![]() ![]() So I used a For loop, some procedural groups and extrusions inside of it and saved hours of time. Eventually I realized that parts of these similar features could be made procedurally. However, this model had several similar but not identical features. ![]() What's interesting, doing all this viewport modeling, I got into a very destructive mindset where initially I did everything non-procedurally. Coming from Softimage, I'm used to bevels working in these scenarios because the bevel tool would handle the colliding edges, merge them and apply the bevel anyway. you subdivide a geo and boolean a few holes into the smooth surface) the bevel tool becomes useless: it stops the entire bevel once the bevel collides with an edge anywhere. 2) The bevel tool is limited, and it's sooooo sad because it would be the perfect companion to the boolean tool. These radial menus are super awesome by the way. Also, the Fuse does not seem to be part of the “C” radial menus. Yes, often times one can just use an overall fuse node on the entire mesh without selecting the 10 points, but even that is a hassle. When I'm done with the snapping, I now need to select all those 10 points and use a fuse node. Hitting X and snapping works great, but let's say I snap 10 different points. I found two main problems: 1) There seems to be no way to snap and fuse. Goldfarb here is a new video for you! we'd really love more feedback from people about our modeling tools/workflow I recently spent an entire day doing viewport modeling in Houdini, and it worked quite well. I am currently *underwhelmed* by the type of feedback I see around. Maybe you get hints from other users at how to BETTER (faster) do it in Houdini? Sorry for the text-wall. SHOW the productivity gain you would get to management (do a video comparison of a typical workflow in whatever-tool and Houdini). Yes, I would love to see “easier” workflows in Houdini all over the place (I struggle hard with nodal workflows, nodal workflows kill every joy of work for me) but I do not expect any developer to just copy something else she does not see any benefit in (for the tool at hand). Instead of being “underwhelmed” by something that is shown in its EARLY STAGES, why don't you just: - give constructive feedback like “I would like to be able to do precisely THIS” (not “do it like in xyz”, because for that you can use “xyz”) - show a demo of what you want to do if you want a copy, demonstrate how it fits into Houdini's “mind” of proceduralism - explain in what way the tool you want to have would help a large majority of users to become more productive (as opposed to “a single user's wish”) Yes, I know. Why should someone developing a tool that is OFFICIALLY being presented as a “work in progress” (look up the term if you are not familiar with it) *know* what exactly some arbitrary other tool is doing? When you are deep in your own project, it is quite uncommon to waste precious time by playing around with neighbor's toys. OK, I admit, my C4d version is 1.something and I did only quickly skip through my C4d V2 manual, since I never got to install V2, I may not be up to date. Gee, I have to say … I just had a look at my Cinema4d version and I can tell you for sure that the modeling tools in there are in no way comparable to what Houdini is offering today. Hotkeys in general are customizable and if you'll find that these aren't, you'll be able and encouraged to file a RFE about it. I would however wait until H17 is released in order to actually test it and not judge it by a single video. I find this to be a very good thing, but if you think it's not sufficient, record your screen with a tool that works in a more modern way and post a. It was not available before and now it is. ![]() In what way looks limited? I don't know about “drawing vertices in an isometric view” being archaic - what has it been supplanted by? I mean, you did acknowledge the fact there's a need for this ability, be it a niche or not. I doubt I could use it for a long while without having the hotkeys listed on a second monitor at all times. It sounds like the hotkeys for switching modes are kinda messy as well. So having the tool focused on that just seems bizarre. I was actually kinda shocked to see the presenter doing that at all. Which is a very archaic and niche workflow. But the demonstration, plus the name “polydraw” gives the impression that it's focused on actually drawing vertices in an isometric view. Grimwolf I've finished the video, and the tool looks kind of… limited? I'm glad for more modeling tools, and I can see it helping a bit with some tasks here and there, like more easily filling holes and cutting in edges. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |