3 ms·

my recommendation would be to try Houdini (http://www.sidefx.com http://www.sidefx.com). It is different from other 3D packages as it is fully node based (and n

by frading 10y ago

my recommendation would be to try Houdini (http://www.sidefx.com http://www.sidefx.com). It is different from other 3D packages as it is fully node based (and not with a node layer added on top). It has a reputation of being difficult or long to learn, but I disagree. I find it way more intuitive, as you can see step by step what is happening. Their doc also has loads of examples and there are nice forums to ask for help (http://odforce.net http://odforce.net and http://www.sidefx.com/forum http://www.sidefx.com/forum). If you have a logical mind, it should appear straightforward.

pfranz 10y ago
Have you done many full projects with it? From my little window in the industry it's indispensable for FX and simulation (water, fire, destruction), but the tools for modelling, texturing, and animation just aren't worth the time. I don't know anyone who uses it for that or would reccomend it for those things. I've gone through their basic tutorials. It's really nice to make procedural reusable things (a ladder that will create rungs based on the height), but I can't even imagine trying to model something organic.
- frading 10y ago
  For feature films, the jobs are specialised, so Houdini does tend to be restricted to FX (although more and more companies base their lighting/rendering pipeline on it). But for commercials, it can happen that it is used in more departments. I did commercials where animators where taught to use it, and that was a success in my opinion. They were happy because the animation tools are basically the same and the rigs were updated faster than they would be on other packages. And it is true I've rarely seen models being done in Houdini. The only time I did one was for this commercial (https://vimeo.com/17808406 https://vimeo.com/17808406), where the character is quite procedural. Had it been a more classical character, a Maya modeller would have done it.
  - pfranz 10y ago
    Great to hear their animation tools work well. Houdini seems like it would be fantastic for rigging.

by frading 10y ago

pfranz 10y ago

Have you done many full projects with it? From my little window in the industry it's indispensable for FX and simulation (water, fire, destruction), but the tools for modelling, texturing, and animation just aren't worth the time. I don't know anyone who uses it for that or would reccomend it for those things. I've gone through their basic tutorials. It's really nice to make procedural reusable things (a ladder that will create rungs based on the height), but I can't even imagine trying to model something organic.

frading 10y ago
For feature films, the jobs are specialised, so Houdini does tend to be restricted to FX (although more and more companies base their lighting/rendering pipeline on it). But for commercials, it can happen that it is used in more departments. I did commercials where animators where taught to use it, and that was a success in my opinion. They were happy because the animation tools are basically the same and the rigs were updated faster than they would be on other packages. And it is true I've rarely seen models being done in Houdini. The only time I did one was for this commercial (https://vimeo.com/17808406 https://vimeo.com/17808406), where the character is quite procedural. Had it been a more classical character, a Maya modeller would have done it.
- pfranz 10y ago
  Great to hear their animation tools work well. Houdini seems like it would be fantastic for rigging.