DaJuice
Here's how I usually do this sort of snapping.

Hello @DaJuice,
How to you call polyextrude and just keep the translate gizmo, I want that all the time instead dive into polyextrude option to enable global transform, then translate tool.

julca

DaJuice
Here's how I usually do this sort of snapping.

Hello @DaJuice,
How to you call polyextrude and just keep the translate gizmo, I want that all the time instead dive into polyextrude option to enable global transform, then translate tool.

Hi julca, for any operator you can click on the little cog wheel at the top of the parameter window and Set Permanent Defaults. So set down an unwired PolyExtrude, change it to Global Transform and then set that as the new permanent default.

@DaJuice, I forgot to use this, that fantastic !


Thank you !

DaJuice

julca

DaJuice
Here's how I usually do this sort of snapping.

Hello @DaJuice,
How to you call polyextrude and just keep the translate gizmo, I want that all the time instead dive into polyextrude option to enable global transform, then translate tool.

Hi julca, for any operator you can click on the little cog wheel at the top of the parameter window and Set Permanent Defaults. So set down an unwired PolyExtrude, change it to Global Transform and then set that as the new permanent default.

That's fantastic. Thanks a lot.

any modeler worth their salt would still not consider Houdini for modeling.
Fact.

pickled
any modeler worth their salt would still not consider Houdini for modeling.
Fact.

depends what you're doing, as always… recently had a great outcome modeling precision products via SDF. UVs still a pain, but the tools are there to do things like solid-textures and one-shot the work.

cpb
depends what you're doing, as always…

talking about subd modeling, which is the topic at hand, unless this has morphed into something else

pickled
any modeler worth their salt would still not consider Houdini for modeling.
Fact.

That may have been true in the past, but I don't think that's necessarily going to be true in the future or even in the present.

Houdini was never thought to be an extremely powerful modeling tool, if not focused on the visualization and control of geometry procedurally. Houdini is an amazing tool for one thing and not so much for others, as the modeling and animation of characters for example.

pickled
any modeler worth their salt would still not consider Houdini for modeling.
Fact.

Hi, I‘m still in the process of moving to Houdini from years long Modo usage in the advertising field.

I think Houdini lacks a little polish in the modeling department, but as far as I can tell I‘m comfortable modeling in Houdini. Everything what you need as a modeler is there, maybe still a little awkward here and there, but hey! the procedural capabilities make up for it.

I think if you are a capable modeler you can use any tool. You shouldn’t bind yourself to things because other people say so.

Best
Christian

I pretty happy actually with interactive modeling houdini tool and interaction. Of course it can be better (as any other softwares), especially in term of ergonomic (like volatile multi snapping keys and same thing for transient handle detachment aka pivot, just for a quick example..).

But I have a question about how do you manage the normals.
Each any tiny geo manipulations requires the user to not forget to add a new (or deplace the old one) “normal” node at the end of the network tree.
Have you a magic workflow for this ?

I actually like Houdini for modeling. I use a mix of houdini & zbrush or VR sculpting. While I do miss XSI which was the best for modeling… I like Houdini about as well as I liked 3ds Max for direct modeling.

idk, maybe I'm not worth my salt though… some of my previous work
https://www.artstation.com/barrett [www.artstation.com]

For normals I think the best way is to probably let them auto-generate until toward the end. To do this you just don't assign any N attribute and then in the opengl display it will auto generate them and update as you model. You can set the cusp angle here as well.

Barrett Meeker
For normals I think the best way is to probably let them auto-generate until toward the end. To do this you just don't assign any N attribute and then in the opengl display it will auto generate them and update as you model. You can set the cusp angle here as well.

Thank you very much for this tip, it would be fantastic if it will have the “face area” option from the “normal” node.

Barrett Meeker
While I do miss XSI which was the best for modeling… I like Houdini about as well as I liked 3ds Max for direct modeling.
idk, maybe I'm not worth my salt though… some of my previous work

You seem to mention Softimage in your works as used s/w, at least for the Ferrari.
I like Houdini in some aspects (modeling included) too - it's reason I'm still around - but the freedom to choose what you like is not an option a non-generalist/freelancer has. If you're a modeler in a studio and have the fortune to be able to choose what you like but is not what's the most objectively efficient you'll work with a handicap compared to the others.

Here's a cute thought experiment, if your life depended on the speed and quality of a modeling task, what would you choose right now? The essence of my statement can't be watered down with “but I like this or that too” arguments, because I for one, can model in AutoCAD via a command line. Or at least I was able to long ago, but I'm not insane to keep doing it, regardless of how much I enjoyed it.

I could make a list with things that are lacking or misfiring in Houdini, but I've created those with other occasions and there are RFEs for most of those, but they've been pushed so far down the stack of priorities, one needs mining equipment to pull them up.
As if this wasn't enough, some of the newly re-written modeling tools still don't have the feature richness and the reliability I'm accustomed to in Softimage, as you also acknowledged.
To top things up with a bit of frustration, these features/fixes are not a huge development undertaking to justify all these Houdini versions that keep passing in the rear mirror, with progress made to such a mind-boggling slow pace.

I started playing around Houdini for about 2 year and started “learning” Houdini about a year ago. I am coming from many years of C4D, I do find modeling in Houdini not as intuitive and sometimes clunky to do simple things as C4D but it is capable and love the procedural method. Houdini is coming around as a modeler but that isn't what its bread and butter is but they are making strides.

the mere fact that one can't edit multiple objects in Houdini w/o going through the tedious process of merging / separating meshes, makes whatever else is inadequate with modeling right now pretty insignificant. a versed and pressed by time modeler shudders at the idea

The Modeler 1.0 Plugin is really a huge step forward for direct modeling with Houdini. Modeler allows for doing most anything with respect to poly modeling with hotkeys and with minimal attention paid to managing the SOP nodes themselves. This plugin has gone through a lot of iterations but the latest version has a big, instantly callable help screen that lists what each hotkey does. It makes it a lot easier to use than in the past, important because there aren't really any tutorials for it (that I am aware of). The tool though, was clearly designed for speedy polygonal modeling by someone with some proficiency at it. For the most complex and quickest polygonal models I still use 3ds max but I am definitely moving away from max and toward Houdini.

I've no idea what Modeler 1.0 is and who's developed by. The reason I personally stay away from plug-ins for basic (as in crucial) stuff is that, no matter how good they are, they offer little to no security for the time invested to be proficient with them, for the long term. Why would anyone invest in a system for which support and development can be dropped at any time?
I guess it makes sense to invest in such a plug-in, if you're not a modeler by trade and just want quick solutions to your current problems. The same goes for other branches in 3d. For example, if I'm a modeler, I have no problem investing time in a rigging solution to solve my quick posing needs, but if I'm a rigger, I'll go with the platform that offers me long term security and opportunities.
For this reason, plug-ins like this one or Vux's tools, I consider to be a non-modeler modeling solutions. In other words, the target user is anyone outside the category invoked in the naming of that tool.

How do I extrude and inset multiple time, the top face of a tube procedurally ?

One of the 200 ways in Houdini …