Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 14:30:33 UTC No. 838232

The dev is a jew. You have to pay full price again with every Houdini version, it's more like a subscription. I'd pirate it.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 14:32:19 UTC No. 838233

>>838230
draw me a pony and I'll upload it

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:15:36 UTC No. 838240

>>838233
Another reason why we need super strong copy protection measures with always online protection.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 15:54:52 UTC No. 838247

price is high enough that won't bother with it even if it works well. reliance on piracy would just leave me at the whims of the uploader and in all liklihood having to run parallel houdini installs, in which case, i'd rather just direct model elsewhere.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 16:09:13 UTC No. 838250

>>838230
Yes, it's very good. I don't know why SideFX doesn't hire him and make modeler a separate optional toolset like Labs is.
Price was negligible for me, eating out costs more. The gains in productivity for me are worth a lot more than $100.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:36:34 UTC No. 838274

>>838230
>Houdini the Best modeler now
3DS max still exists

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:45:36 UTC No. 838276

>>838230
It mimics modo
Let's hope someone will pirate mops plus
then I'll never have to open any other software ever again

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:59:53 UTC No. 838277

>>838276
If $200 is all that stands between you and simplifying your software pipeline to that degree, I have to ask what are you waiting for? You are probably losing more money waiting instead of acting. Is $200 the equivalent of 4 months wages in your country or something?

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Jul 2021 23:43:17 UTC No. 838309

>>838277
fuck off alexey

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:09:29 UTC No. 838387

>>838277
>>$220/year
fuck off toadstorm
perma license or piracy

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:14:43 UTC No. 838388

>>838276
*just starts MODO*

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:28:56 UTC No. 838390

>>838230
>creates a new node for every single operation
how much proceduralism is too much in daily modelling work?

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:22:41 UTC No. 838398

>>838230
Wait, what? Houdini doesn't have proper polymodeling tools?

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:12:01 UTC No. 838410

>>838390
maya does that too only it's for no reason at all as nobody is adjusting bevel values on the node graph later they just delete it every 20 mins

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:12:33 UTC No. 838411

>>838398
Not Houdini's purpose, nor should it be in the future. Houdini works best as part pipeline with other tools. It's procedural tools, how it allows to setup and shape sims are unmatched.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:14:59 UTC No. 838413

>>838398
you can model in houdini if you want to.
it just feels bad.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:17:21 UTC No. 838415

>>838398
Houdini has poly-modelling tools, but like anything in Houdini, they are nodes - so modelling like in any other destructive poly-modelling DCC is possible but unnecessarily complex, since you always create a soup of nodes, which is a slow process that lacks the comfortability and ease of other DCCs.
I don't see how that is a problem however, because why would you use Houdini if you want to build something in an destructive and bespoke way - that's not really what Houdini is for.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:20:27 UTC No. 838416

>>838398
You don't model in Houdini, dummy

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:27:08 UTC No. 838419

>>838416
stop me, bitch

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:39:05 UTC No. 838420

>>838390
>how much proceduralism is too much in daily modelling work?
Easy question, easy answer.
Linear vs exponential curve of growth.
Do you want to build one bespoke object without the need of procedural variants? - Don't use procedural tools.
Do you want to build something that needs some form of procedural variations, or you want countless variations of the same - use procedural tools, simple as that.
Lets say you want to build 3 buildings made of the same building blocks.
Lets say you spent 1 hour to create the building blocks (windows, wall segments, entrance, balconies etc.)
And then you spent 20 minutes to assemble one building from it - in 2 hours you can create 3 buildings. in 3 hours you have 6, and so on.
Manual, destructive tools give you an linear curve of growth. For every new variant you need to add the same amount of time.

If you instead of assembling the buildings manually, you build a building generator with procedural tools and that takes you 2 hours to build. After 3 hours you can create countless buildings made from the same building blocks.

In the time of 3 hours you could have made 6 buildings manually. But with procedural tools after 3 hours you can create countless variations.
If you need less than 6 procedural tools are not more efficient - if you need more than 6 procedural tools are unbeaten in terms of efficiency.
Using procedural tools gives you an production curve that is exponential in growth. At first its slower, with time it becomes incredibly efficient.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:50:22 UTC No. 838424

>>838420
I feel like SD needs no explanation here as even people not into parametric modeling love SD but I cannot state enough how much I like using SD for textures I intend on making no variations on, because I can just get the first pass done, get the textures hooked up in UE and tweak literally everything to make sure it looks right in context.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:00:32 UTC No. 838426

>>838424
I would say SD is a little different since it allows to create textures/materials from nothing as fast as creating them destructively with an image program. The parametric nature allows you to adjust and create while in the creating process and this gives you speed and flexibility.
Often when I create something bespoke with SD i discover methods that give me good results for other use cases, so even when I am working towards a specific goal, I produce useful stuff accidental on the side that I can use for other future projects.
Same is true to a degree with Houdini. If you create something parametrically that is very complex, that is hard to achieve with destructive tools, you have the same a mount of flexibility while building it and the high amount of iterations gives you a better result than what you would have if you had made it with destructive manual work.
So there is a certain efficiency even when you are working towards a specific goal and you don't need lots of variants in your final result.

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:43:35 UTC No. 838647

>>838230
>>but who is ZModeler?
the only value here is the direct connection to ZBrush which is smooth as fuck

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Jul 2021 16:28:51 UTC No. 839124

>>838416
why not?
what's better than procedural modeling?

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:04:06 UTC No. 839134

>>839124
It's a dumb industry meme from 2017

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:13:10 UTC No. 839136

>>839124
Dont listen to retarded Blendturds>>839134

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Jul 2021 18:12:04 UTC No. 839145

>>838398
It has proper modeling tools, very good tools actually however like >>838415 says the process of using the tools can be slow. It has gotten a lot better and continues to get better with each release, however in keeping with the topic of this thread DM solves the issue with Houdini's modeling workflow and adds some great features, all while retaining the possibility of working procedurally, minus a few necessarily destructive operations like the move brush.

Anonymous at Thu, 22 Jul 2021 07:39:46 UTC No. 840399

>>838387
hi there, this is toadstorm. i don't normally post here.
the $220/year is for the fx licence, indie is $100/year, and you don't have to subscribe... if you cancel you still have a year of updates from your last purchase date. all my licenses are permanent.

not that I'm gonna change anyone's mind on these boards but considering the amount of hours I've put into this stuff i feel like the licensing model is pretty okay. if you don't wanna pay for it there's always the free version.

Anonymous at Thu, 22 Jul 2021 11:39:02 UTC No. 840427

>>840399
hello, if you are really henry:
thanks for mops

also thanks for that video demo-ing what mops can do - the one where you type all the vex out to make pig heads look at stuff etc. the vex part is inadvertently a really fun little tutorial - could you do more like that,

Anonymous at Thu, 22 Jul 2021 15:17:45 UTC No. 840464

>>840427
yeah eventually I'd like to do more long form stuff talking about the math, i just have to get through all the plus tutorial videos first. it takes a long time to record and edit these things.