PDA

View Full Version : The competition is releasing a roadmap of their future development



Curly_01
08-13-2016, 03:38 AM
https://vimeo.com/178392971


That's what I call communication. Customers like that en respect that.

rustythe1
08-13-2016, 05:33 AM
well, its not much of a roadmap as it only shows things that are ready for next years release (betas already available) so in my eyes its no different to what LWG have done with the blog, it also dose not give specific dates the same as LWG have not, you have to remember LWG is rebuilding LW layout from the ground up where as software like Houdini is just being updated, so if you consider that then the LW team must be doing a grand job to have working beats of all the new features in less timeframe than others with bigger teams have created updates an additions, remember we saw working features when the first blogs were posted, so by the time we get final release we are going to have more, and that's in a version we were warned we might not see much of a functional change as end users as most of this release was under the hood.

vncnt
08-13-2016, 07:21 AM
Nice muscle system!

hrgiger
08-13-2016, 07:22 AM
Lightwave is not in competition with Houdini. its like saying Ferrarri is in competition with Hyundai.

Morgan Nilsson
08-13-2016, 07:47 AM
Used Houdini Indie for half a year but opted out after that, at the moment Houdini is not suitable if you are a single user or small team needing to have a quick turnaround.

Glad to see they are working on that! Makes me very optimistic about their future and continued success!

m.d.
08-13-2016, 11:39 AM
well, its not much of a roadmap as it only shows things that are ready for next years release (betas already available) so in my eyes its no different to what LWG have done with the blog, it also dose not give specific dates the same as LWG have not, you have to remember LWG is rebuilding LW layout from the ground up where as software like Houdini is just being updated, so if you consider that then the LW team must be doing a grand job to have working beats of all the new features in less timeframe than others with bigger teams have created updates an additions, remember we saw working features when the first blogs were posted, so by the time we get final release we are going to have more, and that's in a version we were warned we might not see much of a functional change as end users as most of this release was under the hood.

where has anyone said Layout is being rebuilt from the ground up? Do you think we are getting unlimited undo's this release?

I respectfully have to disagree completely.
Houdini has added entirely new dynamics systems, crowds and render capability in the last year. LW has done a slow incremental UPDATE as well. It took several releases to get constraints in bullet remember. (nuke actually had it before us)
A new render engine and being able to stack deformers doesn't constitute a re-write...when you see changes to the undo system and a viewport capable of 10's of millions of poly's then you can call it a re-write, until then it is a much needed update.

Also they did totally give a specific date....by the end of 2016, that's less then 4 months. I have not seen LW give any indication of dates...even to the year.

jwiede
08-13-2016, 12:22 PM
where has anyone said Layout is being rebuilt from the ground up? Do you think we are getting unlimited undo's this release?

I respectfully have to disagree completely.
Houdini has added entirely new dynamics systems, crowds and render capability in the last year. LW has done a slow incremental UPDATE as well. It took several releases to get constraints in bullet remember. (nuke actually had it before us)
A new render engine and being able to stack deformers doesn't constitute a re-write...when you see changes to the undo system and a viewport capable of 10's of millions of poly's then you can call it a re-write, until then it is a much needed update.

Also they did totally give a specific date....by the end of 2016, that's less then 4 months. I have not seen LW give any indication of dates...even to the year.

Agreed 100%. Suggesting that the quality and quantity of communication between LW3DG and LW customers is even remotely similar to that occurring between Side Effects and their Houdini customers is demonstrably inaccurate, bordering on absurd. Even confining the comparison to that sole instance of communication, Side Effects provided greater quantity and quality/specificity of info and commitments to customers in that one instance than LW3DG did altogether with the blog.

rustythe1
08-13-2016, 12:27 PM
and new volumetric engine, new mesh engine, new materials, new light system, new buffer system, new fibber system, and then all the workflow and response improvements they have done, (including speeding up the viewport timeline with deformations to real time) and I would read the very first blog post about the borg queen as being that they are re writing the entire system from the ground up and replacing it modularly

rustythe1
08-13-2016, 12:32 PM
Agreed 100%. Suggesting that the quality and quantity of communication between LW3DG and LW customers is even remotely similar to that occurring between Side Effects and their Houdini customers is absurd, and trivially, demonstrably inaccurate. Even confining the comparison to that sole instance of communication, Side Effects provided greater quantity and quality/specificity of info and commitments to customers in that one instance than LW3DG did altogether with the blog.

but you are only referring to communication this forum, the forum is here for users to interact with each other,
if you email people directly, they will reply directly, people skype and all sorts, 2017 was shown in a limited fashion at recent shows, just because you have no info from these forums does not mean info is not out there
(this reply is not supposed to shown shirty but multitasking so it might)

jwiede
08-13-2016, 01:33 PM
but you are only referring to communication this forum

I never made any implication regarding these forums. I referred to the single instance of the Side Effects vimeo vs the entire LW blog (neither in any way related to these forums), and the totality of public communications both companies make to customers of their respective products.

Comparing the level of communications to Houdini customers present in the Houdini website, versus that of LW3DG to LW customers in the Lightwave3D website, the difference is similarly stark, with Side Effects providing vastly greater quantity and quality/specificity of info on the product and its future, actual timely product updates, and so forth to their Houdini customers. Note that I am referring to the product websites themselves, not either set of forums. That said, though, the same vastly greater quantity and quality/specificity of customer communication does ALSO exist comparing Houdini vs Lightwave forums.

This whole comparison is surreal. Side Effects, for many years now, have been the leading exemplars for customer communication and support in the 3D DCC market, even over Autodesk (arguably).

50one
08-13-2016, 01:54 PM
https://vimeo.com/178392971


That's what I call communication. Customers like that en respect that.


QFA. Their customer care is amazing, just look at their rvime channel, free webinars. What's more important they're istening to their customer base. I've heard people saying that because it'sferrari and we're Hyundai so we can't expect that level of commitment and engagement, very wrong assumption.

hrgiger
08-13-2016, 02:48 PM
and new volumetric engine, new mesh engine, new materials, new light system, new buffer system, new fibber system, and then all the workflow and response improvements they have done, (including speeding up the viewport timeline with deformations to real time) and I would read the very first blog post about the borg queen as being that they are re writing the entire system from the ground up and replacing it modularly

LW is making an incremental replacement of LW systems and LW next just seems to be the start of it. Yes, the renderer is new but lights and materials are simply part of the rendering system as they are shifting to PBR. The fiber system is not new, seems to be the same system, it just now uses a render primitive instead of volumetrics or a pixel filter. So the rendering end of Fiberfx has been upgraded. And while the speedup improvements were quite a jump from current LW, it is certainly not real time and its really hard to know how the improvements will rate in actual production. But Layout is certainly not rebuilt from the ground up, just certain aspects of it, mainly the renderer in this release.

hrgiger
08-13-2016, 02:54 PM
QFA. Their customer care is amazing, just look at their rvime channel, free webinars. What's more important they're istening to their customer base. I've heard people saying that because it'sferrari and we're Hyundai so we can't expect that level of commitment and engagement, very wrong assumption.

My comment on Ferrari and Hyundai had to do with the idea that LW and Houdini are somehow in competition which really is not the case. It had nothing to do with communication, which you won't get any argument from me on LW3DG's lack of communication.

m.d.
08-13-2016, 04:40 PM
and new volumetric engine, new mesh engine, new materials, new light system, new buffer system, new fibber system, and then all the workflow and response improvements they have done, (including speeding up the viewport timeline with deformations to real time) and I would read the very first blog post about the borg queen as being that they are re writing the entire system from the ground up and replacing it modularly

all for the most part render engine related....you can re-write the renderer, but with no lights or shaders...well kinda like a tree falling in the woods. Kray is writing his new render engine...new lights new shaders, doesnt mean he is re-writing LW. (Houdini has 3 in house render engines built in)

We are slowly seeing it (the re-write) in the form of some mesh improvements and other great features....but I doubt the re-write will show its head this release.

As far as communications and comparing it to the blog.....remember, Houdini just released the update details and committed to it by the end of 2016....4 months. Your seeing massive feature improvements with a date attached of just over 120 days,

When was the LW release date for the big re-write with proper undos?.....when it's ready

gar26lw
08-13-2016, 05:26 PM
they should practice lean startup

MichaelT
08-13-2016, 06:18 PM
Houdini have a completely different purpose than Lightwave. I would not try and model anything at all in it. For me, any attempts to create other things than VFX, is a complete waste of time. Smoke, particles, water etc.. then it is great. But I would not try to use it for anything else. But then again, I am a complete noob when it comes to Houdini. So maybe I am missing the picture? But if I do it is actually worse.. because that only means the software is not intuitive enough. And its insistence on using SOP, VOP etc.. terms is beyond annoying. Still, it is nice with a clear roadmap, that is always appreciated.

bobakabob
08-13-2016, 06:24 PM
Agreed 100%. Suggesting that the quality and quantity of communication between LW3DG and LW customers is even remotely similar to that occurring between Side Effects and their Houdini customers is demonstrably inaccurate, bordering on absurd. Even confining the comparison to that sole instance of communication, Side Effects provided greater quantity and quality/specificity of info and commitments to customers in that one instance than LW3DG did altogether with the blog.

https://www.lightwave3d.com/newsletters/

3D Kiwi
08-13-2016, 07:39 PM
You have to remember that Houdini is the most exspensive 3D app at the moment. Over 10 years it works out to be about 20k more than maya with vray.

As to weather it is worth that kind of money I dont know but If I paid that much per year for it i would expect a seat on their board.

jwiede
08-13-2016, 08:22 PM
You have to remember that Houdini is the most exspensive 3D app at the moment. Over 10 years it works out to be about 20k more than maya with vray.

As to weather it is worth that kind of money I dont know but If I paid that much per year for it i would expect a seat on their board.

Yet Houdini Indie is one of the least expensive "pro-level" 3D apps, and Side Effects were among the first to release such an "indie-priced" version of their flagship 3D product, another strong demonstration of their attitude towards and focus on customer needs, issues and value.

(edit)

Also, the OP happened to reference customer communication from Side Effects regarding Houdini, but they are by no means the only 3D DCC company who reliably provide greater quantity and quality/specificity of info on their product(s) and product futures, actual timely product updates, commitments, and so forth to their customers than LW3DG. Those other companies' product prices are much less expensive than Side Effects' full-priced Houdini.

hrgiger
08-13-2016, 08:53 PM
Houdini Indie is $199 for an annual subscription (and thereby one of the least expensive "pro-level" 3D apps), yet receives the same level of update builds, communication, etc. as the full Houdini. They were also among the very first to release such "indie-oriented" versions of their products, all the way back to their Houdini Apprentice / Apprentice HD releases, themselves a strong demonstration of the attention and responsiveness they've always had to customer issues.

Except that Houdini indie is limited which is what gets you that price of $199. It has a render size limit, a limit of 3 seats, a GUI watermark, has its own file format so can't be used in a pipeline with another version of Houdini, and you're limited to an annual income of less then 100k. So you really can't even compare it to apps like Maya or Max which are unlimited or unrestricted in all of those cases.

m.d.
08-14-2016, 12:05 AM
A GUI watermark is limiting?
A piece of duct tape over the monitor solves that one :)

rustythe1
08-14-2016, 01:33 AM
everyone wants 4 k now so the 1080p limit is a way for them to use it to wet your appetite to fork out the big bucks (and basically pay for a demo) it also has none of the great FX stuff,

pooby
08-14-2016, 01:59 AM
Except that Houdini indie is limited which is what gets you that price of $199. It has a render size limit, a limit of 3 seats, a GUI watermark, has its own file format so can't be used in a pipeline with another version of Houdini, and you're limited to an annual income of less then 100k. So you really can't even compare it to apps like Maya or Max which are unlimited or unrestricted in all of those cases.

I think it's remarkable that they offer it.
It's easy to focus on the restrictions, but for personal projects, you can still render in full HD using all of Houdini FXs toolset.
It also allows artists to develop the skills to work in a full Houdini pipeline. It's the skills that are the important thing to bring to a project. Not the software you own.
If a person learnt with H indie, it's not like their abilities will forever be limited by it. it would make no difference.
But yes, comparing it to full commercial unrestricted products isn't fair.

Amerelium
08-14-2016, 03:04 AM
Who gives a sh*t.

If you dabble with complex modeling, you most likely find the tool that you like the most and stick with it.

I've played around with LW for close to 20 years, and ain't gonna change because of whatever fancy features or UI changes will be added, because the basic mechanics of LW is something I know and like.

I'm currently using LW 11.0, and it looks like I'm going to stick with that one for quite some time, since rendering times with later versions are considerably slower.

Progress ain't necessarily a good thing, and there's no use in changing tools until there is something specific you actually need.


Roadmaps mean nothing. All that counts is was is available, what is implemented, and how it turns out.

rustythe1
08-14-2016, 03:05 AM
sorry, yes I was looking at standard Houdini which does not have FX tools (but still nearly $2000 a year!), interestingly the free version does have fx!

3D Kiwi
08-14-2016, 03:10 AM
sorry, yes I was looking at standard Houdini which does not have FX tools (but still nearly $2000 a year!), interestingly the free version does have fx!

Its a very smart way to get people into houdini. Without there free or cheap versions no one really could afford it just to learn on. And when they get jobs using it SideFX get to sell another seat.

Im going to keep playing with it and hopfully I can find a reason to justify the cost.

Spinland
08-14-2016, 04:24 AM
A GUI watermark is limiting?
A piece of duct tape over the monitor solves that one :)

Heh. Yeah, that one had me wondering. :D

- - - Updated - - -


it also has none of the great FX stuff,

I'm not sure that's correct. I was researching Indie last night because I might actually buy in and from what I read it has 100% of all the tools, including all of the VFX stuff.

EDIT: Sorry, rusty, I responded to the FX thing before I realized you had already addressed that. ;D

Spinland
08-14-2016, 04:29 AM
I've played around with LW for close to 20 years, and ain't gonna change because of whatever fancy features or UI changes will be added, because the basic mechanics of LW is something I know and like.

I've only been with LW since [8] but I agree with this. I know LW quite well (for all I keep discovering new stuff I didn't know it could do) and have over the years developed workflows and workarounds (and acquired add-ons) that allow me to do anything and everything I've ever tried. Compare that to the learning curve of a new software package and IMNSDHO LW comes out ahead every time. I've started doing film and TV VFX in a more serious way the past year or so and, in that context, am seriously considering Houdini Indie, but a lot of what it offers I already do (though maybe not as easily) using native LW tools plus TFD and a lot of After Effects artistry.

hrgiger
08-14-2016, 07:54 AM
I think it's remarkable that they offer it.
It's easy to focus on the restrictions, but for personal projects, you can still render in full HD using all of Houdini FXs toolset.
It also allows artists to develop the skills to work in a full Houdini pipeline. It's the skills that are the important thing to bring to a project. Not the software you own.
If a person learnt with H indie, it's not like their abilities will forever be limited by it. it would make no difference.
But yes, comparing it to full commercial unrestricted products isn't fair.

Yeah Paul, not saying its not remarkable, i really do want to look into it myself. Im just saying its not quite the same as a license (or rental or whatever scam theyre running these days) of the aforemenntioned apps.

erikals
08-14-2016, 10:26 AM
I think it's remarkable that they offer it.
it is, there is still the risk that Houdini Indie will go the xSI Foundation route though.

i was very close to getting xSI Foundation, but then all of a sudden they stopped selling it.

even though i got a mail from them saying "Houdini Indie" will be continued, there is still a huge "what if"


that said, offering Houdini Indie is Awesome, imo.

Spinland
08-14-2016, 10:35 AM
In my copious spare time (as in time I'm currently wasting by sleeping; I can sleep when I'm dead) I hope to go through some of the Houdini training videos on Digital Tutors and Lynda and assess for certain it's a learning curve worth climbing for what I do.

erikals
08-14-2016, 10:37 AM
...spare-what?

pooby
08-14-2016, 11:26 AM
it is, there is still the risk that Houdini Indie will go the xSI Foundation route though.

i was very close to getting xSI Foundation, but then all of a sudden they stopped selling it.

even though i got a mail from them saying "Houdini Indie" will be continued, there is still a huge "what if"


that said, offering Houdini Indie is Awesome, imo.

I don't feel it's wise to think of Houdini Indie as a permanent studio solution for the reasons you gave. Its best treated at a way into Houdini without the massive upfront investment. However, I don't see learning on it as a big risk.

I've learned the hard way that nothing is safe in this industry, having invested in both Softimage and Arnold. However, Houdini seems one of the safest bets to me.
An encouraging thing about Houdini is that its firmly intrenched in many pipelines worldwide and holds a significant amount of gravitas. That coupled with the fact that Houdini artists have historically been in relatively short supply makes learning it quite appealing IMO. Its leaning toward being the case that if you can use Houdini, you're employable.

Side FX seem to take pride in the fact that they are very unlike Autodesk, and are aware that many users will be relying on H Indie and would be very unhappy if it were pulled. I think if they did decide to drop it. It would probably be accompanied by some kind of offer to buy into Houdini full over time, rather than a cold stop and bye bye.

However, I would say that the Skills you learn are where the real power lies. Even if I never used ICE again (which I will do for quite a while) The skills I have learnt from using it will serve me very well in whatever I used next ( which are leaning toward both Houdini and Fabric) so the fact Softimage got canned by AD is a tragedy that is nothing compared to me never learning those skills in the first place. The skills themselves are portable and permanent.

m.d.
08-14-2016, 12:36 PM
Rather than look at Indie as a door to full Houdini....I use it as a Lightwave augment.

Houdini Indie is perfect for a 1 or 2 shot basis where you need FX lightwave cant reproduce....

Fluid sims for example.....more capable than realflow in a lot of ways, and yet cheap and LEGAL to use(vs realflow academic). And the 1 YEAR subscription price is 1/3 the price of 1 MONTH realflow rental.

Complex FX is houdini's strength....basic stuff can be much more time consuming vs Lightwave.

Spinland
08-14-2016, 12:42 PM
...spare-what?

It's possible I wrote that while in a sleep deprived stupor. ;D

Spinland
08-14-2016, 12:45 PM
Complex FX is houdini's strength....basic stuff can be much more time consuming vs Lightwave.

Yeah: this. I'm quickly finding myself in positions I can see a benefit from looking into it.

Prince Charming
08-14-2016, 12:58 PM
LW and Houdini are a good combo imo. You get the most extreme range of 3d workflows. For things that lw can't do quickly.... houdini can do procedurally and reusablely. For fx or models that don't need procedural modelling it really is pointless to model in Houdini.

OnlineRender
08-14-2016, 01:01 PM
I don't feel it's wise to think of Houdini ...


wow not seen you for ages :D

hrgiger
08-14-2016, 01:43 PM
wow not seen you for ages :D

Paul is a lurker :)

wibly wobly
08-14-2016, 01:50 PM
wow not seen you for ages :D

I know right? I thought he was long gone. Nice to see him back.
I'm really curious about their UI / node changes in the next release. Are we going to see an evolution of all those Soft coders they picked up after AD criminally shut it down? If so, this is really exciting. Having only poked around with the free version of Houdini so far, it seems to me to be the most interesting 3D program out there right now. They're killing it with SFX and lately they seem to be really trying to push the character animation side of things. I've read comments that it can do fantastic things for CA work but, it needs some UI changes to make it more usable. Maybe those Soft programmers are going to start showing their expertise in there.

erikals
08-14-2016, 02:36 PM
one of the coolest LightWave tests i saw was from Paul Pooby, a muscle simulation tests. (2004?)
edit: ah, me and my links, found it... http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=173249

these days one would go other ways about it, but at the time it was quite cool.   http://erikalstad.com/backup/misc.php_files/smile.gif

...and talking muscle simulation, it's very nice to see what they are bringing into Houdini Indie 2016.

(i do hope that the Houdini balloon-muscles can be tweaked though...)

toeknee
08-14-2016, 03:10 PM
Hi Pooby, it's great to see you here agian. I also really love Houdini Indie. I also was big on XSI/ Softimage. I was really crushed when AD killed it. How ever I don't see the same thing happening with Houdini. FIrst and formost
They are a company for the artist. AD looks at Auto desk media and entertainment as a tiny part of their market. I feel the proof is the SideXF is now giving away Houdini Engine. I also really love my pipeline, which is LIghtwave, Houdini,Zbrush,3D Coat, AE and Fusion. I think Lightwave is a very complementry to Houdini. When I used Softimage it was really a great substatute for LIghtwave. I really don't feel that way about Houdini. I also use Octane in my pipeline and now I can bring VDB files from Houdini directly in to Lightwave now to render. This is tremeniously powerful.

pinkmouse
08-14-2016, 04:53 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, LW3DG should just give up on their inbuilt VFX stuff, and license Houdini Engine. It just makes sense.

erikals
08-14-2016, 05:16 PM
a LightWave <> Houdini app would also be neat, wouldn't cost much, would be easy to make.

then again, time vs features < does not come cheap these days.

i've been playing with the idea of making a bridge for...
LightWave <> Houdini
LightWave <> Blender

but agh.... time...

Reco
08-14-2016, 06:10 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, LW3DG should just give up on their inbuilt VFX stuff, and license Houdini Engine. It just makes sense.

Amen to that.

Reco

Reco
08-14-2016, 06:19 PM
a LightWave <> Houdini app would also be neat, wouldn't cost much, would be easy to make.

then again, time vs features < does not come cheap these days.

i've been playing with the idea of making a bridge for...
LightWave <> Houdini
LightWave <> Blender

but agh.... time...

It is easy to export a LW scene to Houdini.
You can either:
- Render the whole scene in Houdini. Mantra is not to hard to master. The shader builder is.
- You can render most of your scene in LW and the FX in Houdini and comp it later in Nuke, AE or Fusion.

Reco

Surrealist.
08-14-2016, 06:27 PM
LightWave camera exports to Houdini as well. A little setting to make sure it remains the same but workable. So you can set up a scene in LightWave, render the effect in Houdini. Render the scene and masks etc in LW and comp it using the same camera in both. LightWave has great and easy-to-use-features for setting up masks for comping. Some stuff you could comp right in LW if you wanted to.

erikals
08-14-2016, 07:02 PM
It is easy to export a LW scene to Houdini.
You can either:
- Render the whole scene in Houdini. Mantra is not to hard to master. The shader builder is.
- You can render most of your scene in LW and the FX in Houdini and comp it later in Nuke, AE or Fusion.

Reco

yes, the idea though was to make an AHK script that would port changes between LightWave <> Houdini automatically.
it would work both ways.

js33
08-14-2016, 07:57 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, LW3DG should just give up on their inbuilt VFX stuff, and license Houdini Engine. It just makes sense.

The LW3DG can make their own Houdini Engine Plugin. The code for the Houdini Engine is open source so anyone with the ability is free to make a HE plugin.

jwiede
08-14-2016, 08:34 PM
The LW3DG can make their own Houdini Engine Plugin. The code for the Houdini Engine is open source so anyone with the ability is free to make a HE plugin.

Think about how long it's been since the last LW2015 update (2015.3). Now consider what it would mean if users were still today locked into the release of HE from weeks before that last LW2015 release, and unable to use more recent HE releases (new HE releases occur nightly from Side Effects)? It's just not a viable combination, IMO, and would only make LW users much more aware of and upset about how infrequently LW updates occur.

A third-party-provided HE integration might work, but the amount of dev work required is pretty substantial, and continuous in nature due to the frequent updates. I kind of doubt that would be economically viable for any LW third-party developers to pursue.

Surrealist.
08-14-2016, 09:31 PM
I have to agree. Interop is risky business. It is better to stick to the tried and true methods to simply use the app in your pipeline through existing plugins and open source such as Alembic, and where you can .mdd. And then comp. I use an Alembic pipleline between Maya and LightWave quite successfully. Blender also imports .mdd. From there is is just a matter of finding what works in the given direction you want to go. Since LightWave imports Alembic and can save .mdd it can give you another layer of options. Being able to import a LW camera into Houdini is a very bid deal in my opinion. The rest of the scene can come in as fbx or obj or even Alembic for characters. LightWave exports Alembic as well. And imported the right way, (Load Houdini Geometry option) Alembic in Houdini can be a mesh like any other and have effects applied to it.

Here is a quick drag and drop particle emitter added to an animated Alembic mesh from LightWave.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134028&d=1471231834

prometheus
08-14-2016, 09:47 PM
Here is a quick drag and drop particle emitter added to an animated Alembic mesh from LightWave.

[

Drag and drop I like, someday the lw team really needs to take care of that in terms of content assets presets and even fx tools...they should start with the surface presets and make that happen.
drag and drop of items from a shelf like car 1, car 2..boat 1, boat two...directly drag and drop from a preset shelf with thumbs to the instancer item list, and with a direct weigth slider control within that list to set how much amount of that instance is used in the scene.

Michael

js33
08-14-2016, 10:10 PM
Think about how long it's been since the last LW2015 update (2015.3). Now consider what it would mean if users were still today locked into the release of HE from weeks before that last LW2015 release, and unable to use more recent HE releases (new HE releases occur nightly from Side Effects)? It's just not a viable combination, IMO, and would only make LW users much more aware of and upset about how infrequently LW updates occur.

A third-party-provided HE integration might work, but the amount of dev work required is pretty substantial, and continuous in nature due to the frequent updates. I kind of doubt that would be economically viable for any LW third-party developers to pursue.

Well you have a point but I don't know if the HE needs to be updated nightly like the program itself but maybe it does?
I do think it would probably be better off in 3rd party hands but if it needs to be updated that often how do other programs that have HE deal with it?

m.d.
08-14-2016, 10:20 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, LW3DG should just give up on their inbuilt VFX stuff, and license Houdini Engine. It just makes sense.

Not sure it does.....

Houdini engine is for loading digital assets made in Houdini.....
You still need Houdini to create those assets

Unless Lightwave's whole FX strategy is depending on prebuilt Houdini's assets...then it is not a solution

Sure the SDK is open source, but really it's nothing more than an interchange on steroids allowing manipulation of pre-defined controls and a fixed procedural network.

EDIT: I suppose you could just have LW devs developing assets full time in place of the existing tools. They would have to be some pretty complex HDA's to make up all the various functionality, but it could be done.
Problem is unless its a VEX network, a Houdini network would run at a crawl compared to compiled code that you would have with built in tools

Surrealist.
08-14-2016, 10:24 PM
Well you have a point but I don't know if the HE needs to be updated nightly like the program itself but maybe it does?
I do think it would probably be better off in 3rd party hands but if it needs to be updated that often how do other programs that have HE deal with it?


Well basically you develop from major build to major build I would guess. Using daily builds are great for the user but they are not supported necessarily by 3Party. I mean there are a lot of changes that would never effect 3 party stuff. So I am not sure that is the issue.

The issue is that interop as a development plan is already proven as a black hole and waste of time by Autodesk. They do have interop between their own programs but even there it is fraught with bugs and limitations. If there is anyone who was in a position to make that happen it would have been them, owning 3 top apps, along with Mobu and Mud. They had the resources to throw at that and failed.

The reason is because inherently between each program there are vastly different methods of handling data, particularly animation data.

The best of what you wind up with is nothing more glorious than fbx or vertex cache. The one main exception is MotionBuilder to Maya which both use the HIK system. But if you leave other Mobu constraints on there they hose your animation.

Currently Autodesk is moving away from interop (mudbox and Mobu have gotten 0 updates in the last 2 releases) and more toward a one-app-does-all solution.

So I just don't think spending time on interop is a cause worth wasting time on.

Not just because AD sucked at it. But because I think it is an inherently flawed idea. You can't put a square peg in a round hole as they say. ;)

m.d.
08-14-2016, 10:38 PM
Agreed....

If only lightwave had proper alembic that can handle changing topology(fluids) and openVDB 99% of my exchange problems would be solved

Surrealist.
08-14-2016, 11:11 PM
Yeah would be cool. In the mean time have to deal with comp which for fluids would have its own limitations and/or complications.

js33
08-14-2016, 11:13 PM
Well basically you develop from major build to major build I would guess. Using daily builds are great for the user but they are not supported necessarily by 3Party. I mean there are a lot of changes that would never effect 3 party stuff. So I am not sure that is the issue.

The issue is that interop as a development plan is already proven as a black hole and waste of time by Autodesk. They do have interop between their own programs but even there it is fraught with bugs and limitations. If there is anyone who was in a position to make that happen it would have been them, owning 3 top apps, along with Mobu and Mud. They had the resources to throw at that and failed.

The reason is because inherently between each program there are vastly different methods of handling data, particularly animation data.

The best of what you wind up with is nothing more glorious than fbx or vertex cache. The one main exception is MotionBuilder to Maya which both use the HIK system. But if you leave other Mobu constraints on there they hose your animation.

Currently Autodesk is moving away from interop (mudbox and Mobu have gotten 0 updates in the last 2 releases) and more toward a one-app-does-all solution.

So I just don't think spending time on interop is a cause worth wasting time on.

Not just because AD sucked at it. But because I think it is an inherently flawed idea. You can't put a square peg in a round hole as they say. ;)

If there were more standards in 3D and companies actually adhered to them then interoperability would not be like it is. But you are dealing with a highly competitive industry and a lot of proprietary intellectual property, therefore you have a lot of incompatibilities between products and as you pointed out even products produced by the same company.

Surrealist.
08-15-2016, 12:24 AM
Exactly. And this is why we are left with the standards we have even though they are troublesome in certain situations. Alembic in my opinion or any point cache for that matter is much easier to manage than FBX for characters.

But if you look at other related industries the problem is the same and the solutions are the same. The only thing you can standardize are file interchange formats and media.

I am not sure how you'd ever make standards from apps to apps as far as dealing with internal data. It would stifle innovation. Bad enough that companies struggle with backward compatibility. Then there is the day they have to decide that they must break it and move on. Imagine if that was industry wide and no one could move ahead without the entire industry screaming about it. And then who is supposed to manage these standards?

The way things are set up now I imagine is the best solution we have considering the situation. We have proprietary formats that have been accepted. (film box former app name for MotionBuilder .fbx Wave Front .obj etc.) And open source like Alembic.

Prince Charming
08-15-2016, 01:08 AM
Here is a tutorial I did a while back that shows how to use mdds to exchange mesh info between the two... Works well enough.

https://youtu.be/E_kkWxEaKYI

js33
08-15-2016, 04:20 AM
Thanks for that tut. It looked pretty straight forward. Do you have any tuts on Houdini itself like a quick start? Can you bring in liquid, smoke or fire sims from Houdini into Lightwave? Or would LW need VBOs? I know Modo can render them but since Houdini has Redshift I imagine it would be faster to just render in Houdini and comp later.

prometheus
08-15-2016, 08:09 AM
Thanks for that tut. It looked pretty straight forward. Do you have any tuts on Houdini itself like a quick start? Can you bring in liquid, smoke or fire sims from Houdini into Lightwave? Or would LW need VBOs? I know Modo can render them but since Houdini has Redshift I imagine it would be faster to just render in Houdini and comp later.

Smoke fluids..No I do not think so, same with fire.
Liuids, yes to some degree, mdd will not work since fluids change particle density and so does the mesh..and that wonīt work, but you can export out obj sequences, canīt recall the exact procedure for exporting the full sequence, but I tested some days ago with frame by frame, but i am sure you can do this with a proper output.
easy to use flip fluids, if you stand in the right level (have to check) then right click on that node and you get a list..then there should be a save geometry, you would have to click that last drop down arrow icon to set object type, you have obj..but unless you wanīt to manually export every frame, then you should pick something else, but I have to check that up, to note though is that I donīt think object sequence export handles any motion blur.
once you have exported your obj sequence or obj per obj, you can add obj replacement in lightwave, but name each obj fluid001.obj and not fluid1, otherwise I think lightwave dosnīt load it properly.

netvedu has a thread with me about it on the sidefx forum, I will find it and post it, but it is another approach and using realflow exporters with houdini to lightwave.

prometheus
08-15-2016, 08:14 AM
for exporting obj sequences..without manually doing each frame, You have to click render when you work in the output node, and have the right sop paths etc...I had some issues of not doing it right sometimes, you really got to know where you stand in your nodes etc..
check this...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk7dgARVIxM

Spinland
08-15-2016, 08:23 AM
Here's encouragement for going somewhat off topic:

Those of you with both TFD and Houdini FX experience, could you offer an opinion as to Houdini's superiority for pyro effects? I get it's certainly boss for fluids and particles but right now my main needs are making things go 'splodey and burn. If I'm not going to realize a rather large improvement by adopting Houdini Indie into my workflow I might give it a pass for now. I'm rather busy with a couple of VFX gigs and carving out the learning time will be a hassle so I need it to be worth the pain. ;D

prometheus
08-15-2016, 09:05 AM
Thanks for that tut. It looked pretty straight forward. Do you have any tuts on Houdini itself like a quick start? Can you bring in liquid, smoke or fire sims from Houdini into Lightwave? Or would LW need VBOs? I know Modo can render them but since Houdini has Redshift I imagine it would be faster to just render in Houdini and comp later.


yeah..I got it now, amazing, I am dog tired and managed to wrestle it for an half hour or so, I have done it before but it was a long time ago.

may have to record this, in fact maybe today and save it and post tomorrow maybe.

for obj export of flip fluid, you could hit tab and just type rop geometry node, and you put the fluidsurface output to that node, and when entering the rop node, you have to set it to padde geometry, it will add bgeo I thing, but you just rename to obj or something, have to go through that tomorrow, set render to frame range and render with take frame, then click render and it saves out the obj files one by one, then its just to load the first obj in lighwave..and in that obj properties go to obj replacement and choose sequence, and not the fluid should be there.

from the image here you only see the particles since I am standing in the rop geometry..

134037

prometheus
08-15-2016, 09:07 AM
Here's encouragement for going somewhat off topic:

Those of you with both TFD and Houdini FX experience, could you offer an opinion as to Houdini's superiority for pyro effects? I get it's certainly boss for fluids and particles but right now my main needs are making things go 'splodey and burn. If I'm not going to realize a rather large improvement by adopting Houdini Indie into my workflow I might give it a pass for now. I'm rather busy with a couple of VFX gigs and carving out the learning time will be a hassle so I need it to be worth the pain. ;D

donīt know for the latest version, must be much better now but I was so so, itīs ofcourse extremly powerful and you can do things you just canīt with turbelence I reckon, but at the time I tested turbulence..and that was also old versions, I found turbulence to be both easier to use, and also faster to simulate, but I can not really compare how it is today.

I had issues with the latest apprentice not installing and working as it should, so I have to sort that out.

prometheus
08-15-2016, 09:18 AM
itīs the rop output driver, I just found that you need to be standing in the node editor when hitting tab and searching for rop network driver, if I would stand in the scene viewport it doesnīt find it, odd..
just type "r" and a list with that node should present itself.

Morgan Nilsson
08-15-2016, 09:29 AM
itīs the rop output driver, I just found that you need to be standing in the node editor when hitting tab and searching for rop network driver, if I would stand in the scene viewport it doesnīt find it, odd..
just type "r" and a list with that node should present itself.

The tab button is context sensitive. If you press Tab whilst hovering the cursor in the viewport you will only see nodes related to the current network you are currently residing in. (Which in the viewport can only be two, either within a SOP node or in the SOP network itself)

The power of Houdini is that you have absolute control over exactly every single data that is being thrown around, this also means that you more often than not have to build up your networks very often, in comes HDA (Houdini Digital Assets) where you can save tools and networks you already created in the past, and expose the parameters you know you most often change.

So, unless you already have a library of HDA's to perform tasks you often do, Houdini will be very slow to work with for you until you actually have created a library to work with.

You are your own TD and if something does not exist, you can create it, you do not need to wait on a plugin-dev to give you the features or control you need.

This is why it is difficult to compare a plugin to Houdini when it comes to whatever VFX you do, yes the plugin might be faster, but you lack control and if you become really good, you can probably create something that is much more efficient Houdini.

Edit2: This post is meant to address the few questions some people had about Houdini in here.

Spinland
08-15-2016, 09:38 AM
Thank you, Morgan, much appreciate the insights. I've gotten fairly adept with the quirks of TFD but there is certainly room for improvement and I tend to be anal about quality. I'm very much into nodal stuff in LW and love the power and control I get there so Houdini sounds better and better. Like I said earlier: who needs sleep? I'll probably pull the trigger as soon as I get a couple more cuts done on this clip I'm working and then pull a few all-nighters on Digital Tutors getting up to speed. :D

Morgan Nilsson
08-15-2016, 09:51 AM
Thank you, Morgan, much appreciate the insights. I've gotten fairly adept with the quirks of TFD but there is certainly room for improvement and I tend to be anal about quality. I'm very much into nodal stuff in LW and love the power and control I get there so Houdini sounds better and better. Like I said earlier: who needs sleep? I'll probably pull the trigger as soon as I get a couple more cuts done on this clip I'm working and then pull a few all-nighters on Digital Tutors getting up to speed. :D

If you got the time to spare, by all means!

Maybe I should warn you as well, you eventually need to get comfy with expressions and just general scripting. :)

Spinland
08-15-2016, 09:55 AM
If you got the time to spare, by all means!

Maybe I should warn you as well, you eventually need to get comfy with expressions and just general scripting. :)

Absolutely not a problem. In my prior life I was a software engineer and I eat that stuff up. ;)

prometheus
08-15-2016, 10:11 AM
The tab button is context sensitive. If you press Tab whilst hovering the cursor in the viewport you will only see nodes related to the current network you are currently residing in. (Which in the viewport can only be two, either within a SOP node or in the SOP network itself)


yes..ofcourse, I figured that to be the case, wasnīt quite sure though, but thanks for emphasizing that.
I have been awake 22 hours now, so itīs sleepy time, I had my go at some liquid stuff and exports to lightwave with obj sequence now, with some clearing and repeating of scenes and adding the stuff and loading to lighwave so I got that right, though I doubt this is the best proper method, will have to check some stuff netvedu posted on that later.

Michael

m.d.
08-15-2016, 10:29 AM
Thanks for that tut. It looked pretty straight forward. Do you have any tuts on Houdini itself like a quick start? Can you bring in liquid, smoke or fire sims from Houdini into Lightwave? Or would LW need VBOs? I know Modo can render them but since Houdini has Redshift I imagine it would be faster to just render in Houdini and comp later.

You can export VDB smoke or fire sims from Houdini and bring them into LW by using the octane plugin....
But you will only see it in octane IPR and there will be no layout representation.

Liquid can come through OBJ sequences....which can get a little large.
Alembic can do a liquid sim as long as the point count remains the same.....so maybe a fixed water tank etc, no waterfall sims etc (Lightwave limitation)
The best current method is to write to the real flow plugin inside Houdini, which allows changing topology and point count....but I have had limited success with this, working for 1-3 frames then crashing (lightwave)

Interestingly openVDB is often used for liquids, but right now octane only treating it as a volume currently

Prince Charming
08-15-2016, 10:31 AM
itīs the rop output driver, I just found that you need to be standing in the node editor when hitting tab and searching for rop network driver, if I would stand in the scene viewport it doesnīt find it, odd..
just type "r" and a list with that node should present itself.

You can also use a file sop set to write files. If you put $F as part of the name it will bake out a mesh for each frame when you press play on the timeline. ROP output works as well...

prometheus
08-15-2016, 10:50 AM
You can export VDB smoke or fire sims from Houdini and bring them into LW by using the octane plugin....
But you will only see it in octane IPR and there will be no layout representation.

Liquid can come through OBJ sequences....which can get a little large.
Alembic can do a liquid sim as long as the point count remains the same.....so maybe a fixed water tank etc, no waterfall sims etc (Lightwave limitation)
The best current method is to write to the real flow plugin inside Houdini, which allows changing topology and point count....but I have had limited success with this, working for 1-3 frames then crashing (lightwave)

Interestingly openVDB is often used for liquids, but right now octane only treating it as a volume currently
Should have known about octane since I knew it got openvd..
I think I have exported out to mdd previously with apprentice, so if the point count remains the same, that might work too.


You can also use a file sop set to write files. If you put $F as part of the name it will bake out a mesh for each frame when you press play on the timeline. ROP output works as well...
Thanks, yes..rop I know, but the other not.

m.d.
08-15-2016, 11:52 AM
I think I have exported out to mdd previously with apprentice, so if the point count remains the same, that might work too.



Totally....
Just extremely limiting as most fluid sims should be dynamic, splashes and such....and retopologizing on a frame by frame basis for best performance

Watch this from about 20:50 to see the new meshing enhancements.....much better then realflow...but totally useless without dynamic topology
https://vimeo.com/145178660

(interesting @ 28:00 as well....start to see the power of houdini fluid surfacing)

erikals
08-15-2016, 12:30 PM
i was thinking something along these lines (always on top)

http://www.erikalstad.com/cgtemp/lw-ho-export.png

js33
08-15-2016, 02:19 PM
Thanks to all who answered my initial questions on exporting from Houdini to Lightwave. Looks like there are a number of options but each likely comes with limitations. I guess for fluids, smoke or fire that need to interact with LW geometry it would probably be easier to export the LW geo to Houdini and then do the simulation and render in Houdini.

erikals
08-15-2016, 02:42 PM
for fluids, smoke or fire that need to interact with LW geometry it would probably be easier to export the LW geo to Houdini and then do the simulation and render in Houdini.
Absolutely  :)

that said, going the other way is quite doable for water fluids.

personally i don't see myself going full throttle on Houdini though, as the learning curve is quite high for a "One Man Army"

so aiming for a LightWave <> Houdini workflow over here, where Houdini is used mainly as a "do-the-impossible" plugin.

---------

edit: remember, Octane will be able to render smoke fluids in LightWave in the near future.

Reco
08-15-2016, 04:24 PM
it would probably be easier to export the LW geo to Houdini and then do the simulation and render in Houdini.
I totally agree. It is not only a geometry issue. it is a shader issue as well. The default FX shaders in Houdini looks very good, and you can tweek them to look fantastic.

Reco

js33
08-15-2016, 06:03 PM
I look at Houdini as the ultimate FX plugin for LW. For regular work it is much faster to create the bulk of it in LW and then export to Houdini what you need for destruction, fire, smoke, liquids, etc...

Spinland
08-15-2016, 06:05 PM
I look at Houdini as the ultimate FX plugin for LW. For regular work it is much faster to create the bulk of it in LW and then export to Houdini what you need for destruction, fire, smoke, liquids, etc...

Cool. Very much keeping this discussion in mind. Thanks for all the insights!

Surrealist.
08-15-2016, 11:41 PM
I look at Houdini as the ultimate FX plugin for LW. For regular work it is much faster to create the bulk of it in LW and then export to Houdini what you need for destruction, fire, smoke, liquids, etc...

Yes. Absolutely. And don't forget about compositing. I personally think this would be the best way to do stuff. It gives you ultimate control. Think in terms of your final product being a network of nodes in Fusion/Nuke or layers in AE.

For instance, why would you need to export everything over to Houdini and render there? Why not render all of the stuff that does not have an effect in LightWave, send the special effects geo over to Houdini.

Lets just say a guy comes running out of a building on fire. That entire scene minus anything that will reflect the fire is rendered in Lightwave. Then lets say a puddle, nearby windows and anything else reflective is rendered in Houdini. And of course the guy on fire.

Take all of that and send it to AE. in LightWave it is super easy to render out masks and you can even comp stuff right in LightWave if you cared to. LightWave has decent tools for that as well. Just depends on the situation.

This is after much though and playing around with Houdini. Because the render solution over there is very slow. And additionally why do you want a whole scene rendering over there with all this stuff in it and the simulation. You are just bogging the thing down for no reason. Just have the guy running and the fire. And he can come in via Alembic. Don't even need a rig.

js33
08-16-2016, 12:51 AM
Yeah that is usually the way I work, in layers, the only reason for rendering LW geo in Houdini is say if the geo is interacting with a liquid sim or something like that. But even then I would render that with alpha channel for comping. I always like to have layers so I can adjust color, sat, brightness, contrast, etc.. per layer if needed.

prometheus
08-16-2016, 02:33 AM
Yes..I agree with many here, going the houdini to lightwave for fluids via object export isnīt ideal...and you will probably have a hard time surfacing it all with object sequence.

Not sure if it is even worth to record and put up on youtube how you set up a simple fluid and export to lightwave with the Rop node etc?

js33
08-16-2016, 07:48 AM
Well one reason in the past to export to LW is Houdini's Mantra renderer is really slow but now that you can use Redshift in H it should not be an issue to render in H.

John Jordan
08-16-2016, 06:58 PM
lightwave is not in competition with houdini. Its like saying ferrarri is in competition with hyundai.

ouch!

hrgiger
08-16-2016, 07:31 PM
ouch!

I'm not insulting LW, just saying its a different market. Not many are going to be using LightWave to do high end FX.

erikals
08-17-2016, 12:30 AM
agree, try to take that ferrari to the countryside

pooby
08-17-2016, 01:34 AM
agree, try to take that ferrari to the countryside

Yeah it's going to fly on those open roads. A city is no place for a Ferrari.

Oh but hold on. Some roads in the country might be bumpy and the Ferrari wouldn't like that, but then , it wouldn't like traffic Jams either.

Houdini is rubbish.

Spinland
08-17-2016, 05:47 AM
Houdini is rubbish.

Was that an actual appraisal or part of the car analogy gag? I ask as one who's been considering getting into Houdini for some FX stuff so any and all insights from the intelligentsia who have actually used it are ever so welcome. :D

pooby
08-17-2016, 07:48 AM
Was that an actual appraisal or part of the car analogy gag? I ask as one who's been considering getting into Houdini for some FX stuff so any and all insights from the intelligentsia who have actually used it are ever so welcome. :D

No it wasn't. I haven't used Houdini much. I tested it out and found it to be encouragingly easier to learn than I guessed, but didn't have the time to properly commit to learning it then.
I'm caught in between deciding between learning Fabric and Houdini and at the moment am veryhappy with XSI, so havent been motivated enough to give either 100% attention.

erikals
08-17-2016, 12:50 PM
there's no doubt, Houdini is the way to go for VFX.
not saying Maya-Max-xSI won't cut it though, and sometimes can be even better at Area X.

creacon
08-17-2016, 03:35 PM
No it's not ideal, you should be able to do this directly in LW, like this:



Yes..I agree with many here, going the houdini to lightwave for fluids via object export isnīt ideal...and you will probably have a hard time surfacing it all with object sequence.

Not sure if it is even worth to record and put up on youtube how you set up a simple fluid and export to lightwave with the Rop node etc?

erikals
08-17-2016, 03:50 PM
pretty neat, but yet another never-to-be-released software, just like... >


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq22dmrEDpM

creacon
08-17-2016, 04:15 PM
Was there a crystal ball sale somewhere?



pretty neat, but yet another never-to-be-released software, just like... >

erikals
08-17-2016, 04:25 PM
no. not that i know.

creacon
08-17-2016, 04:32 PM
So where did you get your info then?

erikals
08-17-2016, 04:47 PM
pages way back. at least that's what i recall. maybe things changed.

would love to be proven wrong.

a later quote is


And before you start asking: I haven't decided if or when this will ever be released or not.

Spinland
08-17-2016, 04:50 PM
No it wasn't. I haven't used Houdini much. I tested it out and found it to be encouragingly easier to learn than I guessed, but didn't have the time to properly commit to learning it then.
I'm caught in between deciding between learning Fabric and Houdini and at the moment am veryhappy with XSI, so havent been motivated enough to give either 100% attention.

Cool, many thanks for the clarification. I'm keeping my head above water on my current VFX gigs without Houdini (thus far) but it's rising higher and higher on my radar of things to add to my toolbox. In the interim I eagerly pester folks for their related insights. ;D

creacon
08-17-2016, 04:56 PM
I am waiting to see what will happen with the next version of LW, and then I will decide what I am going to do with this.

creacon

samurai_x
08-29-2016, 08:57 PM
I am waiting to see what will happen with the next version of LW, and then I will decide what I am going to do with this.

creacon

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=134093&d=1471469657

Why oh why would you not gift the Lightwave community by releasing this plugin?
I would definitely buy it in the $300-500 range if I can atleast use it for lw 2015 and lw next. Future updates paid of course.
We need a fluidsim in lightwave.

creacon
08-30-2016, 02:46 AM
It's currently being tested by a gigantic beta team of 2 people :-)

to be continued

creacon



Why oh why would you not gift the Lightwave community by releasing this plugin?
I would definitely buy it in the $300-500 range if I can atleast use it for lw 2015 and lw next. Future updates paid of course.
We need a fluidsim in lightwave.

samurai_x
08-30-2016, 03:12 AM
It's currently being tested by a gigantic beta team of 2 people :-)

to be continued

creacon

Do you want to expand that pool of testers?

creacon
08-30-2016, 04:06 AM
No.


Do you want to expand that pool of testers?