Is this any good?Does this make Houdini the best Modeler now?https://alexeyvanzhula.gumroad.com/l/mdNet
The dev is a jew. You have to pay full price again with every Houdini version, it's more like a subscription. I'd pirate it.
>>838230draw me a pony and I'll upload it
>>838233Another reason why we need super strong copy protection measures with always online protection.
price is high enough that won't bother with it even if it works well. reliance on piracy would just leave me at the whims of the uploader and in all liklihood having to run parallel houdini installs, in which case, i'd rather just direct model elsewhere.
>>838230Yes, it's very good. I don't know why SideFX doesn't hire him and make modeler a separate optional toolset like Labs is. Price was negligible for me, eating out costs more. The gains in productivity for me are worth a lot more than $100.
>>838230>Houdini the Best modeler now3DS max still exists
>>838230It mimics modoLet's hope someone will pirate mops plusthen I'll never have to open any other software ever again
>>838276If $200 is all that stands between you and simplifying your software pipeline to that degree, I have to ask what are you waiting for? You are probably losing more money waiting instead of acting. Is $200 the equivalent of 4 months wages in your country or something?
>>838277fuck off alexey
>>838277>>$220/yearfuck off toadstormperma license or piracy
>>838276*just starts MODO*
>>838230>creates a new node for every single operationhow much proceduralism is too much in daily modelling work?
>>838230Wait, what? Houdini doesn't have proper polymodeling tools?
>>838390maya does that too only it's for no reason at all as nobody is adjusting bevel values on the node graph later they just delete it every 20 mins
>>838398Not Houdini's purpose, nor should it be in the future. Houdini works best as part pipeline with other tools. It's procedural tools, how it allows to setup and shape sims are unmatched.
>>838398you can model in houdini if you want to.it just feels bad.
>>838398Houdini has poly-modelling tools, but like anything in Houdini, they are nodes - so modelling like in any other destructive poly-modelling DCC is possible but unnecessarily complex, since you always create a soup of nodes, which is a slow process that lacks the comfortability and ease of other DCCs. I don't see how that is a problem however, because why would you use Houdini if you want to build something in an destructive and bespoke way - that's not really what Houdini is for.
>>838398You don't model in Houdini, dummy
>>838416stop me, bitch
>>838390>how much proceduralism is too much in daily modelling work?Easy question, easy answer. Linear vs exponential curve of growth. Do you want to build one bespoke object without the need of procedural variants? - Don't use procedural tools.Do you want to build something that needs some form of procedural variations, or you want countless variations of the same - use procedural tools, simple as that. Lets say you want to build 3 buildings made of the same building blocks. Lets say you spent 1 hour to create the building blocks (windows, wall segments, entrance, balconies etc.)And then you spent 20 minutes to assemble one building from it - in 2 hours you can create 3 buildings. in 3 hours you have 6, and so on. Manual, destructive tools give you an linear curve of growth. For every new variant you need to add the same amount of time. If you instead of assembling the buildings manually, you build a building generator with procedural tools and that takes you 2 hours to build. After 3 hours you can create countless buildings made from the same building blocks. In the time of 3 hours you could have made 6 buildings manually. But with procedural tools after 3 hours you can create countless variations. If you need less than 6 procedural tools are not more efficient - if you need more than 6 procedural tools are unbeaten in terms of efficiency. Using procedural tools gives you an production curve that is exponential in growth. At first its slower, with time it becomes incredibly efficient.
>>838420I feel like SD needs no explanation here as even people not into parametric modeling love SD but I cannot state enough how much I like using SD for textures I intend on making no variations on, because I can just get the first pass done, get the textures hooked up in UE and tweak literally everything to make sure it looks right in context.
>>838424I would say SD is a little different since it allows to create textures/materials from nothing as fast as creating them destructively with an image program. The parametric nature allows you to adjust and create while in the creating process and this gives you speed and flexibility.Often when I create something bespoke with SD i discover methods that give me good results for other use cases, so even when I am working towards a specific goal, I produce useful stuff accidental on the side that I can use for other future projects. Same is true to a degree with Houdini. If you create something parametrically that is very complex, that is hard to achieve with destructive tools, you have the same a mount of flexibility while building it and the high amount of iterations gives you a better result than what you would have if you had made it with destructive manual work. So there is a certain efficiency even when you are working towards a specific goal and you don't need lots of variants in your final result.
>>838230>>but who is ZModeler?the only value here is the direct connection to ZBrush which is smooth as fuck
>>838416why not?what's better than procedural modeling?
>>839124It's a dumb industry meme from 2017
>>839124Dont listen to retarded Blendturds>>839134
>>838398It has proper modeling tools, very good tools actually however like >>838415 says the process of using the tools can be slow. It has gotten a lot better and continues to get better with each release, however in keeping with the topic of this thread DM solves the issue with Houdini's modeling workflow and adds some great features, all while retaining the possibility of working procedurally, minus a few necessarily destructive operations like the move brush.
>>838387hi there, this is toadstorm. i don't normally post here.the $220/year is for the fx licence, indie is $100/year, and you don't have to subscribe... if you cancel you still have a year of updates from your last purchase date. all my licenses are permanent. not that I'm gonna change anyone's mind on these boards but considering the amount of hours I've put into this stuff i feel like the licensing model is pretty okay. if you don't wanna pay for it there's always the free version.
>>840399hello, if you are really henry:thanks for mopsalso thanks for that video demo-ing what mops can do - the one where you type all the vex out to make pig heads look at stuff etc. the vex part is inadvertently a really fun little tutorial - could you do more like that,
>>840427yeah eventually I'd like to do more long form stuff talking about the math, i just have to get through all the plus tutorial videos first. it takes a long time to record and edit these things.