Hi!
I have been using Houdini for almost 5 years now. I also talked with other Houdini artists and we feel all there is a huge need for a modeling module for Houdini. I mean a separate environment where you can do modeling and texturing in the traditional way and not adding nodes manually for every action. If artists have access to such a module they will never leave Houdini to another package like Max or Maya to create organic / non-organic models. Because the current tools for Houdini is not really easy to use and straight ahead for modeling. We can do EVERYTHING in Houdini, even compositing, but as a 3D package it is expected to have nice modeling tool set. That is one the reasons that artists are afraid of shifting to or starting with Houdini. Because almost every artist starts learning 3D with modeling.
I hope I have proven my point. I would love to hear from other artists about this.

I am currently learning Houdini, love it so far, even the modeling.

If SideFX abandoned the non-destructive procedural nature of Houdini for a quicker on the surface modeling module, I would be highly disappointed. There are plenty of other apps out there that do that already and do it better than the first several versions of a Houdini modeling module would.

That isn't to say the modeling tools don't need work, they do, but any improvements to the modeling workflow and toolset must be procedural and non-destructive.

Lyr
That isn't to say the modeling tools don't need work, they do, but any improvements to the modeling workflow and toolset must be procedural and non-destructive.

This brings up the obvious question; Does production level modelling suit a non-destructive modelling pipeline?

In over 20+ years Sesi or anyone hasn't nailed it. Maybe it's time will come, like raytracing compared to Reyes, but Reyes worked very well up to recently and wasn't as pure as raytracing.

I don't think Houdini need to lose his procedural part. In fact, houdini has almost all. Houdini needs only a GUI like softimage RMB menu which should configure houdini's nodes according the chosen functionnality.

Look the softimage interface, the RMB menu is selection sensitive (points, edge, primitive, gizmo). Why? because these functions are used often. They need to be accessible very fast.

Houdini can do that with his nodes. For example,
1.if we click on “create cluster” (“create group” in the houdini case) with edge selection, houdini should drop a group node with “entity” parameter put to “edges”.
2. If we click on “create cluster” (“create group” in the houdini case) with point selection, houdini should drop a group node with “entity” parameter put to “points”
3. For example, if we click on “extrude along normal” with some primitives, edges or points selected, houdini should drop a “polyextrude” with activated local tab of polyextrude node.
4. For example, if we click on “extrude along axis” with some primitives, edges or points selected, houdini should drop a “polyextrude” with activated global tab of polyextrude node.
5. For example, if we click on “extrude along a curve, houdini should drop 2 or more nodes : sweep, skin, etc
That's suppose ”polyextrude" node compatible with edges and points.

I think people misunderstand the concept behinde this.
houdini wouldnt lose any procedural workflow at all.

all it needs is a polymodel sop which can do all the poly operations (extrude, bevel, edge collapse etc. ) in one node. wasnt this the case back in the days?

something similar to the edit sop… i think thats why there is an edit sop after all which handles peak and transform, softtransform etc. all in one node in a linear fashion.

why even have an edit sop if you throw away the idea of having a sop to do poly operations in one sop?

if you just wanna wack out some models fast such sop would really help.
Its just that most modelers wont use a procedural approach most the time.

MartybNz
This brings up the obvious question; Does production level modelling suit a non-destructive modelling pipeline?

In over 20+ years Sesi or anyone hasn't nailed it. Maybe it's time will come, like raytracing compared to Reyes, but Reyes worked very well up to recently and wasn't as pure as raytracing.

I think it comes down to what people can wrap their head around, and procedural, non-destructive modeling is much harder to understand in actual practice than the dominant destructive sculpting and box modeling workflows.

Things are changing though, slowly proceduralism and non-destructive workflows are starting to creep into the collective discussion of the 3d modeling community. Techniques like kit-bashing and modular environment pieces are gaining in popularity as the demands of content creation continue to increase. While kit-bashing and modular environments are typically made in a destructive fashion they are actually well suited to being modeled procedurally. The demand for a procedural modeling pipeline is finally starting to emerge.

all it needs is a polymodel sop which can do all the poly operations (extrude, bevel, edge collapse etc. ) in one node. wasnt this the case back in the days?

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Just imagine there is a Model node that has all the tools you need in there, just like 3Ds Max. Why should I leave Houdini to other packages when I have such a tool that contains all the modeling toolsets that I need?
The example below is from 3Ds Max's editable poly object. You can convert anything into editable poly and work in there without even adding one single deformer or modifier (well even if you need you can collapse it back to the editable poly)

Lyr
Things are changing though, slowly proceduralism and non-destructive workflows are starting to creep into the collective discussion of the 3d modeling community. Techniques like kit-bashing and modular environment pieces are gaining in popularity as the demands of content creation continue to increase. While kit-bashing and modular environments are typically made in a destructive fashion they are actually well suited to being modeled procedurally. The demand for a procedural modeling pipeline is finally starting to emerge.

Do you think procedural can fully replace destructive modelling?

An analogy is that no procedural program has replaced photoshop style programs for pixel editing, yet, there are many vector style programs for vector art. They both exist and serve different styles.

that's a great analogy MartybNz.
I think Houdini to other 3D packages is like Nuke to Photoshop.
you need both to create what you need, but imagine, just imagine there is a little photoshop inside Nuke! will you even leave Nuke?

imo procedural can never replace destructive modeling.
Sometimes it just makes more sense to work in a destructive way.

For an artist procedural modeling seems like an overkill. i dont need the procedural for every single step when modeling something quick. Once you get into complex models it just seems to get overblown and you start to delete history and lock nodes.

I am also more a technical artist so for me houdini is great but i can see that people get scared away by the way houdini works in modeling.


Still new to houdini here, so oldschool houdini users might have a different opinion about this. I hope there will be more people giving their opinion.

MartybNz
Do you think procedural can fully replace destructive modelling?

An analogy is that no procedural program has replaced photoshop style programs for pixel editing, yet, there are many vector style programs for vector art. They both exist and serve different styles.

I don't like predicting the future, but with enough attention given to usability I think procedural modeling could overtake destructive modeling for certain types of models.

I really think it all comes down to demand, there hasn't really been widespread demand for less destructive modeling workflows. Therefore there really hasn't been much attention paid to this area of content creation. I think that is starting to change.

Pixel editing is also moving in a non destructive direction, MARI, Ddo, and now Substance and Substance Painter all feature non destructive workflows in varying degrees.

Doudini
For an artist procedural modeling seems like an overkill. i dont need the procedural for every single step when modeling something quick. Once you get into complex models it just seems to get overblown and you start to delete history and lock nodes.

Where procedural modeling shines is when you have/want to make drastic revisions to your model. Modeling something in Houdini is certainly more difficult at this point in time than using a more destructive package, but the pay off comes when you have to make changes and variations. The more drastic and severe the change, the bigger the pay off.

Also I find modeling with curves to be much easier in Houdini than taking a box modeling approach. Although that particular style of modeling doesn't seem to be very widespread anymore.

Lyr
Pixel editing is also moving in a non destructive direction, MARI, Ddo, and now Substance and Substance Painter all feature non destructive workflows in varying degrees.

Good point - I've heard that for matte paintings though Mari does not have all the tools to create it all, this was before the latest version so it could have changed.

Edit- Mari isn't procedural is it, it bakes all your strokes… Ddo and Substance, from the videos, applies textures - not pixel editing… I'll test Substance Painter soonish

Maybe a better analogy for modelling would be painting not pixel editing. We need really mature creation tools.

Lyr
Where procedural modeling shines is when you have/want to make drastic revisions to your model. Modeling something in Houdini is certainly more difficult at this point in time than using a more destructive package, but the pay off comes when you have to make changes and variations. The more drastic and severe the change, the bigger the pay off.

Good point too - i.e. you model a car tire then a change comes through that the tires have to be square! You could top down edit then by deforming the final shape but what would be much better would be to change the initial shape and have the changes ripple through.

Doudini
all it needs is a polymodel sop which can do all the poly operations (extrude, bevel, edge collapse etc. ) in one node. wasnt this the case back in the days?

I'm not sure I see the benefit. Modeling in Houdini doesn't have to be done in a procedural fashion. You can work in the viewport and not pay too much mind about what nodes are being laid down. The benefit is that you end up with a step-by-step history of your modeling process. I wouldn't give that up because personally I find it very useful. Let's say you get stuck on part of your model and your topology hasn't ended up quite the way you hoped. You go up several nodes, before you added a few too many PolySplits, or before you terminated that edge loop in the wrong place. You branch off and try something different. It lends a lot of flexibility even if you are not modeling with proceduralism in mind.

Noone will say that the modeling tools couldn't be improved, but IMO creating an alternate, fenced-off environment is not a good solution and not the “Houdini Way”. There is a solid foundation, it just needs some love and attention from SESI that it hasn't received in a while.

hey juice! cool to see you answer.

i have to say if i think deeper about it you're right. It kind of would be a fenced off thing which none of the sop is. adn therefor its really not the “houdini way”. the edit sop actually only modify points therefor its not really destructive.

so i agree it might be better to focus on the tools themself and show some more love to them.

Doudini
hey juice! cool to see you answer.

i have to say if i think deeper about it you're right. It kind of would be a fenced off thing which none of the sop is. adn therefor its really not the “houdini way”. the edit sop actually only modify points therefor its not really destructive.

so i agree it might be better to focus on the tools themself and show some more love to them.

I agree with you. Some nodes only need to extend their functionnalities like “polyextrude” which is only compatible with primitive. After that, we only need a selection-sensitive Gui (RMB menu) which will drop nodes with the good configuration.
For modeling, the biggest drawbacks is the gizmo management. Houdini like world transformation but local transformation is very poor at the sop context (oriented to normal, centered pivot to Center of Mass of selection,…)

I have to agree with DaJuice. One of the biggest hurdles for me working in Houdini is to NOT be procedural in everything. Thinking the network of nodes then just becomes a History. Innately you want to set things up that are flexible, non-destructive, procedural and re-usable. Somethings just aren't worth the time though.

I'd totally be fine with SideFX improving the Interactive Viewport workflow (which does need a lot of work) and underneath it all you get those hundreds/thousands of nodes. It's up to the user at that point to lock nodes/cache/subnet/save out an external file for use in other areas.

Sounds like we want non-destructive modelling, not so much procedural modelling.

For me this opensource modeler had a good half way approach.

http://gsculpt.sourceforge.net/ [gsculpt.sourceforge.net]

Good and quite cheap modeling module with destructive workflow is Nevercenter Silo or digitalfossils Nvil. Go try it yourself. You can export to obj and in Houdini you can use file read SOP for direct connection, you just need to hit refresh. Or you can write your import node for NVil copy paste function.

There is also Blender, 3DCoat (with App link), Zbrush for from scratch destructive modeling and sculpting.

I would prefer if Houdini stayed strong and focused in it's FX workflow then to be average expensive modeler and became 2nd or worse in FX.

Look at Blender, it doesn't have any strong area. This is one from many reasons why it's not so widely spread professional tool in VFX/commercials.