>> Let's not forget, the initial discussion was about, why Houdini isn't leading the market.

1. Marketshare does not define leadership in product design, functionality & quality.

>>Why is everything so carved in stone?

Each daily build, and major version of Houdini is modified in someway, sometimes subtle, other times more apparent. The reflected question is why should everything be so fluid and change? See point 1


Edit:
>>All I see is, Nuke is market leader

Nuke is mainly the leader as Apple killed off Shake in 2006, Hardly anyone was using Nuke and pretty much everyone was using Shake. If Autodesk kills off Maya/Softimage then Houdini is now the leader of the rest of the 3d software.

MartybNz
1. Marketshare does not define leadership in product design, functionality & quality.

So, what does? Well, marketing does as in the example of after effects but nonetheless I see reason why Nuke is that famous.

Nuke is mainly the leader as Apple killed off Shake in 2006, Hardly anyone was using Nuke and pretty much everyone was using Shake.

Unfortunately I can't tell much about Shake since I never used it. I need more information to get a better idea of that. Why did they shut down Shake, when it was so famous? (no rhetorical question)
Of course, shooting every runner ahead of you makes you number one but not fast.

Unfortunately I can't tell much about Shake since I never used it. I need more information to get a better idea of that. Why did they shut down Shake, when it was so famous? (no rhetorical question)

Apple bought its parent company, Nothing Real, and then it disappeared, presumably to become part of Final Cut Pro.

Now, with some redesign you can get Houdini racing away once again and Max, Maya and so on will fall away by the wayside.

It's not that it can't be done. Houdini 9 introduced a large number of workflow changes, and Houdini 5 had a serious modelling overhaul. But there does need to be a balance between overhauling and preserving workflows, otherwise you end up with a seriously unhappy user base (Final Cut Pro X is a good example of this). This is why we've generally tried to slowly augment workflow, with a few spikes here and there, rather than completely replacing it.

But there does need to be a balance between overhauling and preserving workflows, otherwise you end up with a seriously unhappy user base (Final Cut Pro X is a good example of this)

Totaly true. But I want to differentiate that a little from Houdini. The userbase was so unhappy because Apple was honest enough to admit that they shut down Final Cut Pro to leave the professional sector to, with the new Final Cut Pro X, focus on the semiprofessional sector because that market is bigger and so potentially brings more profit.
Of course its not my intention to make Houdini some semiprofessionell shadow of its former self, that would be self-defeating. Houdini has to stay professionell but considering a redesign should not be seen as a threat.
Maybe the ghost, that scares you the most turns out to be friendly.

And after all it's just my thoughts, I wouldn't mind if noboby'd care.

That's hilarious….

Hey Awal, you said Houdini has far less tutorials as the others. Would you say that includes messiahStudio?

After 20+ yrs, shifting away from the audio world, to learn 3D in a ‘new’ way with music, i'm having a hard time deciding on either Houdini or pmg's messiahStudio to do the job. And after i've learned one, i don't want to stop to learn the other. I've already purchased AND test driven both apps and only got 1-2 replies at the messiahStudio forum upon asking this question - so you guys won't think this is a “lazy question”. Thanks man!!
Tim

I realize this is an old thread but the question is still relevant as of the time of my post. Regardless of the procedural approach, for Houdini to be the industry leader Houdini must support industrial strength organic modeling, which currently is a challenge for Houdini. I have worked on facial modeling and animation for many years primarily in Maya but also in the other non procedural 3D platforms. I am developing new reusable character facial models using Houdini to exploit the procedural workflow and reusable Houdini digital assets and its challenging. My finding is that the procedural approach is not the rate limiting factor. Although SideFx is enhancing Houdini with organic modeling functionality its still behind Maya in terms of workflow throughput and organic modeling required functionality. Yet, once I optimize the organic modeling facial workflow using Houdini together with custom Houdini plugins I am developing, (which is a trial and error process to see what works and what doesn't), organic production pipeline performance will greatly accelerate.

Please start a new thread to outline the strengths and weaknesses in the area of organic modelling as you see them. We are very interested to get this right and the more feedback the better. Would also love to see some of the work you have been doing and the approaches used.

There are so many different approaches to organic modelling as well: box up, curve networks, shape modelling, sculpting (volume approach), etc.

Yes ADSK has absorbed many well developed community based tools into Maya over the past few years.

For us, it just can't be a simple modelling tool pounding away on a dumb cached shape. We have a far higher standard to uphold. To make the tools fully procedural, much faster and foolproof when used in massive networks and procedural systems, which we have done and continue to do.

side fx has done lot from 15 on wards. starting put lot more emphasis on the modeling side of Houdini

maya and max been main stream for years

side fx just starting from 15 to incorporate modeling feachers we need and are asking for,

i think want to add hell of lot more to modeling side of Houdini but all takes time.

Must be very exciting for the development team.

gfxfx
side fx has done lot from 15 on wards. staring put lot more emphasis on the modeling side of Houdini

maya and max been main stream for years

side fx just staring from 15 to incorporate modeling fetchers we need and are asking for,

i think want to add hell of lot more to modeling side of Houdini but all takes time.

Must be very exciting for the development team.

before the job offer of the studio was hey destroy tomorrows world or make effects for aliens (independents day) or do something for transformers….. that is fun you work for a year to destroy stuff and the others work 2-3 years to build up stuff… i find that is fun and hey it's even approved by the director!

and don't take my words to serious it's monday sarcasm include… 8)

I would also note that whether houdini is better or not at the interactive organic modeling, once you master the procedural side, it can be faster than any interactive modeling tool like Maya or max, where the procedural can quickly generate an aset that is 90% ready, and the final tuning can be done interactively in oNE of those packages. This is now a lot easier too thanks to the houdini engine plug ins.

Most pipelines we have incorporated houdini in have sped up by at least 80%, and in many cases, the data produced is a true representation of real life due to removal of ambiguity

II do support sidefx efforts in this front though as their new interaction mechanisms are opening new possibilities!

Kudos for re-animating a thread 3 years after the last post.
Locked.