PDA

View Full Version : Houdini 15



prometheus
08-08-2015, 10:23 AM
They seem to have adressed the modeling toolset here a bit, some of it we of course have in lightwave, but nice to see them adressing this in houdini.

and the vfx crowd tool interaction with flip fluids, sand grain, snow and pyrofx...canīt help but drool over them, now I reckon some advanced masters have pulled out the best they can, so donīt be fooled in to thinking itīs a one click button:D
Awesome still though.
The only thing I didnīt like in that movie reel, that was the music.:D they need to adress that too..get better soundtrack.

main info page..
https://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3118&Itemid=226


https://vimeo.com/135607909

mummyman
08-08-2015, 12:07 PM
It does look impressive. But right.. a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes. I've never used it, so only can speculate.

prometheus
08-08-2015, 12:59 PM
It does look impressive. But right.. a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes. I've never used it, so only can speculate.

havenīt touched the houdini apprentice for a while, think I will wait til the houdini 15 apprentice version comes, and re-install, then check it out if the modeling tools have made it more alike lightwave or compative to lightwave.

for VFX dynamics etc ...I will have to check how much easier the vfx tools are, they do assemble those nodes in to ready to go shelf tools, but to really make the most of it, it may indeed require some deeper knowledge to what each node does.

Netvudu
08-08-2015, 01:14 PM
See, the thing is that in order to get the most out of any app you gotta learn the ins and outs of it. Otherwise there wouldnīt exist such thing as mastery of the tools. I bet any beginner thinks much of the stuff you churn out from Lightwave is really tough, albeit it comes as second thoughts to you. Itīs the same thing with Houdini. It took me quite a while to feel comfortable with Houdini, but now every other FX tool looks like a little toy.

Personally, I donīt care that much about modelling...after all, we will all end up doing 90% of our modelling in Zbrush in two years from now if not sooner. What they are really striving for at SideFX is to make the shading workflow flexible but quick...are they there? I donīt think so, but itīs definitely getting better. Quality is certainly there, but LWīs workflow for shading is still a thousand times faster (because itīs the fastest on the industry imho). On the other hand LWīs renderer really needs a revamping to be up there in quality with Arnold and Mantra...Iīm sure they are working on it.

tyrot
08-08-2015, 01:58 PM
netvudu
great points .. as always.. i would purchase your houdini for LIGHTWAVERS tutorial in a heart beat . We need somebody like you to know those things from a lightwaver point of view. .What do you think ?

Zbrush will be the application for modeling .. hmmm can you open that comment a bit ..

also one disagreement i hope Lightwave team not doing anything for renderer we will all end up in octane ..i hope .. :)

prometheus
08-08-2015, 02:16 PM
See, the thing is that in order to get the most out of any app you gotta learn the ins and outs of it. Otherwise there wouldnīt exist such thing as mastery of the tools. I bet any beginner thinks much of the stuff you churn out from Lightwave is really tough, albeit it comes as second thoughts to you. Itīs the same thing with Houdini. It took me quite a while to feel comfortable with Houdini, but now every other FX tool looks like a little toy.

Personally, I donīt care that much about modelling...after all, we will all end up doing 90% of our modelling in Zbrush in two years from now if not sooner. What they are really striving for at SideFX is to make the shading workflow flexible but quick...are they there? I donīt think so, but itīs definitely getting better. Quality is certainly there, but LWīs workflow for shading is still a thousand times faster (because itīs the fastest on the industry imho). On the other hand LWīs renderer really needs a revamping to be up there in quality with Arnold and Mantra...Iīm sure they are working on it.

What would be needed for revamping the lightwave renderer for it to match up against arnold and mantra ..in your opinion?

tyrot
08-08-2015, 02:43 PM
prometheus i think really waste of time to invest man hour to renderer . so many industry renderer out there .. We should just pray good health for Juan :) he really connected us to the world .

prometheus
08-08-2015, 03:35 PM
prometheus i think really waste of time to invest man hour to renderer . so many industry renderer out there .. We should just pray good health for Juan :) he really connected us to the world .

No voxel support, and some other things perhaps, sure ..might be able to do renderpasses etc, and voxels might come...I am keeping an eye on it though.
also..a good support or workflow with turbulenceFD is a must in the end.

Netvudu
08-08-2015, 04:31 PM
netvudu
great points .. as always.. i would purchase your houdini for LIGHTWAVERS tutorial in a heart beat . We need somebody like you to know those things from a lightwaver point of view. .What do you think ?

Zbrush will be the application for modeling .. hmmm can you open that comment a bit ..

also one disagreement i hope Lightwave team not doing anything for renderer we will all end up in octane ..i hope .. :)

Houdini for Lightwavers would be an interesting idea, although I donīt tinhk the first 20 hours hands-on on Houdini are that different independently which software you come from. Getting strong basics in Houdini requires a "different" workflow from any other app.
Anyway, a book is way too much work for my little spare time, and it would be way too long for a video tutorial. Actually, I did a video tutorial for ex-Softimage users coming from ICE, but it was possible because of how similar ICE and Houdini VOPs are. Also, Autodesk move had been terrible for Softimage users, and I felt bad for them.

As much as I hate and cringe at its terrible UI, I think ZBrush is slowly but surely eating all the modelling needs, a new chunk with each point version they release.
First it was the best at eating gazillion polys, but alas, just for sculpting added over modelling done somewhere else, because you had no controls over topology and polygon flow.
Then with the powerful dynamesh/remesher combo that started becoming less of a problem, and suddenly a few people started their projects there.
Then people complained you could only model "organic" stuff, and suddenly several tools appeared which allowed for all kind of vehicles, robots, gadgets and thingamajigs with hard edges, subtools, specialized brushes and a very good way for placing those pesky blueprints. But people then again complained about having to use retopology all the time, and how for some simple modelling you need actual polygon faces, and lost their faith and doubted of Zbrush, and down from the mountain came Moses...I mean Pixologic and gave them a new thing called Zmodeler which allows face modelling without having to worry at all for ngons or even know what those are.

Of course, Zmodeler is far from being the perfect poly modelling tool, but at the current rate Iīm sure Pixologic will erase those doubts within a couple of iterations of the tool.
The last line to conquer will be precission modelling for arch-viz and similar. Some people say that wonīt happen. Well, Iīm sure that eventually it will fall as well into ZBrush sphere of interest and über-speed of development.

Thatīs why I think ZBrush will dominate that area of the industry and why I force myself into that danged piece of s****y interface that seems so counterintuitive for every simple thing I wanna do.

As for Lightwave renderer I will just say that one of the strongest points of LW along its history has always been its render engine. I donīt think Lightwave dev team will forget that easily,no matter how many Octanes or Arnolds appear around.

Netvudu
08-08-2015, 04:47 PM
What would be needed for revamping the lightwave renderer for it to match up against arnold and mantra ..in your opinion?

Well, the current trend for production renderers is physically-based renderers with brute force GI. Everything raytraced but using importance sampling in every area possible (not just BG sampling) in order to get decent render times without the terrible workflow (for animation) of interpolated calculations of indirect lighting.
Also, of course BRDF by default in all shading calculations.
A good handling of passes (this was long overdue already), even though beauty pass minus/plus some specific pass is already much more frequent at studios than the olī Renderman/Katana-combo-of-the-million-passes workflow, which is dead long ago.
Also, importing and exporting industry standard stuff such as OpenVDB to be able to render volumetrics is a must.
Micropolygon displacement, good memory managament of hi-poly scenes, good memory management of displaced geometry, deferred/delayed-load/archiving for loading geometry from disk at render time.

A lot of little things should be added but in a nutshell this summarizes what Arnold and Mantra do well and LW doesnīt at all. Note that GPU ainīt important for big production stuff, although wonderful for freelance users. It might help for some previz stuff or speeding up some lo-res sim calculations, but GPU is as of today more of a bottle neck than a real aid at bigger productions.

If LW could do all this, but keep the same VPR interactive feel (which is hands down the best around) now we would be in for the real deal.

mummyman
08-08-2015, 05:48 PM
Does Octane or Houdini have nice Subsurface shaders? I'm still searching for a nice one in native LW that works with network rendering AND instances. Fast Skin works wonders, but still flickers on some rendered sequences. Some people at my work use XSI still and invested in RedShift. It looks pretty nice (some flickering) But f+ck, it's fast as hell. Full subsurface pass on practically a full screen of medical objects / cells, etc.. and it's maybe 2 mins at most. GPU. Just one of my gripes. It's minor, but would be nice to have without recreating it in post. I've been using Zbrush more and more. Not for modeling, because I'm still strong modeling in LW, but for organic modeling and tweeking it's amazing! So much faster once the object is so dense. Retop is great too. Their modeling tools do look great, if you know the program ins and outs. Otherwise Zbrush, to me, is a bit confusing. The modeling tools from that Houdini vid look nice. Weight stuff, etc.. looks faster than Modeler for sure. If 3rd Powers can get their metamesh / boolean thing into Layout, it'd be amazing too! Sorry for all the tangents in this post.

prometheus
08-08-2015, 06:22 PM
itsīs hard to compare though, even though houdini has itīs openVDB and mantra render for volumetrics, my feel of it compared to render hypervoxels..actually that hypervoxels in many cases feels faster, and I am not just talking about VPR here, but the actual final native lw renderer.

but itīs difficult, would have to set up very equal scenes for it to be properly compared, but I am not that overly impressed with the volumetric render speed in houdini.

Apart from VPR compared to houdini IPR...I still enjoy starting up viper..with itīs draft mode it will generate previews of the animated voxels Even faster than vpr..and with direct replay, granted..that is only for voxels without the full scene etc..but itīs still useful when for instance setting proper hypertexture effect and speed and to see how it will look like, a bit awkward to run a preview within VPR which also is slower, so that ol viper is still very nice compared to VPR in lightwave(for fast feedback of hv motions) and nothing is availble in the same manner in houdini as I know of.

Netvudu
08-08-2015, 08:48 PM
True, but you donīt need VIPER in Houdini most of the time, simply because you can see most volumes in OpenGL, while in LW you canīt, which is the reason you are forced to go into VIPER. Yep, simplfied shadows in OpenGL, but if itīs the evolving volume what you want to see...well, itīs real time. With a Volume Visualizer node you can even change a lot of the look, density,even with ramps (gradients), and see everything in OpenGL.

prometheus
08-08-2015, 08:53 PM
True, but you donīt need VIPER in Houdini most of the time, simply because you can see most volumes in OpenGL, while in LW you canīt, which is the reason you are forced to go into VIPER. Yep, simplfied shadows in OpenGL, but if itīs the evolving volume what you want to see...well, itīs real time. With a Volume Visualizer node you can even change a lot of the look, density,even with ramps (gradients), and see everything in OpenGL.

Nope..I donīt go in to viper because of that, I use VPR for similar setting up of voxels in the same manner or close to cloudfx in houdini within itīs openGl, that I knew..and granted that is nice for cloudfx at least.

viper (Not VPR) I use to preview the animation..at least the initial process..then I might switch to VPR and the full scene works, I am not sure you can get a decent animation feedback in opengl in houdini with the correct volumetrics as they show up in render?

Depending on resolution on for instance the cloudfx tools..the openGL with houdini cloudFX, it can slow it down considerably...and in such case, VPR in lightwave would be faster...and I havenīt figured out how to change a sky backdrop like the sunsky...in houdini that is in realtime, with vpr and lightwave I have found that to be easier..but I am not that used to houdini so I might have missed the tool for interactive feedback with the sky environment?

boy how I wished the best of these tools could have worked in both applications, as it is now..one got the other and vice versa.

Michael

Netvudu
08-12-2015, 11:11 AM
ooppss! I just realized you actually asked something Michael. Sorry I didnīt reply sooner.
Can you get a decent OpenGL feedback for volumetric animation? by all means. Just throw in a flipbook/preview, which will take roughly the same time than any VIPER preview, and you will be able to check it. Admittedly, if you raise your clouds quality really high you might loose speed vs the VIPER version and might have to resort to IPR/VPR. But hey, not bad for OpenGL, right?

Houdini does have a skylight that behaves in the expected way, changing the colors as you rotate the sun. And it does show in OpenGL.

Itīs true that you get a lot from Lightwaveīs HV. My main gripe with the way you are forced to work in LW is that there is kind of a BIG division between working with HVs or working with TFD. While in Houdini both are just volumes and can work however you want to.
In fact I will state that had you invested the same time in houdini volumes that you have with LW HVs, you wouldnīt even use the shelf cloud tools. You would have created your own volumes pipeline that fitted your needs and you wouldnīt have to bear with UI limitations of whatever software.

Even in your best Lightwave examples, as cool as they look, I still detect a distinct HV look while I should be getting a real-life look, if you know what I mean. I think itīs part of the short-comings from a tool that hasnīt evolved in many years.
Houdini volumes have no pre-defined procedurals list, but you can do whatever you want at shading time, or even sculpt those volumes with geometry-like operations. So...ending with a big pun...the sky is the limit

prometheus
08-12-2015, 04:17 PM
Thanks Netvudu for taking note of my almost hidden questions..they could have been more clearly definied by themself.

Will have to take a look at the openGL feedback and skylight again..must have missed something there...think I will wait till the houdini 15 apprentice shows up...in fact, I havenīt checked if it already is up there yet.

I agree completly with your observations on some of my cloud samples..even though I probably could push it a bit further, but I also know that I could probably push houdini clouds much more to another level of realism if I were to spend a lot more time with it...depends entirely what I want to do and focus on later on.

Cheers.

seghier
08-12-2015, 05:45 PM
houdini have great features ; no need to buy other softwares
i hate the subcription and i don't like the interface like in maya

wesleycorgi
08-12-2015, 06:15 PM
The demos at Sidefx's booth at Siggraph were incredible --- the lava fluid stuff is amazing.

ActionBob
08-13-2015, 11:08 AM
Has anyone here used Houdini with Lightwave? I am interested in the interchangability via the FBX and Alembric format. As the fluid dynamics and particle systems look pretyt amazing, I am thinking this would be a nice supliment to LW for me and at 200 bucks a year for the indie version, it doesn't break the bank to play around with it. So, any users here? What do you think of the interface / learning curve. I wouldn't expect to do some of the amazing simulation stuff out of the box (heck, I have enough toys I need to learn better to utilize with LW - my expensive and sometimes money making hobby).

:-)

-Adrian

Reco
08-13-2015, 12:44 PM
Has anyone here used Houdini with Lightwave? I am interested in the interchangability via the FBX and Alembric format. As the fluid dynamics and particle systems look pretyt amazing, I am thinking this would be a nice supliment to LW for me and at 200 bucks a year for the indie version, it doesn't break the bank to play around with it. So, any users here? What do you think of the interface / learning curve. I wouldn't expect to do some of the amazing simulation stuff out of the box (heck, I have enough toys I need to learn better to utilize with LW - my expensive and sometimes money making hobby).

:-)

-Adrian

Netvudu must be the right person to answer your questions, since he seems to be the most experienced Houdini user in this forum. On the other hand I can say a few word since I was in your situation six months ago.

I have the 32 bit Nature FX plugin, that crates the nicest ocean you can get in Lightwave. The plugin is not available anymore, and there is no 64 bit version. I just cannot understand why Nature FX is not a part of Lightwave. The owner does not have an income on it anymore, an as far as I understand, he is a part of the Lightwave team.

I tested out Houdini and did some training. The interface is nice and the software appeals to me. I am a Max user and have a Max 2010 license as well, but I don't like it.
You need to use some time in order to understand how Houdini works. It is alive. It can be a lot of fun or very frustrating.

It is very easy to set up basic ocean, sand, snow and Pyrosimulations in Houdini, but you need some experience in order to make it excellent.

I have been able to import a Lightwave scene with cameras and lights, but I am not able to see anything through the cameras.

Personally I am hoping for a Houdini engine for Lightwave, or a Hub or something like the Vue solution for Lightwave.


Reco

seghier
08-13-2015, 01:45 PM
houdini fx : 4495 for one year or unlimited ?
----
lightwave /3d powers suite : 995 $ or lightwave
lightwave : 695 $ Crossgrade
realflow premium pack : 3395 + 1st year maintenance + bonus : 1 year maxwell render
4090 $ --- 4390 $

i think lightwave + realflow is better than buy houdini

Reco
08-13-2015, 01:58 PM
Houdini Indie ($199) = Houdini FX restricted to 1920x1080 when render animations (plus a few other limitations).
Max resolution for exporting UV's as an image is 512x512. I export the object to Lightwave and save the UV's as eps in the resolution I want.
My workflow will be to model in Lightwave, render in Lightwave and create and render simulation stuff in Houdini.

Reco

seghier
08-13-2015, 02:25 PM
the problem in the limitations ; realflow is great software + lightwave and maxwell or octane will be better than buy houdini
maya also have nice features
is the indie version for one year only ?

erikals
08-13-2015, 07:04 PM
indie version is for one year

( not one year only ; )

seghier
08-13-2015, 07:31 PM
hhh sorry ; i am not good in english :)

prometheus
08-14-2015, 12:52 AM
I have the 32 bit Nature FX plugin, that crates the nicest ocean you can get in Lightwave. The plugin is not available anymore, and there is no 64 bit version. I just cannot understand why Nature FX is not a part of Lightwave. The owner does not have an income on it anymore, an as far as I understand, he is a part of the Lightwave team.
Reco

I recall testing naturefx long time ago..and it was sweet, especially the water shading.
what do you think about naturefx vs the hot ocean plugin?

and interesting to hear about the developer of naturefx being a part of the lightwave team? I wonder then why not naturefx isnīt developed more and work inside of lightwave.

spherical
08-14-2015, 01:21 AM
hhh sorry ; i am not good in english :)

No worries. Neither are we. :D

erikals
08-14-2015, 02:00 AM
to me Nature FX water didn't look all that ?...

http://www.oakcorp.net/naturefx/render1.jpg


http://www.oakcorp.net/naturefx/dnt1.html

Reco
08-14-2015, 04:47 AM
to me Nature FX water didn't look all that ?...

http://www.oakcorp.net/naturefx/render1.jpg


http://www.oakcorp.net/naturefx/dnt1.html

I totally disagree.
129262
Image by talented Thomas Leitner. (I hope I'm not violating any rights by posting his image here. Please apologize if I am).

I refer to a more detailed post here.
http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?145256-Water-and-Underwater-Features

Reco

Reco
08-14-2015, 05:10 AM
I recall testing naturefx long time ago..and it was sweet, especially the water shading.
what do you think about naturefx vs the hot ocean plugin?

and interesting to hear about the developer of naturefx being a part of the lightwave team? I wonder then why not naturefx isnīt developed more and work inside of lightwave.

The Hot ocean is a very nice plugin, and the best option for Lightwave at the moment, if you leave out Houdini and Realflow. You can create a rougher and detailed ocean. However, I can see a tendency of the mesh stretching back and forth instead of rolling and floating.

The fan shape option was brilliant. It cooresponded to the angle of the lens and followed the camera Z and X as well as the heading. The mesh was denser near the camera, with very few details in the horizon. So there were no needs for heavy recourses in order to create an endless ocean in all directions. The displacement was applied globally.
129263

The weakest point for Lightwave is an ocean shader. The Nature FX shader render fast with a nice refraction. For some reason it generated noise in the horizon, but will not be that visible in HD resolution.

Reco

Reco
08-14-2015, 05:22 AM
The Nature FX and Lightwave was used in Deep Blue Sea. It's the Arete Plugin for Softimage ported to Lightwave.
Remember to click play.
http://flashfilmworks.com/d-deep-blue.htm

Some more info from Don J. Myers web site.
http://www.donjmyers.com/
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/guardian_test.jpg
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/aquaticaside.jpg
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/deepblueseahires.jpg

The Titanic ocean was created using the original Arete/Softimage Nature FX version.
http://www.vfxhq.com/1997/titanic-picssea.html
http://www.vfxhq.com/1997/titanic-picslaunch.html
http://www.softimageblog.com/archives/504
On the other hand. No matter how much I care for Nature FX, it is nothing compare to what Houdini can bring to the table.


Reco

prometheus
08-14-2015, 07:25 AM
The Nature FX and Lightwave was used in Deep Blue Sea. It's the Arete Plugin for Softimage ported to Lightwave.
Remember to click play.
http://flashfilmworks.com/d-deep-blue.htm

Some more info from Don J. Myers web site.
http://www.donjmyers.com/
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/guardian_test.jpg
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/aquaticaside.jpg
http://www.donjmyers.com/images/mainimages/deepblueseahires.jpg

The Titanic ocean was created using the original Arete/Softimage Nature FX version.
http://www.vfxhq.com/1997/titanic-picssea.html
http://www.vfxhq.com/1997/titanic-picslaunch.html
http://www.softimageblog.com/archives/504
On the other hand. No matter how much I care for Nature FX, it is nothing compare to what Houdini can bring to the table.


Reco

If I donīt recall wrong..I think naturefx was used for some water stuff in Castaway too, and also some clouds...which naturefx platform?...I donīt know.

You say houdini brings it up a level on to the table...though I wonder which tools in houdini? do you mean new ocean tools, since I recall the hot ocean plugin was for houdini initially...so I reckon you mean something else there? perhaps the flip fluids?

erikals
08-14-2015, 07:27 AM
this one also brought some ideas to what's possible / not possible atm

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?143650-Tips-for-making-large-ocean-scene-with-LW-Octane

ActionBob
08-14-2015, 07:51 AM
They mention Ken Stranahan in tha featurette... I remember the desktop images tutorial video tapes from back in the day and learning from him and his brother Lee Stranahan. Also the great videos by Ron Thornton......

I miss the days of well produced (and rightly so, expensive) tutorial series for Lightwave and other apps. With the advent of easily aquired, inexpesive equipment, you have everybody that knows how to launch a program trying to show off knowledge when that knowledge seems pretty superficial. I have recently spent some money on a few tutorials to brush up on some cross-app skills that involved lightwave and other apps; was deeply disappointed at the lack of polish and excuses for when things would go wrong during the tutorial. When I pay for a tutorial, I would like a little rehearsal and editing. I have been using Lightwave since version 3.5 and while not a master at it, I know enough to tell when someone is BS'ing there way through something.

Don't mean to hijack or take in another direction, but the mention of Ken Stranahan brought back some memories of the glory days of video instruction......

Please carry on with the Ocean discussion and cool links.. I have always enjoyed topics of replicating natural things.

-Adrian

Reco
08-14-2015, 08:03 AM
If I donīt recall wrong..I think naturefx was used for some water stuff in Castaway too, and also some clouds...which naturefx platform?...I donīt know.

You say houdini brings it up a level on to the table...though I wonder which tools in houdini? do you mean new ocean tools, since I recall the hot ocean plugin was for houdini initially...so I reckon you mean something else there? perhaps the flip fluids?

I am not sure about Castaway, but you could create nice clouds as well.
Nature FX could not interact much with other objects. Simple wakes, bobbing and reflections from walls and stationary objects.
Foam was not an option either. Houdini on the other hand can do everything.

I started testing out Houdini six months ago, and I'm not an expert. So I am not absolutely sure I am telling you the whole truth now.
As far as I know the Hot Ocean is out. I think it is the now deform wave node. Then you have the Ocean waves with material and depth information, Splash tank, wave layer tank, flip fluid tank etc.

I started out by doing this tutorial:
https://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2659&Itemid=132

And I got the same result as this YouTube video: (Not my video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNvonOjGPE.

Wow. I was impressed.

Without knowing the software at all, I produced a few simulations just for fun. (Sorry it is just stills).
129264
129265

I just added a environment light, and created a box. (On the images the particles are leaking through the edges of the box, and they clashes with the flip box itself. That is just a few button click to fix).

When I watched the final result, I decided to use some time in order to learn this software.
I have done some modeling as well, but that is not the strength of Houdini


Reco

Reco
08-14-2015, 08:07 AM
this one also brought some ideas to what's possible / not possible atm

http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?143650-Tips-for-making-large-ocean-scene-with-LW-Octane

I have seen that one. The final result is very nice. Looks like Nature FX. I guess Octane, Vray and Maxwell have good water/ocean shaders

Reco

calilifestyle
08-14-2015, 11:41 AM
Any word about H15 release date

Reco
08-14-2015, 11:45 AM
Any word about H15 release date

Latest info is October.

Reco

seghier
08-14-2015, 12:24 PM
I have seen that one. The final result is very nice. Looks like Nature FX. I guess Octane, Vray and Maxwell have good water/ocean shaders

Reco

lw maxwell plugin create very nice sea animated : maxwell sea ; but we can not convert it to mesh like in maxwell plugin for rhino
blender also have nice ocean ; i will try if blender can export aimated ocean to lightwave

prometheus
08-14-2015, 12:59 PM
I started out by doing this tutorial:
https://www.sidefx.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2659&Itemid=132

And I got the same result as this YouTube video: (Not my video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNvonOjGPE.

Wow. I was impressed.


Reco

You can do that stuff in lightwave and hot ocean, but not the splashing stuff..not the best tool with lightwave alone, so that would have to be complemented with blender or real flow..

David ridlen testing of volumetric plugin ogo taiki and the hot ocean plugin..though the sea foam could be much improved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyzboj5SVh8

erikals
08-21-2015, 08:44 AM
just did an extensive research, but HOT is overall much better, there are scenes where Nature FX still could be of use

i'll check some more, because HOT does not always give the results wanted (maybe, i need to test more)

here's a nice HOT render though, for the film, Kon-Tiki >


https://vimeo.com/49685755

Reco
08-21-2015, 11:57 AM
just did an extensive research, but HOT is overall much better, there are scenes where Nature FX still could be of use

i'll check some more, because HOT does not always give the results wanted (maybe, i need to test more)

here's a nice HOT render though, for the film, Kon-Tiki >


https://vimeo.com/49685755

Absolutely. Hot in Houdini, rendered in Mantra is a different story. You can't really compare.
In Houdini you assign the Ocean Wave shelf tool to the scene, and you are ready to go with displacement and a nice ocean shader. (No foam)
You don't have to do more than that since the Side Effects Softwares engineers has done the job for you. If you want to you can add whitewater, render foam, add spray or whatever you want to. There is absolutely no limit.

The best HOT result in Lightwave so far is done again by Thomas Leitner. http://forums.newtek.com/showthread.php?137377-Help-motion-baker
On the other hand. I appreciate the job the guys have done in order to port HOT to Lightwave.

The best way to get Houdini tools in Lightwave, is to have the Houdini engine for Lightwave.

Nature FX was a complete toolset for Lightwave, including bump, displacement and shader. It already exist and needs to be ported to 64bit. The parameter was based on depth, wind wave height, clear water, murky water etc.
It was easy to use, and rendered fast. The engineers had done the engineering job, and it was up to you to be creative.
I have seen oceans in Lightwave made using a bunch of nodes. It looks ok, but that's it.

The more I use Houdini, the more I like it. I was a bit frustrated at first, but the more I understand the more fun it is.
Houdini 14 was a bit buggy, but I can't wait to get my hands on Houdini 15.


Reco