Leaderboard

Changing over to the studio version worked! Thanks for the help and for the link though Bezo.

Here are some of my projects，for people who wants to learn scene nodes.

The next day I launched C4D and the problem was fixed. Obviously a simple restart was required.

Thank you Bezo, it's an amazing setup, and a lot more stable than dynamics. But there's a tiny problem, how will I texture it?

There was a thread in the past with similar, maybe could help...

scene file SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Test_0003.zip btw, I was reset all scale parameters to 1 since these values make some dirt in results for aiming. Also why is object so small? Working on hydraulic arm which is 0,09 in radius is a bit crazy.

In my example is used aim constraint together with keyframed positions of hydraulic arm. But you could create some xpresso to change position parametrically... From the scene I was removed everything else and play just with one leg, but it´s the same for all parts...

Also, pls confirm which version of video driver you are using ? A game optimised one, or a Studio version. they are different, and generally speaking, Cinema wants the Studio ones. CBR

Yeah - worth a go, as that will eliminate any issues Chrome may have caused in this session... CBR

Chrome can be an issue, and is often accused of memory leaks and playing badly with other stuff. When did you last restart the system ? CBR

It does depend a bit what those programs are.... for example I can run hundreds of browser tabs and Affinity Photo at the same time as Cinema without issue, but if I try and run something hugely processor intensive like DaVinci Resolve or an Audio DCC that can definitely have an effect. CBR

Looks like some kind of "memory management" failed. Do you run some other software on the background? Btw, update your version to last service pack for this release, I think it´s 21.207... Graphics drivers up to date? Or try to remove prefs folder to make it clear a bit...

You should update to 21.207 and ensure you have latest current studio video drivers. CBR

Just as an additional tip, if you want something that is comfortable and easy to use and doesn't require any xpresso knowledge or manipulation of the settings bezo described, you could invest 15 Euros in a paid plugin called "Floor Generator" by C4DZone: https://www.c4dzone.com/en/shop/plug-ins-17/floor-generator-294.htm The plugin is quite reasonably priced for what it has to offer. There's a video by C4DZone showing the use of the plugin on YouTube: Cheers contrafibbularities

I'm a hobbyist and without indie prices i don't see my future in 3D with you MAXON $1000 for upgrade $250 for X-Particles maintenance + other plugins maintenance $1250! that is a 6 years of Houdini indie subscription price!!! and you get particles + dynamics + nodes + Houdini engine out of box! Houdini indie : 1 Year : $269 USD 2 years : $399 USD Maya indie : 1 year: $250 USD 3ds Max indie 1 year : $250 USD Blender: Free! Cinema4D: 1 year subscription: $719 USD 1 year perpetual upgrade: $1000 USD Goodbye.

Once again, no R23 perpetual upgrade pricing at the web-site. Can anyone from MAXON please explain why perpetual upgrade pricing is such a deep, dark secret? Why do I have to call the local sales office? This has been asked but not answered by a number of people over the last year and MAXON has been quiet about it. Again, not sure why. I do have a couple of theories though: MAXON is embarrassed by the price - they know it is high relative to how loyal customers upgraded in the past via the MSA. Originally, the perpetual upgrade price WAS going to be $720 and the subscription price was going to be the old MSA price of $650 but they made a mistake when they released the subscription pricing at the $720 cost. So they picked $995 because it sounded nice. Perpetual pricing is determined by a MAXON sales professional spinning a giant "Wheel of Fortune" type roulette wheel with varying pricing values on it and a few traps like "Past Perpetual licenses flip to subscription", "License server goes down just for you...permanently" and the dreaded "The only upgrade path for you is completely new license at $3495" Test marketing shows that by having a highly trained MAXON sales professional with 6 years experience doing grief counseling walk you through the sticker shock, they will see 20% higher sales. They posted it once at the web-site in Germany and the offices got egged. They posted it once and their support desk was flooded with calls complaining that the web-site must be in error. MAXON sales professionals love hearing the anguish in our voices. They record every call and play the best back to everyone during happy hour on Friday. 😉 Dave

Nothing wrong with using edit nodes. They aren't really procedural, but the bevel and extrude nodes still can be procedural and changed at will. The clock was modeled well. It would be a mistake to think every node in a model creation needs to be completely procedural. Even things like an edge loop will depend on the point numbers, which will be changed by altering the edge count in a node up the chain from the edge loop. I have the modeler 2020 plugin but rarely use it. It does help with Boolean type modeling and has some nice screw/bolt/rivet models.

If you want to see the real power of Houdini procedural workflows... grab an eyeful of this. Blew my mind when I first saw it: More info here: http://www.the-working-man.org/2017/04/procedural-content-creation-faq-project.html

I personally like using Blender with Houdini better than C4D with Houdini. C4D has the plugin for Houdini. Which is great if you have the most updated version of C4D, because that is the only version of C4D that will work with the most recent version of Houdini. If you are not up to date with C4D, like I am, it's nice to have the most updated and fully supported Cycles, Eevee, and sculpting tools of Blender to combined with most updated version of Houdini's UV tools and procedural stuff. The character weighting in Houdini is pretty nice. I work a lot with Unreal so the Houdini Unreal plugin comes in handy. Unreal can accept native C4D files now, which I should try, but with Houdini you can make procedural changes right in Unreal. If I read the post right it means you can only import C4D stuff into Unreal as a fixed sequence. Another good thing in Houdini is how well it works with Blender. Working will with Blender means plugins like QuadRemesher, BoxCutter, eCycles to make Cycles render way faster, Retopoflow, HardOps, Box cutter, and MESHmachine in Blender can be used. Model in Blender, UV in Houdini, rig in Blender or Houdini, render with Redshift to stay in Houdini if you want industry best cloth sims and physics without the file size of exporting or back to Blender for Cycles, Eevee, or Houdini plugin for Unreal. The QuadRemesher really is a game changer and probably the most important one as that makes a nice usable mesh so when making the mesh with anything the topology does not have to be worried about at all. I mention that because if you get that funny mesh that doesn't seem quite right in Houdini after some procedurals, or Box cut, HardOped messiness that makes you think it could be better, QuadRemesher makes it all seem good enough for the time. If you do have the time to make the mesh perfect there is still Retopoflow. If we expand the question to where does Houdini beat C4D to more of where does Houdini combined with another program beat C4D. The answer is everywhere except motion graphics which even is about to change when the Everything Nodes project is released for Blender. C4D also has a nice UI, but that could be biased because I've worked with it for so long. OK, so I don't use Houdini much, but with it's affordable $200 per year indie license I don't need to use it much to feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of it. C4D beat. Thanks everyone for all the learning resources. @Midphase that Modeler 2020.1 looks great. I'll leave this here for those interested in motion graphics. https://youtu.be/UB8R_xPpaSc

For those interested in modeling in Houdini, there is this 3rd party product that makes it a lot more feasible:

CBR: I'm not sure what Houdini models you have seen with bad topology, but that software is like any other - you can create good or bad topology and it totally depends on the user's skill and interest. One advantage to the better procedural features of Houdini is that one can scatter objects over a surface and add some randomness to the procedural nodes, creating a more realistic look. (such as in trees scattered on a landscape). In the example that bobC4D gave, the ability to tweak the nodes might not be offset by the extra time modeling in Houdini would take over C4D or Blender. The model of the clock is very good but mostly non procedural, as you can see from the number of edit nodes. If you changed the first node (a circle), it would mess up all the edits downstream. But if you altered some of the extrude or bevel nodes, everything would propagate nicely. Addendum: What spiralstair said is very important. For instance, you can take an object and add a transform node to move it to the side. You can merge the object and the transform (making a triangle of nodes) and then bridge between the object and transformed copy. That sort of modeling saves a lot of time over making everything linear.

I followed Make it Look Great tutorial on diamonds and his mantle clock in Houdini. Houdini has a PolyDraw node, which acts like C4D polypen but is much more cumbersome. I have attached the wireframe of clock and Houdini node tree so you have a idea what it looks like. while node tree looks busy, it is probably the same with C4D but which probably does it behind the scenes. the beauty of nodes is after the fact, if I want to change the bevel amount or select more/deselect edges, I can without screwing up geometry.

True, but the thing about Houdini (and I'm not trying to convert anyone here) is that it doesn't have to be that way. It can operate just as well through basic functions as it does through the more complex test cases. One of the things that drove me nuts (it still does) about the "old school" Houdini community is its aversion to the so-called Shelf Tools. These are basically presets of sorts that can get you very good results at the click of a button. There is no need to understand what is happening beneath the surface -- unless you want to; then it's all there for you to inspect and tweak. Thanks to other tools that I use on a daily basis such as MOPs which I already mentioned, and the SideFX LABS add-ons, this simple approach is reinforced. For instance, SideFX LABS has a cool one-node tool for adding snow on top of your geometry (works wonders as cake frosting too). One node, some basic parameters -- done! I think part of the problem with Houdini has been the core user base, which has not only created a weird sense of shame for wanting to use some of these simple solutions, but has also perpetuated the notion that you need a computer science degree to operate Houdini through the tutorials which they have created which tend to be unnecessarily complex.

I would mostly agree with Midphase. People often think you need a mathematics major to learn Houdini and it is only useful for fracturing/explosions, fire, smoke and fluids. While most of this type of work is indeed done in Houdini in Hollywood movies, the program has a lot more usefullness, and that view would show lack of experience with the program. Environmental modeling is often done best in Houdini. The Lake House tutorial above is a good example, but city modeling and rural landscapes are also frequently done in Houdini. The OP introduced me to the work of the talented and apparently self taught artist, Esteban Diacono. He uses a pinch of C4D, a dash of Houdini, and a teaspoon of Octane. I don't know the proportions. In C4D, one might get 90% of the way using modeling, rigging, posemorph, deformers, mograph, hair, and soft body dynamics. But the last 10% would be a bear. Conversely, since all of what he does could be done in Houdini, it brings up the question of why he still uses C4D. Without doubt, there are inefficiencies in Houdini that would be easier to do in another program. For his work, see: https://www.instagram.com/_estebandiacono/?utm_source=ig_embed You can see some of how he might have done some of this in C4D in this tutorial: (I'm not even sure how to do this in Houdini)

C4D with x-particles can be a lot slower than Houdini on an average computer, depending on the scene. Part of the reason for my transition to Houdini was trying to use tracers and a rigged model with constraints in C4D, where minor changes had significant lags between the change and the screen redraw. That said, Mantra's rendering engine, while better, is a lot slower than C4D's built in options and really is built for quality and speed in fluid and particle systems. For rendering speed, many purchase Redshift. But you do have a valid point. For modeling, if you want to add several precisely positioned edge loops, a few extrudes, etc. and then create a perfect UV map - Houdini will be a lot slower than C4D, Blender, or Modo. The modeling features are there with Houdini, but as I mentioned earlier, you will probably have to add a few lines of code and write commands that C4D would do automatically. Sculpting and painting are way behind both C4D and Blender. Where modeling in Houdini is powerful is when it is used for procedural modeling of complex structures as in the "Lake House Tutorial". This tutorial shows how complicated such a set up can be, though: Note: that tutorial uses a fair amount of programming and is not for the faint of heart. Modeling in Houdini often involves techniques which would not pass the moderator's standards on this forum. For instance, there is a tutorial on creating swiss cheese that starts with a cube, scatters points on that cube, copies spheres to those points and then uses a boolean to subtract the spheres from the cube. Then the resulting model has points scattered on its surface, spheres are again copied to the points and subtracted from the model. This is repeated ten times with a looping node. The cheese looks good, but the topology is awful, so one might convert the result to a volume and back to a polygon mesh to retopologize (or use quad remesher). If one recommended this in C4D, there would be quite the outcry. But as you know you do similar things in Zbrush all the time with good results. Zbrush just hides the engine more than Houdini.

Correct, and it makes even the simplest C4D operation seem incredibly complicated in Houdini. By comparison, MOPs is incredibly simple and intuitive.

A couple of good but lesser known Houdini tutorial channels: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHiC90BCBMhk-JxaM52GD4A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgSL2gPQragMHtVh3f2YUQA Also, Entagma did a whole series on getting started in Houdini...although sometime those guys tend to let their nerd take over and jump into making things more complicated than they need to be: https://entagma.com Lastly, once you get the basics of Houdini down, especially if you're coming from C4D, you really need to get on board with MOPs -- think of it as MoGraph for Houdini: https://www.motionoperators.com

I switched from C4D to Houdini about 3 years ago and I have to say that the "steep learning curve" and "very difficult to learn" fame that precedes it has been greatly exaggerated (I am finding learning Blender or Unreal Engine at least as equally challenging if not more). All in all it took me about 1 week to wrap my head around the basics of how to do things with nodes, and most importantly which nodes one tends to use 99% of the time. 3 years later I'm definitely much more knowledgeable with more advanced features, and even started a YouTube Channel with some tips and tricks that I enjoy sharing as I learn them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqQzy1kAB5HXRLeZ5h_BKRA Going back to the OP's question, I thought I would touch on something that I rarely see mentioned, but which IMHO is one of the biggest plusses of Houdini -- the ability to not only easily repurpose very complex set ups, but also to very easily re-purpose someone else's set up, as well as easily diagnose issues throughout the community. Let me elaborate a bit, particularly on the very last part of my previous sentence. C4D has a thriving community of users who help each other out as needed, typically with posts such as "how to I do this?" and "I followed the tutorial but it's not working for me." The Houdini community however is unique in the way it can easily share Houdini (.hip) files freely and without necessarily having to part with non-shareable geometry, in order to get very specific answers. Let's say I'm working on a spaceship breaking up, and for some reason I can't get the effect that I want, or it's not working as I thought it would. I want someone else to take a look at my file, but I can't share my spaceship model which I bought on TurboSquid. No problem, simply change the spaceship to any primitive, hook it up in the node tree, save as... and send the .hip file to see where I might be going wrong in one or more of my nodes. Even better, because of the nodal nature of Houdini, I can examine someone else's .hip file, and understand exactly how to achieve a desired effect because I can see step-by-step exactly what they did. Think of nodes as a "work history" embedded in the actual Houdini file, a very detailed peek into what's behind the curtain! This is simply not possible with any other DCC as far as I can tell.

Houdini evolved a lot from 10 years ago. The improvements of modeling for example started when many XSI users went there. You can model a car in Houdini like in any other subdivision application like C4D.

I actually downloaded and installed Houdini a decade or two ago and tried the tutorials available at the time. I found it confusing and did not understand why anyone would prefer it to XSI, C4D, or Maya. I had two misconceptions. One was that it was much too difficult to create simple things. The second was that you didn't have to write a single line of code if you just used the nodes. To be fair, most of the lines of code required to do procedural modeling are the equivalent of "transform the second object in the y axis the equivalent of the first object's height." I tried again a few years later and gave up on it again. I am not expert in Houdini, but it meets my needs better than any other 3D program I've used. Modeling in Houdini, as with any other 3D program generally starts with primitives, and there are not as many as in C4D. There is no cone or disk or helix for example. So yes, learning Houdini requires a slightly different way of thinking apart from just learning the software. For general 3D asset creation, it will not really be better than other software (like C4D, Blender, Modo, Maya, etc.) and will generally be slower but not really that different conceptually. But pretend, for example, that C4D did not have a grid or a cone or a cube. If it had a line, you could extrude that to create a grid. In Houdini, there is a plane, but if there weren't, you could start with a line and add an extrude node. A cube is just an extruded grid, so a second extrude node would convert a grid to a cube (although there is a cube in Houdini that you could start with). If you took a line and rotated it with a revolve node, you could create a cone without a base, but you can add a polyfill node with the right settings and get exactly the same as a C4D cone. If you rotated the line around an axis 90 degrees, you have a disk. One could then do typical box modeling with extrudes, bevels, knife cuts, etc. as you might in any other program; but you would have the ability to go back and change the node used to create the cone or cube or whatever and change the angle, height, etc and those changes would propagate forward. The limitations of the above example can be seen in the cone. When a line is rotated and then revolved, the height of the cone will not be the length of the line. So then you will have to add a transform and have some knowledge of trigonometry to get an exact height to match the original line. To avoid this, you would add a "wrangle" node with code: @P.x += @ptnum/@numpt; //to rotate the points on the line. That is not a lot of code, but it shows that just using nodes can be a limitation. Fortunately, once one starts thinking like this, it is pretty easy to recreate C4D's mograph features, add particles and emitters, add the equivalent of gravity and wind nodes, and so on. One can get lost in the various nodes, but there are ways of simplifying this with groups, layers, etc. At worst, you can freeze all the steps or just export to an obj or fbx file and then bring that back into Houdini to do some FX. ConeSimple.hiplc

I switched entirely to Houdini from C4D a year or so ago. The advantages of Houdini (apart from the cost) are that everything (points, polygons, etc.) can get assigned as many attributes as you wish, and these attributes can be controlled by fairly simple formulas or relationships. There is no separation between things like Xpresso and the rest of the program the way there is in C4D. These attributes can be used to control position, color, speed, etc - and that is part of why Houdini is so good for FX. There is no doubt that learning Houdini is harder than in C4D. You have to build a lot of things that get done automatically in C4D (especially regarding base shapes, UVs, and materials), but you can use what you have developed on one scene to copy into another or to create a digital asset for use in other scenes. There is a myth that Houdini is entirely procedural, but it is true that one can develop a complex simulation and then feed a different node in at some place earlier in the tree to get a completely different result. There are often several ways to model in Houdini, and if you use a lot of "edit" nodes, it will end up no more procedural than any other program. But when you want the procedural features and build the models using procedural nodes (like scattering buildings over a scene that all are shaped somewhat differently), it excels. I tend to make small editing mistakes, and it used to drive me crazy that I couldn't slightly change what I did three steps ago or decide to put a 12 sided cylinder rather than a 16 sided one for a part of the model. I often gave up and started my models from scratch before Houdini. Now, often I can fix the model with a few changes in nodes rather than recreate them from the beginning - so it works for me. Houdini is more like an object programming environment than strictly a 3d content creation application. If C4D was visual basic, Houdini would be C++. You have more power but have to deal with the innards a lot more.