Come on guys, things are getting a lot easier, just see this:

d3dworld
hopefully the devs will say that houdini is really artist friendly
in this topic.

Perhaps a distinction here is a new-to-Houdini Artist vs. Artist that has been using Houdini for 10-15 years. Very different scenarios.

LukeP

d3dworld
hopefully the devs will say that houdini is really artist friendly
in this topic.

Perhaps a distinction here is a new-to-Houdini Artist vs. Artist that has been using Houdini for 10-15 years. Very different scenarios.

thats true , but i am not new to houdini , i am completley zero

It's def true that CG is a difficult and complex discipline. No getting around that! Could Houdini help out a bit more? Probably...

I've been going through the new demo files one by one. Looked at the splash screen feathers last night and I think it's a good scene for intermediate-level users to study. Nothing too crazy in terms of concepts or VEX, but it's a very large node graph with lots of interrelated parts. Gives a great sense of what an artist can expect when building an interesting and beautiful scene.

I just watched the Luchador & Chicken | Rig & Network Walkthrough [www.youtube.com] that was released a few hours ago, and it made sense to me, here is what I got out of it after a first watch...

Import your model in separate parts.
Use KineFX to create a skeleton for your model.
Use KineFX to skin the different parts using the best method to help avoid vertex painting.
Merge your whole model together, then use Apex to create the rig.

No Python programming involved, and you end up with a fully rigged, production ready character with blend shapes and graph, and all procedural to boot.

Did I miss something, because if not, that's pretty straightforward to me, and I am no TD here! 🤔

Nope. It’s pretty straightforward for a rigger and I love the new animation context. Working in there doesn’t even feel like you’re in Houdini. Allows you to completely zone out and focus on animation.

raincole
Oh, yeah, this is a good point. Some Houdini nodes have good examples with them, but some have zero.

I'm sure sure if we're supposed to log bugs for these tho. For sure SideFX already knows which nodes don't have examples? If they want I'm sure an internal 5-line python script can list them all.

The point is that if you think certain cases could be explained a lot better with a helpcard example than what is already in the docs, then it helps them to know that. Do I need a help card for the Transform SOP? Probably not. So I think a lot of this is subjective.

For sure subjective since everybody has areas they need more help in. Ideally you'd want the docs to be universally up to the same standard with each entry written in the same format. But that's a massive job probably equal in difficulty in some ways to maintaining Houdini itself. Something like Microsoft Learn is the gold standard, but even this one article had five contributors. It's a lot of work... https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/pointers-cpp?view=msvc-170 [learn.microsoft.com]

edward

raincole
Oh, yeah, this is a good point. Some Houdini nodes have good examples with them, but some have zero.

I'm sure sure if we're supposed to log bugs for these tho. For sure SideFX already knows which nodes don't have examples? If they want I'm sure an internal 5-line python script can list them all.

The point is that if you think certain cases could be explained a lot better with a helpcard example than what is already in the docs, then it helps them to know that. Do I need a help card for the Transform SOP? Probably not. So I think a lot of this is subjective.

My point is that if I'm not familiar with a node, I might not even know if it solves my problem in hands. Like people say, "you don't know what you don't know." One or two examples for (almost) every node that shows how it works and what it can do will benefit everyone.

Transform SOP might seem simple for you, but I'm sure many, many of newer Houdini users are not aware of that some attributes are transformed while some are not, and how it decides which attributes to transform.

In my opinion this is the most fundamental aspect of Transform SOP: the fact that it doesn't transform "geometry" like any other 3D DCC, but it transforms attributes like P and N. But there is no (asaik? didn't check) example that reveals this fundamental concept to new users. And a new user won't be able to tell SideFX to add this example, because they doesn't even know!

raincole

edward

raincole
Oh, yeah, this is a good point. Some Houdini nodes have good examples with them, but some have zero.

I'm sure sure if we're supposed to log bugs for these tho. For sure SideFX already knows which nodes don't have examples? If they want I'm sure an internal 5-line python script can list them all.

The point is that if you think certain cases could be explained a lot better with a helpcard example than what is already in the docs, then it helps them to know that. Do I need a help card for the Transform SOP? Probably not. So I think a lot of this is subjective.

My point is that if I'm not familiar with a node, I might not even know if it solves my problem in hands. Like people say, "you don't know what you don't know." One or two examples for (almost) every node that shows how it works and what it can do will benefit everyone.

Transform SOP might seem simple for you, but I'm sure many, many of newer Houdini users are not aware of that some attributes are transformed while some are not, and how it decides which attributes to transform.

In my opinion this is the most fundamental aspect of Transform SOP: the fact that it doesn't transform "geometry" like any other 3D DCC, but it transforms attributes like P and N. But there is no (asaik? didn't check) example that reveals this fundamental concept to new users. And a new user won't be able to tell SideFX to add this example, because they doesn't even know!

Agreed. And that’s what I’ve been saying for years. From the UX design to documentation Houdini makes it very hard for newcomers to learn. It’s great that there are some amazing tutorials, we’re lucky that way, but for someone who opens the software and pulls up the docs - it’s an abysmal experience. I know quite a few freelancers that are used to other packages and tried Houdini many times and gave up.

Part of it are things I have already raised. Part is just lack of fundamental explanations in the docs combined with some simple examples and clearly indicating and deprecating legacy concepts. I mean ffs h20 manual still talks about character animation using the legacy stuff. Rendering section talks about mantra not karma.

Some of the new stuff is pretty good. I really liked the feathers explanation.

I still think that in order to attract new artists from other software packages - things need to change. But I won’t regurgitate stuff I already wrote

Honest the newer parts of Houdini are better in this regard. I'm surprised that Linear Solver has examples.

raincole
In my opinion this is the most fundamental aspect of Transform SOP: the fact that it doesn't transform "geometry" like any other 3D DCC, but it transforms attributes like P and N. But there is no (asaik? didn't check) example that reveals this fundamental concept to new users.

Things like the Transform SOP are inherently more complex than in other software because attributes are such a ubiquitous concept in Houdini.

I think the default settings of the node make it work like in other software: it moves the point positions and also transforms the normals. Transforming the normals is default behavior in all DCCs because otherwise rotating the mesh without also adjusting the normals would make everything look wrong.

I agree that sometimes the documentation needs some simple example of use in addition to the node description. For many years I have not seen a use case for the DOP microresolver in the documentation. It may be difficult to come up with a use case that captures the essence of how the microresolver works, but it seems like there should be one for understanding complex parts of the dynamics.

@LukeP Can you define "artist friendly"? What does that actually mean specifically to you?

Cheers

LukeP
From the UX design to documentation Houdini makes it very hard for newcomers to learn.......but for someone who opens the software and pulls up the docs - it’s an abysmal experience.

That wasn't my experience when I first discovered and started learning Houdini - and I had no CGI background/experience, other that some photoshop/illustrator.

I also hope SideFX never goes too much over towards 'artist friendly' - I hope it retains it's general context it has now which gives one the freedom to make their own tools and setup their own workflows.

Dougie0047
@LukeP Can you define "artist friendly"? What does that actually mean specifically to you?

Cheers

Great question. Realizing that my opinion might not be the most popular one and that there are other perspectives on this.

To me ‘artist friendly’ means:

- Intuitive UI
- Streamlined workflows or workflows that don’t change with every release :-)
- Mid-level features and building blocks that cater to the creative needs of artists, allowing for easy exploration of ideas without things getting overly technical or data-centric, at the same time offering ability to ‘deep dive’ for advanced users. In my opinion as a simple example - a user working with the clouds should not have to worry about converting to vdb from particles, then from polygons, activating vdbs, writing volume wrangles etc.
- Welcoming environment for new artists without sacrificing the depth and flexibility required for complex projects
- Documentation that holistically explains the software, explains the nodes and parameters, doesn’t reference outdated workflows (e.g. Rendering section still explains Mantra and many other legacy concepts)
- Nodes and especially parameters that are named in a humanoid-friendly way and also explained in that way
- Advanced parameters that are hidden under advanced options, in general, hide complexity. Make it accessible, but not at the forefront
- Examples that are up-to-date and simple enough to grasp core concepts
- Software that hides or clearly deprecates things that maybe aren’t that usable anymore


I really think there’s a different between an average Houdini artist (5-15 years of experience in Houdini) and an artist coming from another software package. If SideFX wants to attract the latter - they need to do a bit more.

Don’t get me wrong, catering to the above while maintaining a level of flexibility and customization is very difficult and takes time. There are many things that SideFX started doing towards that path. Moving DOP workflows to SOPs. The new animation environment. Some configuration nodes and drop downs that will auto populate nodes. But… in my opinion there’s still a very loooooong way to go.

I agree with the above! I think a refreshed UI would make a massive difference. It's already somewhat possible to make you own UIs for various tools and it's night and day for me on the ones I've spent time upgrading.

Here's a quick example of what I'm talking about. I made a Mtlx Image Plus tool to add color correction features to Mtlx Image. They aren't directly comparable since the functions of each node are somewhat different, but the point is to illustrate the differences between the UIs. Mtlx Image is just a list of stuff that requires you to think about it, even if just for a split second, every time you use it. By way of contrast, I'd hope that Image Plus is more clear and lets the user easily zero in on the task they want to accomplish.

BrianHanke
I made a Mtlx Image Plus tool to add color correction features to Mtlx Image. They aren't directly comparable since the functions of each node are somewhat different, but the point is to illustrate the differences between the UIs. Mtlx Image is just a list of stuff that requires you to think about it, even if just for a split second, every time you use it. By way of contrast, I'd hope that Image Plus is more clear and lets the user easily zero in on the task they want to accomplish.

Exactly!!! But this takes thinking. It takes time. It's more than just we have a bunch of stuff let's stick it in a node and name them whatever comes to mind :-).

I mean just look at the AMD materials in H20... excellent feature! but if you try to edit them it almost feels opposite to where your mind is going. It's unnecessarily ugly and unnecessarily complex.

Artist friendly doesn't mean restrictive. It means well thought out ideally with an assumption that the user will not be a TD or 20 year old Houdini veteran lol.

At some point, I would love for SideFX to take 6 months to pause on features, but instead, remove legacy stuff, add higher level nodes, clean stuff up, update UI, crisp up workflows, rename stuff, reorganize (per your above example), rewrite the documentation. I know this is likely not an option and if they did that we (including me at the forefront) would be b*tching about lack of new features, but maybe that's what needs to be done at some point .

...workflows that don’t change with every release :-)
While it can be frustrating and difficult to keep up, this is one of the things that attracted me to H. I'd much rather work with software where the authors will do this, than be locked into a poor or out of date workflow with the excuse 'we couldn't possibly change it, it's fifteen years of muscle memory you know...'

Mid-level features and building blocks...
I thought these were called 'Shelf tools' : )

Advanced parameters that are hidden under advanced options, in general, hide complexity...
Houdini is all about power and flexibility - that's what users get on board for. It would be very frustrating if that was 'hidden away'.

Yes, there's lot of UI / UX matters that can be improved, and I do agree with Luke and Brians's comments about documentation, naming, depreciated nodes and workflows etc. The whole USD / Mtlx side of things is clunky, but I think that will continue to improve over time.

Having said this, it's great to see some welcome UI/UX improvements in H20 - a good example being the new 'Create HDA' dialogue which is just as powerful as the 19.5 version - but much easier to use and understand. More of the same please.