Hi

I studied Houdini polygonal proceduralism for 3 weeks trying to make a procedural model, and came to a disappointing conclusion:
In order to make a minimal transformation reserve for a procedural model you have to think 100 times more (compared to 3ds max) on each small part of the model while in 3ds max - in the same time I would have already created - manually - 200 model variants. If you just make a model with minimal transformation reserve then - yes - you will have to think 100 times longer than if you make one model variant in 3ds max, but if you have to create a model with a huge transformation reserve then it is a global work and I have turned from an artist into a pure programmer. To us (artists). - No, that's not true. Houdini is not for us. Houdini is a programmer's world. The procedural model was left unfinished and I didn't draw a single picture in 3 weeks

Houdini is a programmer's world.

Houdini is a programmer's world.

Houdini is a programmer's world.

Sorry for my english - I've fixed a few bugs

Hello,

- 3 weeks is nothing, you have to produce a serious number of assets before developing the mind skills. D
- It's not because you set 3 attributes in vex that you are a programmer

Before evaluating your productivity, did you enjoy that approach of modeling ?. It can't please everyone, and if those 3 weeks were a chore maybe Houdini is not the best fit for you.

They are other proc modeling solution around that are maybe easier to learn. And once you hit their limit you might want to come back to houdini and better appreciate the workflow and toolset.

Beside I'm curious, what was that first model you were working on ?

PaQ WaK
- 3 weeks is nothing, you have to produce a serious number of assets before developing the mind skills. D

OK and what time i need to do so:
Your text to link here... [www.youtube.com]

PaQ WaK
- 3 weeks is nothing, you have to produce a serious number of assets before developing the mind skills. D

If i spent 3 years for developing my houdini skills then i would not draw any painting during this period

PaQ WaK
It's not because you set 3 attributes in vex that you are a programmer

I deem tha Houdini's tools should be more high-level - may be art-tools for artists

may be art-tools for artists

may be art-tools for artists

may be art-tools for artists

PaQ WaK
Before evaluating your productivity, did you enjoy that approach of modeling ?

Not quite the right approach - because it's like you're asking the artist if he would enjoy programming instead of painting

PaQ WaK
They are other proc modeling solution around that are maybe easier to learn. And once you hit their limit you might want to come back to houdini and better appreciate the workflow and toolset.

Yes, houdini's capabilities are much cooler than 3ds max, but for the next 3 years I will have to communicate only with programmers, which is unnatural for an artist.

PaQ WaK
They are other proc modeling solution around that are maybe easier to learn. And once you hit their limit you might want to come back to houdini and better appreciate the workflow and toolset.

Look at this wrong model. This model is wrong because it doesn't have any transformational reserve. If you do this model right, it will take 100 times as long to do it right

If you change the radii of rounded surfaces, this model will break immediately.

Your text to link here... [www.youtube.com]

Houdini's users have done marvellous things without a single line of VEX, so I would say no, Houdini is not a programmer's world, take it from a guy who's been coding since 1985, but yeah, VEX opens up more doors for Houdini users!

If your goal is direct modelling in Houdini, without proceduralism, then I suggest you have a look at the Polymarvels YouTube channel, which is dedicated to direct modelling in Houdini...

https://www.youtube.com/@polymarvels

One last thing, learning a low level 3D application like Houdini takes a long time, much more than 3 weeks, how long will depend on you, I have been doing 2D animation since I was 12, I am 59 at the moment, I started 3D in the late 80s on my Amiga System (loved my Amiga), and I still learn new stuff all the time!

Unfortunately, and fortunately at the same time, what you said is true.

There was a joke among programmers: Emacs is an operating system, it just needs a better text editor.

Houdini is an operating system, it just needs better a 3D DCC.

By the way, I know English isn't your mother tongue (not mine either), but you might want to figure out how to describe your issue in English (or just write in your mother tongue then translate it with ChatGPT). Especially this:

but if you have to create a model with a huge transformation reserve then it is a global work

It looks like that "transformation reserve" is the biggest issue here. But I honestly don't understand what it means. I've been modeling a lot in Houdini and I never had or even heard of this issue, so I assume its meaning doesn't cross the language barrier.

People on this forums are willing to help, but they need to understand what the issue is first.

raincole
It looks like that "transformation reserve" is the biggest issue here

If we have a cube and we can compress it, it means that this cube has a transformational reserve But if we have a cylinder and we can compress it and we can twist this cylinder and bend it, it means that this object has a transformational reserve 3 times larger than that of the cube

GCharb
Houdini's users have done marvellous things without a single line of VEX, so I would say no, Houdini is not a programmer's world, take it from a guy who's been coding since 1985, but yeah, VEX opens up more doors for Houdini users!

Even if you just move nodes around and make connections between them, it's still called programming bun it's just called visual scripting If I go into visual scripting dusring 3 years, I'll stop being an artist and become a programmer, which is unnatural to my ""artistis soul"".

GCharb
One last thing, learning a low level 3D application like Houdini takes a long time, much more than 3 weeks, how long will depend on you, I have been doing 2D animation since I was 12, I am 59 at the moment, I started 3D in the late 80s on my Amiga System (loved my Amiga), and I still learn new stuff all the time!

I don't like that houdini more programmer's tool than artist's one

The message needs to be conveyed to the developer that Houdini's tools need to be more high-level so that the artist remains an artist, rather than turning into a programmer.

Staglaitor
The message needs to be conveyed to the developer that Houdini's tools need to be more high-level so that the artist remains an artist, rather than turning into a programmer.

I hope that never happens. That would be like having Houdini turn into a 3d version of photoshop/AI - being pigeon holed how to do things.

To me Houdinis strength is it's capacity to allow what you call 'programming' and make your own tools and develop your own work flows.

If any 'message needs' to be conveyed - Keep the focus on special effects and capacity/improvements for the 'tool' making.

BabaJ
I hope that never happens.

Apparently - you are still an artist and Houdini has not turned you into a programmer - then show me your artwork....

Staglaitor
Apparently - you are still an artist and Houdini has not turned you into a programmer - then show me your artwork...

No, I'm not interested in seeking your approval. Your preferences don't have any priority over others.

It is up to the 'CEO', et al. of SideFX as to the direction Houdini should take in regards to the user base they wish to target; and in turn how/where they allocate their development resources.

And if you are going to air your preferences and that's counter to mine - I will air mine.

BabaJ

Staglaitor
The message needs to be conveyed to the developer that Houdini's tools need to be more high-level so that the artist remains an artist, rather than turning into a programmer.

I hope that never happens. That would be like having Houdini turn into a 3d version of photoshop/AI - being pigeon holed how to do things.

To me Houdinis strength is it's capacity to allow what you call 'programming' and make your own tools and develop your own work flows.

If any 'message needs' to be conveyed - Keep the focus on special effects and capacity/improvements for the 'tool' making.

I find this thinking a bit flawed, this is not an either or situation

I like that SideFX is also focusing on some low level layers to create frameworks for tool building, which allows artists to build their own high level very intuitive tools
And that's exactly the end goal, if they allow everyone to build high level intuitive tools for individual needs, then there should be no issue with SideFX building some of those tools themselves using the same underlaying framework, which of course it's happening and it's actually very helpful to see some high level tools as they serve as learning material when we want to build our own

so I don't see how high level tools get in a way of the underlaying framework, if anything the needs of those tools inspire the framework and allow it to grow more robust
We are talking about SideFX here, they will never dumb their software down to just high level blackboxes

I don’t get it. if Houdini doesn’t “click” for you then don’t use it. I call myself an artist, too. And I never used a tool before that gives me that much freedom as Houdini does. Yes, Houdini has it flaws but so does any other program. If this tool requires you to type a line of code here and there that doesn’t make you a programmer. its just a skill you need, to use the tool properly. You also need to practise to draw with a pencil before you can express your ideas decently. its the same thing.
Houdini is just a mighty and complex pencil.

Btw. simply don’t transform at OBJ level if it causes troubles for you, just do it at SOP level.

Cheers
CYTE

tamte
so I don't see how high level tools get in a way of the underlaying framework

In of itself it doesn't.

But it does matter if too much time is spent on high level tools. No company has infinite resources to spend on development to suit everyone.

So no, the thinking isn't flawed and the point being presented wasn't about an either or situation. It was about where the emphasis on development should be, continue to be.

We are talking about SideFX here, they will never dumb their software down to just high level blackboxes

Certainly with the current CEO and staff at SideFX, you're right.
But 'never' is a very long time.
People eventually retire/die, etc. There's always the chance SideFx gets sold and takes a turn in a very new direction, potentially ignoring the current user base at that time altogether. Again, never is a very long time.

CYTE
I don’t get it. if Houdini doesn’t “click” for you then don’t use it. I call myself an artist, too. And I never used a tool before that gives me that much freedom as Houdini does. Yes, Houdini has it flaws but so does any other program. If this tool requires you to type a line of code here and there that doesn’t make you a programmer. its just a skill you need, to use the tool properly. You also need to practise to draw with a pencil before you can express your ideas decently. its the same thing.
Houdini is just a mighty and complex pencil.

Btw. simply don’t transform at OBJ level if it causes troubles for you, just do it at SOP level.

Cheers
CYTE

Yes!!! - absolutely right - i think the same awy. But we talk about other thing. Look at this video below

Your text to link here... [www.youtube.com]

This is false houdini-use - this model will be broken if you will try to change rounded parts of the model. = there is no transformational reserve. transformational reserve never implied to be broken
Sooner - in this video - you just see how to use houdini in 3ds max style

Yes - you can stay an artist doing in a such way

But if you need to achieve a "global-heavy" tranformational reserve where a glass of beer turns into a motorcycle, then you have to become a professional programmer, and no other way.

To avoid becoming a programmer you need high-level tools that I didn't find in houdini.

To avoid becoming a programmer you need high-level tools that I didn't find in houdini.

To avoid becoming a programmer you need high-level tools that I didn't find in houdini.

BabaJ
But it does matter if too much time is spent on high level tools. No company has infinite resources to spend on development to suit everyone.

It's not true in the last instance.

high-level tool can be of two types: concrete (you are talking about) and general one

a specific high-level tool is a tool designed only for car wheels

and it is right

BabaJ
No company has infinite resources to spend on development to suit everyone.

But I talk about general high-level-tools like: wrapping a flowering leaf around a flowering stem so that the vertices and edges do not enter the polygons of the flowering stem - this way you can wrap any object around any object.

Developer's resources are spent on common (general) high-level tools

Staglaitor
This is false houdini-use - this model will be broken if you will try to change rounded parts of the model.

you may have a huge misunderstandings about Houdini

the point of creating anything in Houdini is not that it should always be fully procedural and allow you to change any parameter without breaking anything downstream
This is purely up to the artist whether they have some requirements for certain parameters to be controllable and ensure it's as robust as needed

there is always a certain degree of problem solving skills required when designing a procedural model or tool with input parameters that allow you to tweak it to certain extend
and yes, sometimes that's easier with a bit of code, but ultimately its about how your brain works, if you come up with a clever solution without using any code you are free to do that

don't compare procedural modelling with traditional modelling complaining that it'd take you personally more time to figure out how to properly set up a procedural model than making the variations manually
if anything compare Houdini procedural modelling workflows to other DCC procedural modelling workflows and point out what you like more about the other and how it appeals to your understanding better than Houdini's way of working and enables you to develop the procedural models or tools faster

If you'd say that you find it easier to create your dream procedural model in Blender Geometry Nodes, C4D Scene Nodes, Bifrost, Grasshopper, Substance 3D Designer, ... etc.
that can lead to much more fruitful discussion and analysis of the workflows and tools and can be helpful for Houdini community potentially for developers to learn from and potentially implement for the future

and I'm sorry some individual "badly cheated" you into thinking Houdini is this magic one button solution for any imaginable problem, but taking it out on everyone in the forums just comes off as bitter