It’s a big time commitment making the switch over to Houdini. So, would I recommend Houdini? Yes and no, it depends. Also, it generally takes a lot more time to build stuff, because many of the tools are much more granular – so in some cases it’s just easier to use a more traditional 3D package. There are so many ways of achieving what you want in Houdini that it can be very easy to get lost in the system and lose track of what’s truly important to the design of what you’re building. This being said, this flexibility comes at a price. This was an early concept for the Nike Flyknit X this structure was entirely made in Houdini using VEX to create a recursive subdivision surface and then treated as lines to create this fractal Very powerful stuff.įlyknit superstructure. These can also be used together with the Houdini Engine inside of other 3D programs as well, basically letting you run your Houdini asset as a plugin inside of your current 3D program, such as Cinema 4D, Maya, Unreal, Unity and so on. This also makes Houdini great for dealing with feedback from clients, as you very rarely have to start over from scratch when changes get thrown your way.Īlso, it’s great because once you have built a function or tool that you like, you can package it up into an asset so that you can use it again in other projects or be distributed to other people on your team. This is the core principle of Houdini and why it has had such success in the VFX industry. You can go back at any point in time and change the parameters of anything in the history of the event, including the source object.
In Houdini on the other hand you build pipelines for a set of actions and each operation is represented by nodes. But if you wanted to change the object, it would in many cases require that you go back to step one and redo the process in a linear fashion.
In Cinema 4D for example you would take an object, extrude a couple of polygons, add bevels, add UVs and so on.
0 kommentar(er)
