoying to test, the UI feels crap, etc. So the usual 3dsmax thing. Probably the biggest problem is the software itself, the UI and half of the software is just too old and they never had the courage to recreate it from scratch. It has the potential tho, we will see. But currently its not stealing users from Houdini.

I totaly agree with skaven. As a long time max user, i@m use to these porly (1/2 ARSED) ideas intergrated into max. The thing is max was all about a solid base that you added to with plugins and scripts from the start. Wanted fluids, get fume. Wanted character anim, get charcter studio/bones pro/CAT (thanks soft!). Wanted archvis, get design version. It all seems now that auto desk want max to be a content generator for their other software.

You guys have nothing to worry about.