Cellphone Model For Interview

[Val]

Particleflow is node-rule-based aswell.. and comes in the package.

here where i work we use 3dsmax aswell,

we do visualisation of oilrigs and stuff like that.

i like 3dsmax, it's the app i started out with years ago.

but still, i wanna progress, that's why i try to learn houdini.

hey

well, for me boxes 1,2 and 3 for PFlow make a big difference,

but they don't come in the package.

I used Max, Maya, TP, and PFlow for a few years,

so I know them well and like all of them. The reason I point out TP rather than PFlow

is because the particles have shape collision and fragmentation,

but PFlow and Houdini don't. (hehe)

[edward]

For the lazy me, could someone explain what are boxes 1, 2, and 3?

[Val]

For the lazy me, could someone explain what are boxes 1, 2, and 3?

Hey edward.

boxes it is like operators for houdini...

here is site with info about "boxes"

http://www.orbaz.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=464

the site is run by Oleg Bayborodin,

president of ORBAZ TECHNOLOGIES,

really nice guy, and doing good work

with his tools for PFlow ( I know him in person)

without his "boxes" PFlow is like car with tree wheels.

for example without box3 you can not cashe data on disk,

or create your own operators

[edward]

Thanks!

[MIguel P]

Box#2? I think only there are Boxes # 1 and 3

The problem of thinking Particles is that don't support AfterBurn, the volumetric shader. And I think Pflow is more similar to POPs than TP with the box#3.

Well... this is a Houdini forum...

[Val]

[quote name='MIguel P

[MIguel P]

2.you can use afterborn with tp. same as pirocluster.

Not in the version that I saw.

[Val]

[quote name='MIguel P

[agentex]

if you want send me PM.. for we dont make MAX discustion

Actually I think its fairly pertinent to talk about Houdini's competition and to me its particularly interesting on the FX side of things.

Since you guys obviously have some good experience in POPS and evidently in Pflow or TP, are there major advantages to using any of them that you can tell? The biggest thing I see would be Afterburn, but Miguel recently showed that you can export the particles out of Houdini to use Afterburn just fine.

Anything else?

[Val]

Actually I think its fairly pertinent to talk about Houdini's competition and to me its particularly interesting on the FX side of things.

Since you guys obviously have some good experience in POPS and evidently in Pflow or TP, are there major advantages to using any of them that you can tell? The biggest thing I see would be Afterburn, but Miguel recently showed that you can export the particles out of Houdini to use Afterburn just fine.

Anything else?

Hey agentex.

good idea.. but topic called "Cellphone Model For Interview" :D

lets ask permision to Overload

[Overload]

Hey agentex.

good idea.. but topic called "Cellphone Model For Interview" :D

lets ask permision to Overload

Oh its ok...go ahead and highjack my thread As much as i didnt want to switch, I am somewhat enjoying 3dMax. But on the brighter side of things, they are going to buy at least one seat of houdini...maybe more once my boss/owner gets up to speed. Plus they have particle illusion, and more software here than any place I have ever worked. So I am quite content. .....

[Val]

Oh its ok...go ahead and highjack my thread As much as i didnt want to switch, I am somewhat enjoying 3dMax. But on the brighter side of things, they are going to buy at least one seat of houdini...maybe more once my boss/owner gets up to speed. Plus they have particle illusion, and more software here than any place I have ever worked. So I am quite content. .....

hehe ..

particle illusion cool litle 2D program ( next version will be 3D),

hard to use fom complex scenes becose no good controll

( 2 agentex,

we get permision!

I will write about TP and PFlow next week )

[Overload]

hehe ..

particle illusion cool litle 2D program ( next version will be 3D),

hard to use fom complex scenes becose no good controll

( 2 agentex,

we get permision!

I will write about TP and PFlow next week )

hehe...

hmm..i thought particle illusion was 3d.. but i have never used it or even opened it. but they are pretty much willing to buy whatever i want. i know he mentioned that he wanted Realflow. which i have also never used, but read plenty about and sceen some pretty amazing renders out of. either way, the fact that they have plenty of goodies to play with is just fine by me. plus i havent even finished school yet so no complaints

[Val]

okdk. about TP, PFlow, and others..

I will start with Houdini--it is good but TP is better (hehehe joking)

I worked few years with particle-dynamic systems and when I have to

do complex scene I chose HOUDINI or ThinkingParticles (if it is my decision).

houdini is better because the whole program is node-based and you can wire anything to

anything, TP too, but just particles-dynamics, (no CHOPs, SHOPs or COPs there).

but some things I like in TP more than houdini like you can have shape collision

with particle instances, imagine if houdinis DOPs integrated in POPs!!!!

like have particles with RBDsolver!!!! and all that flying-fast!!! thats TP

+ have fragmentation node (or you can pre-cut geometry),

it can fragment geometry for you.

that is not a big deal because it's always better to have control and do the pieces by yourself,

but still when you do small pieces, it can be handy, or when you doing fragmentation few times,

like after hit fragments, another hit and more fragment, and like that..

PFlow is good ( with BOXes) but BOX2 (with dynamics) is still not out.. hard to compare with TP,

I know some other particle dynamic systems (including inhouse tools, and some beta versions)

can not talk about them, but I can tell I like to use houdini at work.. ( maybe some day .. hehe)

here are some screenGrabs from ThinkingParticles scenes:

(they are 2 years old, but you can see how fast it calculates dynamics-collisions.

and they not rendered, just screen captures!!! and they all uses TP_fragmentation I was

lazy to pre-cut geometry )

(click on pics to see mov files)

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

**** in all this scenes nathing not backed or cached.. ***

Edited February 28, 2007 by Val

[Val]

Actually I think its fairly pertinent to talk about Houdini's competition and to me its particularly interesting on the FX side of things.

Since you guys obviously have some good experience in POPS and evidently in Pflow or TP, are there major advantages to using any of them that you can tell? The biggest thing I see would be Afterburn, but Miguel recently showed that you can export the particles out of Houdini to use Afterburn just fine.

Anything else?

oh.. and afterBurn is not big deal do not know why Miguel use .. I think becose it faster

then setup same in i3D, but with i3D you can do al that and more (and have more controll).

[MADjestic]

imagine if houdinis DOPs integrated in POPs!!!!

Well, I am not too experienced with DOPs but you can use POP Solver DOP and POP Network DOP - so there are ways to use POPs+DOPs. According to Help (as i understand it) - DOPs is no a separate part of Houdini as SOPs/POPs or others, in that sense that it adds dynamic sollutions to the appropriate contexts (brings in SOPs or POPs or others to use them in dynamic simulations). Correct me if I am wrong.

There's also Jason's movie at odforce somewhere, demonstrating houndreds of beens falling onto some rotating stick and some others.

[Val]

Well, I am not too experienced with DOPs but you can use POP Solver DOP and POP Network DOP - so there are ways to use POPs+DOPs. According to Help (as i understand it) - DOPs is no a separate part of Houdini as SOPs/POPs or others, in that sense that it adds dynamic sollutions to the appropriate contexts (brings in SOPs or POPs or others to use them in dynamic simulations). Correct me if I am wrong.

There's also Jason's movie at odforce somewhere, demonstrating houndreds of beens falling onto some rotating stick and some others.

hey MADjestic.

yes it is lots of way to do in houdini

ok imagine lots of particles with leaves-shape faling from L-system ( all 5000* same time) hehe

In TP I can click on shape collision and lives will colide with each-other (like in real live will happen).

what do you do in houdini (or maya)?

you will make them avoid each-other (not happens in real life)!

do not tell me you will take more then few particles to DOPs

if you tell me how.. then I will think some complex question for you

edit:::

ahh.. and becose DOPs not in POPs.. I can not have my 'turblnce-Wind' still effecting to leaves

while they colliding becose I take them to DOPs

:::::::

and can you give me link with Jason's movie.. I do not saw that before...

[agentex]

Val,

Hey man, thanks for the synopsis of TP. That clears alot of stuff up for me since I hadn't used that package. Definately communicating outside the network is a huge strength in Houdini.

The tip about I3d is interesting because it seems like I've heard so many complaints, I think I need to get deeper into it. I think that ultimately POPs and DOPs are moving closer to each other, at least putting something like a RBD source emitter into DOPs would be awesome.

[MADjestic]

Val,

I think that ultimately POPs and DOPs are moving closer to each other, at least putting something like a RBD source emitter into DOPs would be awesome.

A quick research and study of DOPs Help examples has shown that it's all there already.

You can use pops in DOPs as rigid bodies - to effect other objects.

You can use Copy Objects DOP and RBD Point Objects DOP - the first one creates multiple copies of of the same object, while the other one copies objects onto the points of the other object (which can be anything, including particles) – so you can copy all sort of leaves onto your pop simulation. There is an abundant choice of forces to control your simulation as well.

There's also an Instanced objects DOP - that does Iam not sure what.

And, of course, there is zillion of other stuff you can do.

So – it seems that it is not Houdini that lacks something, but, as often, the lack of package knowledge. I hope I didn’t seem rough

I have also created a simple simulation of falling leaves in DOPs (which are closed nurb curves). Sorry I can't upload anything (because of my GPRS provider), so you'll have to believe me that it works.

[Overload]

oh.. and afterBurn is not big deal do not know why Miguel use .. I think becose it faster

then setup same in i3D, but with i3D you can do al that and more (and have more controll).

Yea now you have me thinking about TP. I was to lazy to look up pricing on it?? have a clue how much it is. As for the I3d thing... even the small smoke bloom project I did with I3d took days and days of testing settings to get a proper result because of the render times. I think that is why Miguel went with Afterburn. But I can't really comment on that either since I have never used it.

Could be a complelty supid question, but is there a better way to render volumetrics in Houdini besides I3D?? My 300 frame render took over 24 hours spread across 4 computers at the school lab (which is rather a long damn time IMHO) .

So some honest opinions here would be great. My boss is pretty much willing to buy whatever software is best...be it houdini or whatever. I must say that the modeling tools inside 3dMax are not TO bad, but no where near as procedural as houdini. We are really wanted to move more towards visual effects, as in high end particles, compositing, and such....you know.

Personally I prefer the node based approach which is why I obsess over Houdini so much. It is just so much more intuative than anything else I have ever used. But after watching your videos, I am having thoughs about TP, since the price tag is probably MUCH smaller than Houdini.

But then again, Houdini justs kicks everyone between the legs and laughs because of its brute power ...so why not go for the gold if they are willing to spend the money...any thoughts on that one????