Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Hi all,
I'm trying to learn houdini basics, and liked it till now... But when I tried uv tools... did I missed something or houdini is simply horrible for uvs tasks ?
I tried maya too, and it seems that maya is now far better than softimage for that specific task...And softimage far better than houdini.
Please, tell me that I'm wrong ! I can't believe that a brilliant piece of software like houdini can still have so large gaps in V16 !
I'm trying to learn houdini basics, and liked it till now... But when I tried uv tools... did I missed something or houdini is simply horrible for uvs tasks ?
I tried maya too, and it seems that maya is now far better than softimage for that specific task...And softimage far better than houdini.
Please, tell me that I'm wrong ! I can't believe that a brilliant piece of software like houdini can still have so large gaps in V16 !
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Hi,
Yes, Houdini's UV tools are one for getting used to.
I agree on the Maya and SI comments, but the procedural nature of Houdini will give you some additional options as well.
But with the modeling tools in H, it might be nice to have some more manual control over UV'ing and such.
rob
Yes, Houdini's UV tools are one for getting used to.
I agree on the Maya and SI comments, but the procedural nature of Houdini will give you some additional options as well.
But with the modeling tools in H, it might be nice to have some more manual control over UV'ing and such.
rob
SI UI tutorials: Toolbar http://goo.gl/iYOL0l | Custom Layout http://goo.gl/6iP5xQ | RenderManager View http://goo.gl/b4ZkjQ
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Yeah while it is somehow ''inappropriate'' to say here, Maya UV tools are probably the best and strongest option on planet today, and they are better from version to version including updates, when it comes performance and new tools as well.
As everyone probably knows, Houdini has ability to load 3d objects as footage, keeping the live connection with file on HDD, so, imho still the best option in H is just to forget anything with too much viewport interaction, like direct and indirect modeling and uv, nurbs, subdivs, any kind of animation and rigging, interactive simulation, too much of objects or materials, too much geometry, cloth and hair simulation, any kind of proceduralism that could be done somewhere else.
Other than that, it's great and brilliant.
As everyone probably knows, Houdini has ability to load 3d objects as footage, keeping the live connection with file on HDD, so, imho still the best option in H is just to forget anything with too much viewport interaction, like direct and indirect modeling and uv, nurbs, subdivs, any kind of animation and rigging, interactive simulation, too much of objects or materials, too much geometry, cloth and hair simulation, any kind of proceduralism that could be done somewhere else.
Other than that, it's great and brilliant.
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
So you give up ;-)Mathaeus wrote:Yeah ... Other than that, it's great and brilliant.
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
I didn't gave up, I still believe I'll find one evening, some vector math or something combination in H, able to conquer the 3d world . That's keeping many of us on the track, I believe, beside ''standard motivation'', how to pay the bills and so.
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
thanks for replies guys...
I'm a bit disillusioned.
I'm a bit disillusioned.
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
I'd say, if you played with Maya, you already made first steps in Houdini. For decades, H is developed as complement to Maya. Not really a "competent". Always heavy influenced by Mayans and financed by Mayans. As rule of thumb, what's strong in Maya, it's not strong in H, and reverse. There are some initiatives to go further than that with H, but imho, nothing, nothing really significant since H 14.julius wrote:thanks for replies guys...
I'm a bit disillusioned.
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
We're moving towards multiple specialized apps for the jobs we do.
Modeling/sculpting, texturing/painting, lighting/rendering, it's not all done in one app anymore, but rather in software geared to this task.
You have to accept at some point that A does things better than B, and make use of that fact.
The new tools in H16 are quite nice, the modeling tools are getting there fast imho, and the terrain tools are awesome.
But like in other applications, there's still stuff that can be enhanced, improved or changed to make it a better software.
Unlike Autodesk, I think we will see some big steps forward in the next years from SideFX with Houdini.
But I think the most important thing to remember is not to fight the application you're using. If another application makes you more comfortable and quicker to e.g. model, use that.
Move on to Houdini for all the other stuff.
Or vice versa, do some thing in Houdini, and use the Engine to render in Maya for instance.
It's up to you. ;)
rob
Modeling/sculpting, texturing/painting, lighting/rendering, it's not all done in one app anymore, but rather in software geared to this task.
You have to accept at some point that A does things better than B, and make use of that fact.
The new tools in H16 are quite nice, the modeling tools are getting there fast imho, and the terrain tools are awesome.
But like in other applications, there's still stuff that can be enhanced, improved or changed to make it a better software.
Unlike Autodesk, I think we will see some big steps forward in the next years from SideFX with Houdini.
But I think the most important thing to remember is not to fight the application you're using. If another application makes you more comfortable and quicker to e.g. model, use that.
Move on to Houdini for all the other stuff.
Or vice versa, do some thing in Houdini, and use the Engine to render in Maya for instance.
It's up to you. ;)
rob
SI UI tutorials: Toolbar http://goo.gl/iYOL0l | Custom Layout http://goo.gl/6iP5xQ | RenderManager View http://goo.gl/b4ZkjQ
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
I agree with you, but I'm still angry with Autodesk, and buying maya to make uvs is a bit expensive.
Softimage was so good at all tasks. I did'nt need anything else to get good results in no time ! I'm still disgusted !
Softimage was so good at all tasks. I did'nt need anything else to get good results in no time ! I'm still disgusted !
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Well..... You still have SI to do that, although I have to admit there are faster options available.
But e.g. Blender is a very capable 3D app nowadays, and there are more Maya/Max alternatives.
And a lot of modeler apps do UV as well, so it should get you covered ;)
But H16 Indie + Arnold/or RedShift is a powerful and cheap combo for a freelancer to work with
But e.g. Blender is a very capable 3D app nowadays, and there are more Maya/Max alternatives.
And a lot of modeler apps do UV as well, so it should get you covered ;)
But H16 Indie + Arnold/or RedShift is a powerful and cheap combo for a freelancer to work with
SI UI tutorials: Toolbar http://goo.gl/iYOL0l | Custom Layout http://goo.gl/6iP5xQ | RenderManager View http://goo.gl/b4ZkjQ
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
So long, and thanks for all the Fish!!
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Hi,
What's exactly your grips with uvs on houdini ? I found provided tools very good, like the pack one. The only thing I found strange was using a layer SOP to change the uv to edit but beside that it's working correctly IMO ?
What's exactly your grips with uvs on houdini ? I found provided tools very good, like the pack one. The only thing I found strange was using a layer SOP to change the uv to edit but beside that it's working correctly IMO ?
Re: Houdini uvs : a real pain ?
Well I'd believe uv editing is working correctly in H, but... let's say something about uv features in Maya / Maya LT, usually in next Max too. First of all it's cut - sew workflow, sew is usable automatized equivalent of SI 'island heal to picked'. Cut - sew could be done directly in 3d viewport, making it really easy and fast to create basic layout, while it have automatic searching for uv borders by topology - curvature, too. Second, topology based symmetrization, from picked center edge. Then there's selective unfolding / optimizing, by brush or by selection. Layout / pack is able to self align according to world vectors (up, left - right, so on). There is a bunch of tools for dealing with uv borders, straightening and so (some of those are 'translated' to SI by our member Myara), plus I'd believe all known and unkown uv utilities. One of them is adjusting the scale of uv island, using the picked island as reference, afaik this one appeared as public user request in last November, become implemented in February in Maya update 3.
Set of known SI tools is there too, like Contour stretch - while I was able to 're-assemble' Contour stretch by unfolding, symmetry and pinning, just for experiment. After all, built-in Unfold 3d, maybe it's a far stronger engine than 'no name' unwrap in H.
All in all, if someone needs few uvs here and there, Houdini should be enough, but compared to Maya uv tools today, this is imho like comparing a some free path-tracer with Red Shift or Octane.
And, yeah, with inevitable 'I hate to say that', while Maya could be described as 'set of rocket engines connected by duct tape', almost all of these engines, traditionally, *are* rocket engines, best on planet in release time, or close to that. On other side, Houdini has a bit too much of 'substitutes' (politely to say) derived from who-knows-what-they-had available in their not-so-good old times. Sound processing system forced to do something with animation, shading system forced to work with geometry, FEM soft body forced to do cloth sym, Unix structure of 3d app (if I'm correct, something like Softimage 3d). All of them 'no name', of course.
In other words, when I'm buying AD product, I know a lot about components, too. In case of Houdini, I'm buying, what... their unhappy history and solutions from times when they were on edge of existence...
Set of known SI tools is there too, like Contour stretch - while I was able to 're-assemble' Contour stretch by unfolding, symmetry and pinning, just for experiment. After all, built-in Unfold 3d, maybe it's a far stronger engine than 'no name' unwrap in H.
All in all, if someone needs few uvs here and there, Houdini should be enough, but compared to Maya uv tools today, this is imho like comparing a some free path-tracer with Red Shift or Octane.
And, yeah, with inevitable 'I hate to say that', while Maya could be described as 'set of rocket engines connected by duct tape', almost all of these engines, traditionally, *are* rocket engines, best on planet in release time, or close to that. On other side, Houdini has a bit too much of 'substitutes' (politely to say) derived from who-knows-what-they-had available in their not-so-good old times. Sound processing system forced to do something with animation, shading system forced to work with geometry, FEM soft body forced to do cloth sym, Unix structure of 3d app (if I'm correct, something like Softimage 3d). All of them 'no name', of course.
In other words, when I'm buying AD product, I know a lot about components, too. In case of Houdini, I'm buying, what... their unhappy history and solutions from times when they were on edge of existence...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests