I think it's a fightback for houdini,and the best part is the node-based system can be combined with original layer-based system.

If houdini can learn from C4D,adapt a layer-based system,maybe modeling and scene assmble will be much easier,then houdini will be a full pipelien production software finaly.Just my opinon.

What do you think?

I'm glad Cinema 4D is finally going to start delivering on its promise of being a procedural application. It has only taken them 22 releases to begin getting the pieces into place for a comprehensive procedural system. More power to them.

then houdini will be a full pipelien production software finaly

I chuckled…

eikonoklastes
I'm glad Cinema 4D is finally going to start delivering on its promise of being a procedural application. It has only taken them 22 releases to begin getting the pieces into place for a comprehensive procedural system. More power to them.

then houdini will be a full pipelien production software finaly

I chuckled…

Most of us motion designers won't model and assmble scenes inside houdini,i really hope we can do everything in houdini oneday

I am a c4d user for 8 years, I started learning houdini during the Pandemic and it has been tough but starting to like it.
Now maxon anounced node based system, face to palm. now I am having second thoughts if I keep doing houdini, the programming parts just go over my head most of the time. I imagine a lot of people have been switching to sidefx from maxon and they know this so they implemented nodes. One thing is for sure less people will start switching now since “c4d has nodes” and the houdini newbies from c4d are going to switch back to c4d now, I wonder whats sidefx take on this and how they plan to one up maxon. I am probably going to stick to houdini…


Maybe if sidefx integrated a stock mograph menu easy to implement , in theory replicating c4d in houdini should be relatively easy for sidefx - like MOPS but more integrated and more expanded motion graphics operators

The classic and expected reaction would be “hey, it creates competition, so it is good for us, users”.
Me personally, from what I've seen, its far from being a real competition. Maybe it will be deeper than those volumetric effects that C4D made possible a couple of years ago? I dunno. Maybe. Even b3d is working on nodes now.

THAT SAID I wouldn't say no for everything in H being faster, jangafx and all.

all very cool and long time coming but it is still SUBSCRIPTION and at $720 a year ($60 a month paid annually) three times what my Indie license is. this is reason I left C4D almost 3 years ago and even with all these bells and whistles I won't go back. I am happy with Houdini. I wish Maxon well and I am sure C4D user will love the features

I was a daily C4D user for over 10 years, and I think a general feeling in the C4D community is that the only main difference between Houdini and C4D is (was?) a node-based interface. That, and the perception that Houdini is incomprehensible to the layman.

While nodes certainly was a big differentiator, for me the main difference is Houdini's philosophy of having a completely open approach to managing your data, which gives the user an astonishing amount of high level control over even the smallest details. Cinema 4D has nothing to match that.

And that's not even getting to Houdini's, frankly incredible, toolset, that puts C4D to shame, unless you pump in a few hundred dollars more of plugins.

Even with motion graphics, which is supposedly Cinema 4D's raison d'être, Houdini allows you to do stuff that would be unimaginable, or extremely painstaking in C4D, and that's even without knowing that MOPs exists.

Admittedly, for me, the barrier of entry was much higher in Houdini, in terms of understanding the workflow and toolset, but once I started getting comfortable, I found fewer and fewer reasons to go back to C4D, and I'm now at the point where I haven't even touched it in over a year, and C4D having nodes now isn't going to change that one bit.

Eikonoklastes thanks for sharing that, i've been using Houdini for three months now, and although it is a beast to learn , I do see the incredible upside so I will be sticking with it besides the “cool” things happening on the maxon side.

lol…couldn't resist, time 57m32s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQo0ASiXswQ&t=57m32s [www.youtube.com]

need the turd tool or a masterclass turdorial

vusta
lol…couldn't resist, time 57m32s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQo0ASiXswQ&t=57m32s [www.youtube.com]

need the turd tool or a masterclass turdorial

This is what's delaying Houdini 18.5, TURDS (turd operators). I mean we just got lops, and tops, SideFX must keep innovating.

and yes i know it doesn't follow the naming convention

FDX3245
and yes i know it doesn't follow the naming convention

PLOPs

tsiwt
Maybe if sidefx integrated a stock mograph menu easy to implement , in theory replicating c4d in houdini should be relatively easy for sidefx - like MOPS but more integrated and more expanded motion graphics operators

Out of curiosity, what improvements to integration between MOPs and the rest of Houdini are you looking for? I'm always looking for ways to make MOPs more accessible.

toadstorm

tsiwt
Maybe if sidefx integrated a stock mograph menu easy to implement , in theory replicating c4d in houdini should be relatively easy for sidefx - like MOPS but more integrated and more expanded motion graphics operators

Out of curiosity, what improvements to integration between MOPs and the rest of Houdini are you looking for? I'm always looking for ways to make MOPs more accessible.

falloff with pop/gas force to control simulation would be awesome!Looking forward MOPs Plus~

if c4d develop a high-performance expression language like VEX, and make a good document.
I may use c4d instead of houdini…

but for most houdini user, Neutron seems just a node system but have no asset that out of the box to make VFX effect.

I think Maxon will take 3-5 years to complete Neutron…

So… no one noticed that the “flow” is illogical and “lifted” from shader network?

https://youtu.be/XyfHs-6o1AY?t=899 [youtu.be]

so you have people complain about Houdini's node system, cos they mostly aren't comfortable with nodes. And yet Maxon is working on the most unfriendly node system for simple stuff. what they are working on is essentially VOPS at the object/geo level. Is that beginner friendly? The irony! All those wires and huge nodes for a sphere and grid. lmao

If there is anything good about it then I think it's Redshift 3.

hMonkey
So… no one noticed that the “flow” is illogical and “lifted” from shader network?

They seem to be pretty loose about the structure. In one example, he has the Spiral connected to the Sphere (16:02) and then it's reversed in the next example (16:12).

That's going to make reading these graphs an interesting adventure…

Edit, so I did ask the question over at the C4D CGTalk forums, and a C4D dev responded. The Distribution Op generates a template point matrix, and you can plug that into source geometry, or vice-versa. It's by design. I suppose it's like how Copy to Points works in Houdini, where you generate the point cloud first.

eikonoklastes
They seem to be pretty loose about the structure. In one example, he has the Spiral connected to the Sphere (16:02) and then it's reversed in the next example (16:12).

That's going to make reading these graphs an interesting adventure…

Edit, so I did ask the question over at the C4D CGTalk forums, and a C4D dev responded. The Distribution Op generates a template point matrix, and you can plug that into source geometry, or vice-versa. It's by design. I suppose it's like how Copy to Points works in Houdini, where you generate the point cloud first.

I guess well have to wait and see, flow and readability aside it looks promising… at least the new (and long awaited) DG is apparently ready.

It is great to see nodes coming to C4D. But xpresso is still tedious to perform basic functions (you often need to use multiple nodes for just one simple expression), there are no attributes, no efficient coding language, no fluids or fire or smoke. Fixing dynamics issues is hard, since the programmers hide everything under the hood. Good rendering often requires a third party rendering engine. Even particles are yet another plugin. UV tools are still bad. Rigging is slow and buggy. Even destructive modeling is minimally better than Houdini and procedural modeling requires changing to editable mode to do even simple models. It's major claim to fame is easy to learn, logical interface, very stable, and easy to create canned motion graphics if you don't want to do anything too complicated. I don't think sidefx needs to worry.

Island
I don't think sidefx needs to worry.

Although they could learn a few things from them regarding the ui & ux…