Houdini 7 review from VFXWorld

[michael]

http://www.vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=319b2...&id=2424&page=1

will require free registration...

it's positive but a bit light...

[Marc]

That article smacks of someone who's only ever encountered Maya/XSI/Max before. While it's certainly more positive that most other reviews of Houdini, it seems he's missed the point.

While character animation is not Houdini's calling, the tools are capable of producing character performances with subtle levels of detail.

Because we all know that it's the software that produces subtle animation and not the animator. I'm pretty sure that by this point Houdini's character tools rival Maya's and Softimages and even surpass them in some ways.

This all implies a fast-and-loose workflow that is at odds with Houdini's add-a-SOP-manipulate-and-repeat methodology... Most significantly, Houdini lacks for subdivision surfaces as a model type, even though they have become the new standard in animation environments. (Side Effects does point out that you can render polygons as sub-d's in rendering.)

This probably irks me the most. When modeling you can toss the entire standard workflow by maximising the viewport and setting some pertinent hotkeys. At home my keypad is a l33t modeling tool with all it's hotkeys (polysplit, polyextrude, add selection, remove selection, blast etc.)

No more difficult than trying to figure out Maya's marking menus.

And the comment about subdivision surfaces? Perhaps I'm a little mistaken, but aren't those a Maya invention? I thought subdividing was a method of refining a piece of geometry using either the Catmull-Clark or Doo-Sabin algorithms. Hence the subdivide SOP is far superior to Maya's subdivision geometry type. I say far superior since it's actually polygonal geometry that you can do anything with after the fact. I remember in older Maya versions you couldn't do anything with the geometry once it became a subdivision surface type.

bah humbug.

Unfortunately, even at the rarified $17,000 price point, Houdini offers no native support for hair or fur shaders

huh?

It can render a curve, what more do you need? Or does he want a closed box method called "fur" that you can't do anything with other than what its spec'ed out to do?

Our rendering forum shows plenty of examples of decently rendered hair and fur.

....sigh... sorry for the rant. I guess I'm tired of the rah! rah! fanboy reviews that come out about Maya and XSI and the few that come out for Houdini are always filled with these backhanded compliments.

Does anyone who actually knows Houdini know how to write? We should write a review

M

[altbighead]

M

16859[/snapback]

hehe.. well said.perhaps you might wanna post that under his review.

http://www.vfxworld.com/?atype=comments&a=post&id=2424

Sai

[edward]

No more difficult than trying to figure out Maya's marking menus.

Less documented maybe?

And the comment about subdivision surfaces?

I usually think of "subdivision surfaces" as referring to adaptive subdivision, which of course Houdini supports via mantra. As to what it means in Maya, I think that might be a totally different story.

I think there still remains work to be done to make subd modelling in Houdini fast though. Because of the current SOP framework, each SOP assumes very little of its input. So let's say we move a point on the cage upstream of the subd sop, then to visualize the subd surface, the subd sop needs to re-subdivide the entire geometry instead of just doing the polys around the moved point. Now there are certainly strategies to dealing with this such as using the render state to view your subd results instead of using the subd sop but it's not exactly an ideal situation. This is not a problem that cannot be overcome eventually with development effort though.

I remember in older Maya versions you couldn't do anything with the geometry once it became a subdivision surface type.

I'm pretty that situation has changed. Last I heard, people would often be forced to convert between "subdivision surfaces" and "polygons" which is kind of funny when you think about it.

Now, I don't mean to say that the review was great but just playing devils advocate.

[edward]

In the contest for world domination in visual effects, Side Effects Software is an underdog.

Just curious. How true does this statement sound to the people in VFX?

This review is someone different in tone in that its really a review of Houdini as opposed to the difference from Houdini 6 to 7. I guess that can't be helped though at the current moment.

I can't help but feel that the author doesn't fully appreciate the real cost of using Houdini and just focuses on $17,000. For any moderately sized studio, the total cost of ownership is much less than N*17,000 if you use a combination of the full range of licenses. As such, it's not really a fair comparison of what "you" get with buying Houdini. It's kind of touched on in the conclusion but it's not really consistent with his earlier comments.

[Jason]

I was pleased to see that in the article they didn't harp on the old school of thought that you essentially have to program to be able to use Houdini effectively. I think he quite rightly mentioned that as soon as Maya users start to break away from canned effects that their task becomes scripting-heavy and unweildy compared to the constantly level playing ground in Houdini.

As for the subd thing, I still have that dream that the UI be threaded along with adaptive view-port subdivison that updates whenever it's had a moment to complete its calc of the surface, while you merrily model away on the cage uninterrupted. The same is true for all SOPs. IMHO, not having a threaded UI is also I think which is a big thing holding the compositor back from being fast and easy to use. Perhaps Houdini 8.1? C'mon SESI, be the first to have a fully threaded 3d package!

Pity there was no mention of the animation tools - the awesome Channel Editor, the Dopesheet and the MPlay blocking. Those are really damn strong in 7.0.

But all in all, a warm review I thought.

[Marc]

So am I the only grumpy bugger here? sheesh... I must be getting old

adaptive view-port subdivison

hear! hear! Viewport subdivision would be a wonderful thing.

[Jason]

So am I the only grumpy bugger here? sheesh... I must be getting old

Nah, we take turns at it.

[deecue]

i came back from the article annoyed at times but also glad at some of the more positive comments it gave.. and of course i pretty much agree with the comments everyone has contributed here.. but the thing that angered me the most was:

" For this reason Houdini is commonly regarded as a "technical director's" package. "

[rant]

GOD that drives me up a wall.. it's completely overused by anyone who has only given a day to look in to the package.. i'm just so tired of hearing that because it just keeps this impression of the software and upholds an image that scares away people in the VFX community from even trying it out. i couldn't disagree anymore with the whole technical aspect because to anyone with a logical head on their shoulders, writing 8 pages of MEL for a stupid particle effect is way over technical than throwing together a network of POPs.. and even outside of POPs, you have all sorts of capabilities with custom attributes, expressions, etc...

just gets to me everytime i hear someone say that..

oh well.. [/rant]

[TheUsualAlex]

Agreed. One of the reason why I liked Houdini is the fact that I don't have to program everything. Coming from art background, I find Houdini to be much more artist-friendly than most other packages out there in terms of FX related work. A lot of stuff that I do here would probably require couple pages of MEL to maintain the flexibility. It probably would take me longer to troubleshoot someone else's code than to look at their nodes -- assuming that they set things up cleanly, of course.

[sibarrick]

I thought the weird thing about that review was the way he kept contradicting himself.

new users will quickly discover that its limits are more in the density of the interface than in what it can do.

There is nothing particularly daunting or difficult about working with Houdini's Ops

[TheUsualAlex]

Any Houdinites going to post any comments on it? Or email the editor?

[keltuzar]

the way I see it ignorance about a softwares comes only due to the fact that the developers have not taken enough time teaching it or promoting it enough to users.

Houdini has evolved a lot since PRISM and I feel sidefx must take time to promote houdini rather than develop new tools thinking users will keep up.

A stage will come where users will be left so left behind that those who never used houdini will be under the impression that it is a tough tool to use.

I think sidefx must see this article as a wake up call rather than making new features becuase one day or another other 3d packages will catch up to what houdini has to offer and users will see no reason to use houdini.

just my 2 cents...

[DaJuice]

Honestly I don't put much stock in most reviews for 3d apps. IMO you first should have spent a good deal of time with one of these apps before you're qualified to make any concrete judgements. The only reviews I've seen for Houdini have been from people who appeared to be first time users, and when that's the case you're really just getting first impressions.

[aracid]

hey all

And then of course he didn't even mention chops, which I think is probably still out there on it's own as a feature no one else really has.

i dont know hey, i doubt that this chap can actually comprehend the flexibility of chops, he barely touched on entry level elements of the package. bending time ..... not for the average folk

maybe one day, when he stops writing science fiction stories and start working in a studio with changes in shots and different artist working on different elements within the same shot, and reaching a point where u cant go back or integrate certain elemets without the need of a dedicated TD (because its a small studio) all of this because of the inherent disadvantage of the paradigm of some packages, only to find that this hardly if ever exists in houdini. only then will he begin to truely be able to have some sorta educated opinion of houdini.

i feel that theres a line between software critics writing up some fictional article, rather let the people who actually care about pushing state of the art vfx gravitate towards h* and not get swayed away from it because of false accusations.

btw marc, todays my turn

all the best

aracid

[LEO-oo-]

When you write a review - first you have to ask: Who is the audience? At this point you think about the level and the informations.

I have pull out my old Houdini-review (almost 3 years old) and I have read it now. I wrote for the novice-level, enthusiasts and people with 3d-experience at this time. I dont think I would write something different for this audience today.

But I think you have to write a completely different review for a site like VFXworld. You have to spend time to the application and start a project. A demonstration or a quick look is not enough. (Note: I dont say the author had only a quick look or so!).

From a view of an editor: You spend you own time to learn the software and to write about the product. Or you ask a professional to write the review. But then you need also knownledge about the application to edit his text. You have to spend time to the software or you cant publish a deep review - special for a professional audience.

I think it is a nice review and there are a few misunderstandings or wrong points. You guys have pointed out a lot. Thats right. You can blame the author, but you have to blame the editors too. But let them know about your opinion. I think the colleages at VFXworld will try to make it better next time. No feedback is much more worse, than feedback with C&C.

Also not forget: You know the product really good and you will see at least also the smallest dark spot

I follow the Houdini-develoment since V5. I have spend 3 month to learn when I got my first licence. I stumbled in a big hole and I was really lost for the first time. I had to search to find some instructions and help. To cross the first barrier and to understand Houdini needs a little bit patience. I said to myself: If someone spends this much money to a product - there must be something more. The first look is not all - you have to continue or you scratch only the surface.

And it is right: Some other companies doing much more for the PR. Mostly you get a reviewers-guide, samples and and and.

[MG]

Sorry to say, but should I care what they say? It's safe for me to say that I love Houdini - it's more than a 'tool' for me!

As long as SESI keeps existing and keeps updating Houdini, you won't hear me complain. You see more and more companies these days using Houdini, and not only for visual effects type of work. Also, whenever I - or another Houdini user - get involved with a job where Houdini isn't used (yet), when speaking of it with the people it'll at least make them aware of Houdini, if that wasn't the case already. Popularizing Houdini, which is far less hyped and marketed than, say, Maya and SOFTIMAGE|XSI, is not an easy task; but it shouldn't be that hard, knowing what Houdini is capable of!

[old school]

Does anyone who actually knows Houdini know how to write? We should write a review

M

16859[/snapback]

Unfortunately the couple journalists that finally understood Houdini after a few reviews quit journalism and got a real job using houdini in some way.

Sort of underscores this thread.