More and more games artist are jumping on to Houdini, I myself just join when 16 launched. It would be really awesome if a Round Edge Shader was included with Houdini. If you want a round edge shader built into Houdini speak up! Modo has a nice round edge shader but it's very limited in that you can't apply it per edge, it works on polygons only. Houdini round edge shader could go one step further and have it work edges.

edit: I also would like to see more procedural texturing node via COP, I'd like to replace Substance Designer and work within Houdini for that aspect.

Just make one

http://forums.odforce.net/topic/22208-how-to-create-rounded-edge-shader/ [forums.odforce.net]
http://microbot.ch/new/procedural-smart-masks/ [microbot.ch]

SonK
More and more games artist are jumping on to Houdini, I myself just join when 16 launched. It would be really awesome if a Round Edge Shader was included with Houdini. If you want a round edge shader built into Houdini speak up! Modo has a nice round edge shader but it's very limited in that you can't apply it per edge, it works on polygons only. Houdini round edge shader could go one step further and have it work edges.

edit: I also would like to see more procedural texturing node via COP, I'd like to replace Substance Designer and work within Houdini for that aspect.

I would like to see the rounded edge shader in Houdini myself. I've been playing around with a few shaders, but they just don't work as well as what you get out of the box in Modo. The workplane and how you ‘draw’ out geometry is also missing. The thing is that you can't ignore the modeling features Modo offers and just how easy it is to work with. I also miss falloffs and action centres.


Per node shader thumbnails have been omitted from the latest release - I hope they still add that in the future. At least we got COP thumbnails, so I do believe shader thumbnails are in the pipeline. I'd also like to replace Substance designer with Houdini some day - who knows, maybe they'll add texture painting in the future too.

jsmack
Just make one

Not very helpful to new users.

jsmack
Just make one


Not very helpful to new users.

It can be if the new user is willing to learn. Just have to start asking questions and build from there.

One major ‘feature’ of Houdini I think that is sometimes over looked is it's capacity to allow you to make just about any kind of tool you can think of.

Yes, many users would like to be able to use Houdini as a ‘User end artist’ so they don't have to mess around with scripts and code.

But if Houdini development emphasized end user tools primarily, at the exclusion of its' core capacity to let you make the tools….

well….then it would no longer be Houdini.

That's not to say it can't add features without sacrificing it's core. The new boolean tools with H16 are an example… could have been made by any end user willing to put in a bit of time to make - but it sure is convenient that the developers made those tools at the same time not locking anyone out from using the tools proceduraly nor limit access to data created by those tools.

BabaJ
..then it would no longer be Houdini.

The new boolean tools with H16 are an example… could have been made by any end user willing to put in a bit of time to make.

That's a coffee sputtering sentence tbh- are most users post-docs?

http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sadri/page4/page4.html [cs.toronto.edu]

That's a coffee sputtering sentence tbh- are most users post-docs?

Don't need to be post-doc to do what I am suggesting.

+1

I really miss this coming from Modo. Rounded edge shader + baking is essential to my workflow. Obviously SESI is very busy, but I would really appreciate an out of the box solution.

BabaJ

That's a coffee sputtering sentence tbh- are most users post-docs?

Don't need to be post-doc to do what I am suggesting.

But it seems like you have to be at the same level - diploma or no diploma - case in which Marty's point stands: are most users post-doc level?

And since you don't need to be at post-doc level either, diplima or not…my point still stands as well

I'm 70% sure I could do it within 4 days of heavy research, or 1 to 2 weeks idle time, meaning lots of other work would be left behind.

Most users wont even know where to begin.

10% top users could do it in 2 hours.

Vray and mentalray users have done it within a split second since 5 or 7 years ago.

You get the idea, we need this asap.

BabaJ
And since you don't need to be at post-doc level either, diplima or not…my point still stands as well

You're right. My mind was stuck on “creating a boolean tool like in H” argument, when the discussion clearly moved forward a step.

Anyway, I think we've managed to sidetrack ourselves with the issue of who does what in how much time.

There's a reason companies like SideFX exist, which create products like Houdini with all of its features, otherwise all we'd need is the Turing computational model, take it from there and tell Intel and Microsoft like companies to go take a hike.

Case in point, new users should get into the habit of filing a RFE when they need something. The market forces will make it so that there will be a cost, positive or negative, for implementing or ignoring such RFEs

@OutOfShadow

The whole point of “telling people” to just do it themselves has nothing to do with being arrogant nor telling them to f-off.

If an end user wants a specific feature or capacity that they and only they would use - Now hold that thought.

Multiply that by thousands of users with each and every one of them wanting some specific feature that is unique from all the others. And too that each user has more of their own other features they would like.

No developer from any software company could ever fulfill so many requests.

To expect otherwise is what would be arrogant and stupid.

However, if a high number of users consistently ask for the same feature and those requests are consistently ignored; Then I would say it warrants to ‘complain’ if someone says just do it yourself.

However, until such a request is met - You do have the option of doing it yourself. And there is nothing arrogant, stupid or unhelpfull about that.

I never said the developers were stupid - I really only aimed that comment specifically at YOU.

You could have just messaged me then ( At the bottom there is the link for that ) instead of putting it all out on the forum.

You did mention RFEs and the response you got from them which implies your interaction with the developers/staff which has nothing to do with the forum that is community driven ( like me ).

I think the point of this thread is see how game artist would be interested in a native round edge shader. I also log a RFE for a round edge shader, the feedback I got back was basically thank you for the request not quite as negative as what “OutOfShadow” encounter. It also make sense to have a native round edge shader since SideFX is targeting game dev more than ever. Most game artist aren't programmers, most aren't even technical.

My ideal round edge shader is abit more advance, since it works on edge selections for starter - something that I haven't seen done with any round edge shader, probably because its not trivial to implement?

While I don't support OutOfShadow's emotional outburst in no shape or form, I've predicted this before: there are probably ten times more users with the “fuck this place” attitude which don't even bother to post.

Funny thing is (or probably more accurately “unfortunate”) some or a lot of things could be alleviated rather cost efficiently. Or so I think, please excuse my possible ignorance on the issue, I don't pretend to know SESI's costs on developing various features, but there are a few things I know for sure.

Let's take the example of the last RFE I filed:
- to weld points in Houdini there's a method (that I know of, traditional modeling tools/techniques tutorials are scarce to say the least) which involves having to use the following workflow: use a Fuse node set to “snap-average” and then another Fuse node set to “consolidate” because there's no way I can weld two points by meeting them half way with just one node set to “consolidate (details given upon request). Response from Support was ”no promises" and I won't give any names here (if you're reading this, you know that I appreciate the professionalism and promptitude for each and every RFE I file), but it's clear that someone setting some directions is utterly disconnected from what non-technical artists and modelers need. Or maybe they know but they're constrained by some metrics that dictates the direction Houdini should move, at different paces regarding current user-base needs vs potential new users. The hype new versions can materialize as an increase of new users will go only so far if some things are not going to be addressed.

We all live in an economical reality. SideFX, various studios and small or single entities alike will bear the consequences of their decisions. I for one continue to give my feedack - filed lots of RFEs and continue to do so because frankly I'd rather see SESI and Houdini win, whatever the hell that means.

Just for the record, in a post above you deleted, you did use “fuck this place” phrasing. I'm not throwing rocks at you, I just want to make sure I'm not going to be accused of putting words in people's mouths.

I feel that Chris's “aaand it's locked” is imminent

SonK
I think the point of this thread is see how game artist would be interested in a native round edge shader. I also log a RFE for a round edge shader, the feedback I got back was basically thank you for the request not quite as negative as what “OutOfShadow” encounter. It also make sense to have a native round edge shader since SideFX is targeting game dev more than ever. Most game artist aren't programmers, most aren't even technical.

My ideal round edge shader is abit more advance, since it works on edge selections for starter - something that I haven't seen done with any round edge shader, probably because its not trivial to implement?

I logged another RFE today, they said I'm added to the request list, so I think a few people have made this request already.

For those who may be interested, you may want to check out these videos on what we are talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHkbCQQykAg [www.youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFZLITaAsS8 [www.youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vayNaWs_3Q [www.youtube.com]

I do believe it is difficult to implement properly - you can get weird results at times in Modo, and that effect has been around for a while. I've had various degrees of success, but still, the results are not as good or you have some kind of issue on corners, for example. Bevelling in Houdini helps (the node is great - check out the presentation on vimeo:
https://vimeo.com/209223299 [vimeo.com]
..and this one for fun…
https://vimeo.com/210679269 [vimeo.com]
You could also try using render as subdivision in obj level(using a creasing node set to around 4 or 5) - but these are not ideal solutions.

For those of you who would like to see this feature in Houdini, go ahead and log an RFE. Basically what happens when you submit an RFE is that you are kind of voting for something to get fixed or implemented - so the more the merrier (if more people ask for things, at least you can hope that it will eventually get done).

I just don't think I would be able to send students here, and then they get such stupid answers.

If you mean suggesting to someone to “do it themselves”. Then no it's still not a stupid answer.

It's a reminder that it is possible to accomplish the goal. All that is needed is to start asking the questions to get the ball rolling ( which is what I also said ).

If you don't want to look at it that way. Fine.

To me though, if you do look at it that way, your being of a disservice to your students, as they might miss out on learning something.

McNistor
I feel that Chris's “aaand it's locked” is imminent

Yyyyup.