I guess, this has been asked a lot I can't seem to find anything.

Is there a way I can use my files I did during learning with apprentice (then .hipnc ones) in Indie to do the rendering in HD?

I know that there might be reasons why you wouldn't want companies using several NC-Versions and just one renderer. But all that work … hm. Sad. And a little late to find out.

Thanks for any hints.

(Tried copy-pasting from one instance (Appr.) to the other (Indie), but didn't work.)

You can use this online utility to convert the files:

https://www.orbolt.com/upgrade-houdini-files [orbolt.com]

Why is there a time cap for this offer? There are several tutorials/workshops out there (CGWorkshop, cmivfx to name a few) that provide their example scenes in the .hipnc format, which then can't be opened with Houdini Indie.


Just asking :]

Instead of swiftly killing Maya, 3DS Max and Blender by offering monthly payments for Indie and a unique file format for all version of their license (like 100% of every software ever made), Side FX takes the risk of getting swallowed by them with their ridiculous, hurtful, painful and wasting everyones time with incompatible file format.

No wonder there is no economy based on Houdini. You can't sell what you create and no one can even share their stuff, even for free.

This alone scares me away from Houdini. Purposefully making everything convoluted, obscure and unknowable. This very question is asked everywhere on the internet wiht vague answers. Why would I try Apprentice if I will loose everything when going Indie? I am not taking that risk.

Autodesk don't even do that and they are the worst.

I will add just so that everyone understand.

Maya Indie and 3DS Max Indie have 1 single file format for their respective software no matter the license.

Indie license should be sold with a more expensive monthly paiments (just so you can jump in without thinking too much). Houdini needs way more users before Blender completely swallow them with their new node system and amazing cheap plugins. I would and I am still thinking about going Houdini, but the last 10 3D software that I have used have died or are in a dormant state.

I remember telling in person the people at Softimage (before XSI) that they need to give demo software to people so they can try softimage before buying it. Or to get new users getting familiar with the software. They did not do that, but Maya did 3-4 years before them with a fully functional version with watermark. That was not just a demo, but the full software for free to anyone. This is what killed Softimage, they just lost their momentum. And Maya got past them. When XSI came out, plenty of new kids were already experts at Maya.

Houdini Apprentice and Indie (they were the first to do it) was a brilliant idea. But everyone should remember that Autocad is the leading 3D software because it is the most pirated sofware. You need users at all cost, because this is what makes your software relevant.

Different file format for different license is a big sign that I should be running away. It is so complicated that no one can give a definitive answer about how to convert them back and forth? Is that even possible? You want us to send our files to a shady website to convert them? I don't want to get my work or my ideas stolen.

MarquisDeSang
Different file format for different license is a big sign that I should be running away. It is so complicated that no one can give a definitive answer about how to convert them back and forth? Is that even possible? You want us to send our files to a shady website to convert them? I don't want to get my work or my ideas stolen.

what's to stop companies from using indie or apprentice for the bulk of work, and then renting a full license for a week to convert the work at the end? It would be trivial to automate a process to send apprentice files to the render farm if the full license could open apprentice or indie files. You would only ever need one 'full' seat.

jsmack, true because people are always just about money. And they will always try to find a way to scam. So once you go Indie, you can never ever return to Apprentice (without loosing your own assets)? For someone like me who now just make 3D animation for fun and have no intention of ever doing it again for money (because I make more money working as a programmer now), I feel that something in the middle of Apprentice and Indie would be perfect but does not exist yet.

Maya and 3DS are not doing that, they only have 1 true file format that can be shared for free or sold. There are probably people abusing this situation. But everyone gain by having more stuff to download, less work to do, more poeple attracted to that software.

There are scary story on the internet where a Indie license did not load correctly and the project opened as Apprentice and that has downgraded the project file to Apprentice. Scary stuff if true. Also, SideFX can cancel the Indie version at any time and we woul be stuck or force to pay full version, if only to export our scene.

Learning Houdini and using is not making any money out of it is doing a big favor, more talk, more tutorials, more exchanges, more users, more workers -> more sales. But as of now, the platform is too unstable for now to jump on Houdini. If SideFX cancel the Indie program, we loose everything. That is a huge risk I am not willing to take.

Going Houdini Indie is a leap of faith, investing in a software that can go Softimage XSI on you (at least the Indie version) is something to think about before investing so much time learning a sofware and creating your project with it.

In the end it is not just about money, but trust. The possibility that SideFX would pull the rug under the Indie users in favor of the full version is not impossible.

Houdini is a huge investment in time and it may not be available in 10-20 years, the license server could be eventually disconnected. SideFX has not, like all 3D software company mention what they will do when (because it will happen one day) they close the lights. Will they unlock the software for their old users? Who knows.

We need to think about these things, gone are the time you could learn a 3D software in 1 week. I still think Houdini is the best 3D software, the one that requires less external plugins, the most well though workflow. But while Houdini has only improvements to show every years, the free software in the mirror is getting 40+ new major features and improvements.

Going for Blender is the safest bet (objectively) because it is the only sofware that will always be available. No annoying license is a big deal. Lightwave 3D just died last year. Lightwave may not work in windows 11, but it still work on current computers. Not having to connect to a server is nice. Even a dongle is a problem, beucause dongles stopped working on mac M1 (EIAS 3D people are stuck with a dead sofware on mac M1). I wish honesty would be enough.

I am still thinking about my move, my beloved Strata CX is dead, Realsoft 3D is dead, EIAS 10 won't be a reality on Windows for a while.

If only SideFX could swear that they will always make Indie available or a similar offer...

rmagee
online utility to con

Does this still work with 20.5 files?

And I'll support sidefx. At first I was also angry, but then I thought, damn, such a powerful software is so cheap in the Indie version! How would I separate free and paid? The idea of ​​different formats is probably the best. Yes, you will lose something, but I think it's highly unlikely that you did anything important while you were in apprenticeship, right? Well, you'll spend an hour to type all the nodes in the Indie version again and copy the wrangles, my God, it's such a trifle.

It is now the year 2024 where Linux is free, I am typing this message from a Risc-V (open CPU) PC, Blender exist and AI is replacing everything slowly.

Just wasting time to create an account, wasting time and money to pay, wasting time with that annoying Houdini license manager software and knowing very well that in a 20 years, this software won't run, won't be supported and all the knowledge that you work hard to accumulate for Houdini will be useless. That annoying multiple incompatible file format for the same thing has completely ruined the economy and sharing for Houdini.

In 20 years Blender will still run, be maintained and everything will just work.
I think that SideFX should actually pay me to learn and use their software (a closed software is always designed to END eventually).

I don't mind paying for Houdini (as long as they provide the source code), but knowing that when they close their door, all that money will be lost because the source code will be locked, lost or destroyed. I do give money to Blender foundation because it is money well spent -> binary is short lived, source code is eternal. Unless they make their code public, Houdini is a dead end.

Also Blender is moving forward at 100x the speed of competing closed software. SideFX is now at the point where managers and sales people get paid more money than the genius programmers actually working on the software. When Blender gets new features every weeks, Houdini gets a few improvements per year, its easy to see where things are going.

If Houdini don't changes their economic model quickly, they will not survive the great AI replacement. Getting paid for specialFX is dead, in 5-10 years there won't be a need for a 3D software and 3D artists. Free the source code, let the people move that software forward, you can still charge money. In 10 years max, SideFX employees will all be out of a job anyway. 3DCG is dead, its time to move on with your lives. Myself as a programmer will also be out of a job soon because of AI. Humans must start to think about retirering gracefully.

Kids don't learn Houdini, Maya or 3DS Max, they simply use Blender and now they are beginning to use AI.
AI empowers everyone to be a movie director with infinite budget and ressources.
You can't compete with that. Like I said, it is time to die gracefully.

RIP Houdini and the 3DCG Industry.

MarquisDeSang
It is now the year 2024 where Linux is free, I am typing this message from a Risc-V (open CPU) PC, Blender exist and AI is replacing everything slowly.

Just wasting time to create an account, wasting time and money to pay, wasting time with that annoying Houdini license manager software and knowing very well that in a 20 years, this software won't run, won't be supported and all the knowledge that you work hard to accumulate for Houdini will be useless. That annoying multiple incompatible file format for the same thing has completely ruined the economy and sharing for Houdini.

In 20 years Blender will still run, be maintained and everything will just work.
I think that SideFX should actually pay me to learn and use their software (a closed software is always designed to END eventually).

I don't mind paying for Houdini (as long as they provide the source code), but knowing that when they close their door, all that money will be lost because the source code will be locked, lost or destroyed. I do give money to Blender foundation because it is money well spent -> binary is short lived, source code is eternal. Unless they make their code public, Houdini is a dead end.

Also Blender is moving forward at 100x the speed of competing closed software. SideFX is now at the point where managers and sales people get paid more money than the genius programmers actually working on the software. When Blender gets new features every weeks, Houdini gets a few improvements per year, its easy to see where things are going.

If Houdini don't changes their economic model quickly, they will not survive the great AI replacement. Getting paid for specialFX is dead, in 5-10 years there won't be a need for a 3D software and 3D artists. Free the source code, let the people move that software forward, you can still charge money. In 10 years max, SideFX employees will all be out of a job anyway. 3DCG is dead, its time to move on with your lives. Myself as a programmer will also be out of a job soon because of AI. Humans must start to think about retirering gracefully.

Kids don't learn Houdini, Maya or 3DS Max, they simply use Blender and now they are beginning to use AI.
AI empowers everyone to be a movie director with infinite budget and ressources.
You can't compete with that. Like I said, it is time to die gracefully.

RIP Houdini and the 3DCG Industry.

Can you please stop these idiotic posts and comments?

MarquisDeSang
Kids don't learn Houdini, Maya or 3DS Max, they simply use Blender and now they are beginning to use AI.
AI empowers everyone to be a movie director with infinite budget and ressources.

You are deeply mistaken. There are many brands of cars and phones on the planet. There is no universal device that would displace the rest. It is impossible.
And yes, everyone has free pencils, which does not make everyone a great artist.
Let me explain to you about blender, which I personally deeply respect for its excellent interface. Money plays little role here. If you do not have $ 20 a month to pay for software - do at least some work. How much can you earn $ 20 for? For half an hour of work as a taxi driver? Is this a problem for you?
So about blender. Houdini has an absolutely fundamental difference - it is parametric modeling with nodes. And this and in such quantity and quality is not found anywhere else. Blender has only a pitiful likeness in geonodes, very limited and so far poorly connected with the rest. And there are no prerequisites for changing the situation even in the project. Houdini's parametrics provide significant advantages in certain scenarios. Therefore, for those who know how to use these advantages, blender is absolutely behind in these scenarios. Where you are searching and need to try many options and choose, or make edits - Houdini is at its best, and blender is absolutely useless. That is why we see all the tutorials on blender, where people outline something or make very simple figures. And no amount of money can change the situation here. If blender is enough for some task for you - that's great. This does not mean that 3D is dead because you don't have $ 20 a month. It's ridiculous.
And if you need a scene with many hundreds of objects that you need to constantly make edits to - you will cry bloody tears in blender. You can make an excellent model in plasticity, but I will demand to make it thicker here, thinner there - and you will cry again, because you will have to redo everything from scratch.
As for AI. The same problem - make edits. It will give you something. Either accept it as is, or cry. That is, you will not be able to make an exact model/scene for me as a customer. You will waste your life trying to get the AI ​​to meet my requirements, and I will most likely not accept your work. So it all comes down to the speed of obtaining a specific result in a specific situation. Somewhere one program will be more effective, somewhere another. Houdini's problem is its high bug content and inconvenient interface, but not $20 a month. Houdini's fundamental advantage in the form of working parametrics is simply priceless. It is unique. All the others, due to convenience in one or another, select some simple parts of the process where parametrics are not needed - libraries, interface, hotkeys, animation, specific areas. Yes, this is there. But the fundamental advantages of parametric modeling have not gone anywhere. If Blender ever turns into Houdini #2, it will be many years later, I do not see this even in projects.

Although Houdini has limited sculpting, painting functionality.
I agree that it is the best software ever made.

Its not really about money. I will explain my point with a recent example.
I paid a lot of money for C-Lion, an IDE to program in C.
I love it a lot, but this software is not open source.

This week, I have a job on a Risc-V.
I have 150$ a Linux Risc-V SBC that I use to develop for Risc-V.
C-Lion is available for Linux ARM anx X64... but not for Risc-V.
I asked them for a Risc-V version.
Their anwswer was that it is not planned yet.

So I wasted the last 2 years learning C-Lion for nothing because it is not available on modern PC.
Now I am back on a customized EMACS with makefile, gcc and gdb.
If I had the source code of C-Lion, I could remcompile it myself for Risc-V.

See, C-Lion is a dead end because it is not open source.

It has nothing to do with who is the best.
It has something to do, with : will it work in the futre? will it be where I need it?

Houdini may be the best, but it won't be there in the future.
I do 3DCG since the late 80's, I saw all the 3D software die.
You will loose Houdini one day. And when you do, think about this post.

I prefer Houdini, I don't mind paying for it (I like paying for stuff that I love).
But I won't because the source code is locked. The future is locked.
Houdini will die, it will stop working, you won't be able to use it.
Maybe not today, but one day it will.

The best 3D software of its time, Softimage XSI forever dissapeared suddenly.
Everyone lost all their work, their investment.
The same fate could happen very quickly to Houdini.

Houdini is about "Tool-making" as opposed to destructive modeling. So you are learning to make tools and those algorithms stick with you. The Icons help you remember the algorithms and Blender is missing that. If I think back to using Geonodes I cannot "see" the algorithm in my mind. Houdini algos, I can.

From an Educational standpoint, to teach advanced Design, Houdini is the best. It can put an Art Student on par or surpass an Engineering Student in applied skills. Personally seen this.

So I think "kids" could be using Houdini to learn based on the need for the next generation of educational content.

The ability for me to make something with "real value" is accessible in Houdini, not in Blender.

Houdini is not ready but "poised for" the transition, but it is up to the tool-builders whether they build into Houdini or not. I am currently building tools with Houdini and making sure things are accessible.

It is very interesting that these points are fatalistic. Houdini is not just used in 3DCG it is used in applied contexts. It is more likely that Houdini embraces AI in a very considered way focused on the creator. This is what I have found in my communications thus far.

You can open your mind and make the tools that are necessary. Houdini is open to that.

As a graduate student that studies R&D with a specific focus on preserving the creative act with new AI models and media. At least in the space where AI is being developed early stage, Houdini is very applicable and I have scouted technologies finding Houdini to be the best path for youth in the immediate future.

The biggest thing that is cool about Houdini is the history in the Software. That is missing from Blender. There are also other things but I am not sure the nuance can be communicated here.

I believe that the Houdini file format is specific to being able to compress it a ton. A lot of the Houdini code is approachable to developers in installation. There are plenty of options for storage options.

The thing is that Maya, 3DS, Blender, Lightwave (the latest version) are going to be a copy of Houdini in a few years.
Everyone has realized that Houdini is the Best Software Ever Made.
Even programming IDE should be replace by a Houdini workflow.

More and more, other 3D software are implementing stuff that was there 20+ years ago in Houdini.
In 10 years, Blender workflow and tools will be very similar to Houdini.
Once you go Houdini, it is difficult to return back to rigid destructive software.
Already, Blender is more and more Houdini like.

Houdini is "Shader Node Editor" design applied to everything mixed with programming without code.
Houdini is the No Man Sky of 3DCG.
Blender is catching up to Houdini, not there yet, but it is moving fast.
My concern is long term, SideFX cannot push Houdini where it needs to be.
They are gonna need more programmers and the only way to accomplish that is by making the code public.

Just like Microsoft cannot compete with the quantity of Linux programmers, Houdini cannot compete with an army of motivated unpaid programmers. Houdini and Maya are not moving forward fast enought. Blender is moving 100x faster than Houdini and Maya. As the 3DCG industry is dying, there will be less and less money to be made.
This model of selling a software is over.

I don't see a future for Houdini in 10 years.
And that is why I prefer to invest in something that will be there, even if not as good.

Guys, the original question was about Apprentice and Indie file exchange… please kindly take you philosophical messages about future of the industry, Blender and SideFX pricing model to a different thread. Thanks.

MarquisDeSang
I don't see a future for Houdini in 10 years.

Is anyone forcing you to pay for Houdini? Nobody cares!
We think completely differently than you. It is pointless to talk about decades in such a rapidly changing world. If blender has not caught up with Houdini in 20 years, where did you get the idea that it will catch up in the next 20 years and what is its plan anyway? Can a motorcycle replace a truck?
Nobody can stop it from doing so, but today there are no such plans even in embryo. Are you planning to live forever? Relax, as PHENOMDESIGN correctly said - Houdini, by its design, facilitates learning. I started with Cinema, but it is just a set of black boxes, then blender - already better, then Houdini - this is even better in design. All the same, for the final result, and everyone needs the final result, you always need several programs. Always. There is nothing wrong with that. Of course, if you need to quickly make a simple model - Houdini will be slower. But it's like driving a truck to a bakery. Inefficient. Efficient on a motorcycle, right? But you can do a lot on a truck that would be much more expensive to do on a motorcycle. Is a truck worse than a motorcycle or should it cost as much as a motorcycle? Even if you're a teenager and just need to ride girls. Yes, you can do it on a truck, but for this particular case, a motorcycle is better. And in other cases, a truck is more useful, although it costs 10 times more and requires a lot of maintenance.
So take Houdini's place correctly - it's a heavy truck. Whether you need it or not is a completely different question.
I model in Houdini and just have fun. If the developers fixed a number of shortcomings in the tools - it would be a super bomb, tearing everyone apart.
Unfortunately, poor documentation does not tell about many very cool things in the interface and in the pipelines, which are used in very unusual ways, but are incredibly useful. And few people know about them, I myself spent years to discover obvious things that made my life incredibly easier. And I didn't know about them. It's a Houdini interface flaw, yes. But if you knew all of Houdini's subtle tricks, you'd laugh at your own words.

$20 a month or the need to rewrite several nodes once in your life - it's just ridiculous that this puts you in a quandary against the backdrop of Houdini's enormous capabilities (and shortcomings).

For information, the share of OS in the world:
Windows OS (68.15%), macOS (21.38%), Chrome OS (4.15%), unknown system (3.23%), Linux (3.08%) and FreeBSD (0.01%).
Ha, even if all Linux users flew to the moon, no one would notice.

Super Computers -> 100% Linux
Servers -> 99% Linux
Mobile -> 90% Linux, 10% iOS
VR -> 100% Linux
SBC (embeded) -> 100% Linux
IOT -> 100% Linux
Desktop in USA -> 62% Windows and going down and down every months, everything else is Unix/Linux.
Consoles -> 99% Linux 1% Windows.

Every years since 2020, there are more Risc-V CPU made and sold than Intel and AMD combined.
It does not matter what you think, facts don't care for your feelings.

Houdini won't be there in 10 years because it is proprietary and closed source. Most of the money for Houdini do not go into making a better software, mostly getting some people richer. Most of the money for Blender goes into paying more programmers to improve the software. You won't have a job in 3DCG in 10 years. Will you continue to pay and use Houdini? Probably not. AI is already making better looking stuff, if only not perfect for now, but improving at an exponential rate (while it takes tons of people and working hours to make stuff for a mediocre shot that last 3 seconds). If you think you can compete with AI, you are a delusional fool.

Short term thinking is what gets 3D software killed.

MarquisDeSang
Super Computers -> 100% Linux
Servers -> 99% Linux
Mobile -> 90% Linux, 10% iOS
VR -> 100% Linux
SBC (embeded) -> 100% Linux
IOT -> 100% Linux
Desktop in USA -> 62% Windows and going down and down every months, everything else is Unix/Linux.
Consoles -> 99% Linux 1% Windows.

Every years since 2020, there are more Risc-V CPU made and sold than Intel and AMD combined.
It does not matter what you think, facts don't care for your feelings.

Houdini won't be there in 10 years because it is proprietary and closed source. Most of the money for Houdini do not go into making a better software, mostly getting some people richer. Most of the money for Blender goes into paying more programmers to improve the software. You won't have a job in 3DCG in 10 years. Will you continue to pay and use Houdini? Probably not. AI is already making better looking stuff, if only not perfect for now, but improving at an exponential rate (while it takes tons of people and working hours to make stuff for a mediocre shot that last 3 seconds). If you think you can compete with AI, you are a delusional fool.

Short term thinking is what gets 3D software killed.

For the third time - please take your philosophies on the future of 3d software somewhere else or create your own thread.

So you're giving advice to a company that has been in business for 30 years, about software you don't use professionally, which will likely be replaced by AI in 10 years anyway (according your expertise) ? Sounds like a waste of time to me.