ICE vs HOUDINI - Split test results (a comparison)

[TheDutchOracle]

Hi, i just came across this article, wich makes a nice read.
it compares between ICE and HOUDINI's VOP way of calculating.

http://frenchdog.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/ice-vs-vop/

edit by owei: PLEASE USE URL TAGS...!!! THANKS

[forton]

Interesting read, but it's a bit outdated, it would be interesting to see a more recent comparison.

Wim

[TheDutchOracle]

that would be great indeed.
(in case some people with the right knowledge is reading this )

[Hirazi Blue]

Seriously I think the article isn't all that outdated.
IHMO the notion that one can and more importantly should compare Softimage ICE & Houdini VOP on that level would seem outdated though.

[forton]

Explain?

When I buy software I would compare (among other things) speed, stability...
If lagoa for example would be as fast as realflow, it would make a big difference in usability.
It may be lowlevel testing, but has big impact on usability (some icetrees are just that simple, with millions of particles).

[Mathaeus]

I'd also believe test is 'valid' today, too. At least when it comes to part where ICE is faster, that is, 'point pushing'. Actually, I think ICE can be even much much more faster when it comes to strands, as specially optimized, 'child' of particles. There is price for strands performance, as usually, some geo query won't catch the strand. As far as I know, something similar to ICE strand doesn't exist in Houdini.
I think Houdini also does not have ready-made nodes like ICE Get Closest Location (working horse for so many tasks).

But, I think differences are result of intentional, design decision. Generally Houdini looks like something more about flexibility, instead of performance, while ICE is more artistic, optimized tool. Artistic, here = (relatively) limited set of tools, together with (relatively) high level of user protection, allowing the creativity as much possible.
Strong set of 'classic' operator in SI, makes ICE even more artistic - you're allowed to use ICE where, if , you want. This is not possible in Houdini.

BTW, my knowledge about Houdini belongs to playing with demo, just a bit more this summer than usually, that's all.

[Hirazi Blue]

Explain?

While I agree it might be interesting to compare them once in a while, I do strongly feel these kind of tests only highlight very specific scenarios and are as such not necessarily representative of the software ultimately used. If you want "procedural stuff" (ICE) with a lot of added functionality (modeling, animating etc) on top in a pleasant workflow, buy Softimage. If you want a big open sandbox to create anything in, without the software holding your hand, buy Houdini.
And if you plan to buy Houdini, you must bring more dineros also, obviously.

And in the spirit of disclosure: Houdini Apprentice (planning on going HD one day)

[luceric]

this investigation of architectural differences between ICE and VOP is just as brilliant and timely as it was years ago, I hired Guillaume at Autodesk based on this article.

[keeper]

I'd also believe test is 'valid' today, too. At least when it comes to part where ICE is faster, that is, 'point pushing'. Actually, I think ICE can be even much much more faster when it comes to strands, as specially optimized, 'child' of particles. There is price for strands performance, as usually, some geo query won't catch the strand. As far as I know, something similar to ICE strand doesn't exist in Houdini.
I think Houdini also does not have ready-made nodes like ICE Get Closest Location (working horse for so many tasks).

But, I think differences are result of intentional, design decision. Generally Houdini looks like something more about flexibility, instead of performance, while ICE is more artistic, optimized tool. Artistic, here = (relatively) limited set of tools, together with (relatively) high level of user protection, allowing the creativity as much possible.
Strong set of 'classic' operator in SI, makes ICE even more artistic - you're allowed to use ICE where, if , you want. This is not possible in Houdini.

BTW, my knowledge about Houdini belongs to playing with demo, just a bit more this summer than usually, that's all.

As far as I know there is Trail SOP in Houdini similar to strands. About Get Closest Location. There are Ray in SOP Context and something in VEX too. And about artistic way of ICE. ICE is nothing more than a tool for creating custom operators in visual form, visual programming language. Similar from Houdini is only VEX. Which is covered in Modeling, Animation, Compos, Rendering.... In Houdini procedural modeling is more artistic way. You can at any time turn on display flag on any nodes you want, similar render flag too.

[Mathaeus]

As far as I know there is Trail SOP in Houdini similar to strands. About Get Closest Location. There are Ray in SOP Context and something in VEX too. And about artistic way of ICE. ICE is nothing more than a tool for creating custom operators in visual form, visual programming language. Similar from Houdini is only VEX. Which is covered in Modeling, Animation, Compos, Rendering.... In Houdini procedural modeling is more artistic way. You can at any time turn on display flag on any nodes you want, similar render flag too.

Well I looked more generally, let's say, what's a "single user solution" in Houdini, when it comes to some ambitious hairdo. Doesn't matter in what category it fits, DOP, SOP, I don't care. Beside built-in fur, didn't find anything. Theoretically, their wire solver should be a good start, but again, nothing useful to find. Useful.. I mean if there is someone willing to share experience, examples, to save me of starting from scratch. Just like Helge Mathee did in early ICE days.

Also I did not find a number of usual ready-to-use tools, from 3d text to animation plotting, and more. When it comes to modeling, didn't find equivalent of, just for example, subdivision reversion or Blender's unsubdivide - as one really useful, still hot tool. No one of this kind for ICE, too, to be fair.