Isleofgough

I’m curious about your decision, since you have houdini. I use both C4D and Houdini but cannot yet replace everything I do in C4D with Houdini. Partially it is because I am not good enough in VEX and Hscript programming, but also because there are things houdini can’t do (sculpting, npr renders where one wants some of the more advanced options that C4D offers). For me, modeling is much quicker in C4D, as things like sweeps give you a reasonable set of options and decent uv’s without having to add a lot of extra nodes and VEX code. Was your experience similar?

What you are asking for is a bit complicated. Illustrator has a trim function, as its points are all bezier (with linear being a subset). The curves also are all on one plane, so it is not complicated for the programmers to write the code. At a level above this, nurbs modeling (like Moi3D) or CAD programs (Rhino, AutoCAD, etc.) can do projection cutting/trimming - but they also only have one point type. The difficulty with what you are asking for is what do you mean by a trim if the two curves do not cross in the 3D space? Are you asking for a projection cut? If the points are changed from linear to bezier to b-spline, those intersetion points will all be different. The suggestions from others above are good. One way partially around this in C4D is to use a mograph tracer for your curves and have nulls be the points. You can share a null between the two mograph tracer curves and they will absolutely intersect and you can remove nulls outside the intersection. You could also do this similarly in SideFx Houdini, but then you would have to do a fair bit of VEX coding or be creative with you clip nodes.

Good luck. For some things Houdini is easier than Cinema 4D (even in modeling), since it doesn't have to change from parametric to editable to perform certain operations the way C4D does. Some simple things are a bear to do in Houdini (materials, no polypen tool, nonintuitive NPR rendering, limited sculpting, need to delve into VEX far more than one would need to use xpresso and remember completely different set of functions in hscript). If you want to specialize in VFX, it does make sense to move to Houdini, but you will still need to be a decent modeler. I love Houdini, but I renewed my MSA for C4D.

Why not just loft your cloned splines? That should work.

Figuring out the splines plane orientation can sometimes be not intuitive, but it doesn't take much time to figure out the best orientation by clicking the three possibilities. In the example I gave, the spline is just a simple line with two points. One can animate the spline itself in one of two ways. The simple way is to add a few nulls and use the tracer object to connect these nulls. The position of the nulls can be animated. The more complicated way of doing this is to animate point level control in xpresso for the points on a spline. I think there is a tutorial you can find with google that explains all the options for sweep nurbs. If you are thinking of making this editable, be very careful with the options on how the spline is interpreted or you can get way too many points and polygons. If you want something very complicated, like a tentacle that is animated, there are other programs (Houdini) that give you more options, since there are limited secondary edits one can do on a procedural model in C4D without changing the model to editable (which will lose animation options). For the model you show, I would probably do that as a lathe nurb rather than sweep nurb anyway, as you can control the smoothing a points better though. SweepTracer.c4d

I don't know why you wouldn't just animate the oil tank, but you can approximate the shape with a sweep if you really need to do this (see attached file, push play button) SweepOilTank.c4d

Houdini indie is about the price of a plugin and is far better than C4D or Modo for parametric modeling, simple as well as complex. However, I would agree that for quick modeling , C4D is far better. C4D is also better for NPR rendering, quick development of shaders and materials, and it has pretty good sculpting. The combination of those two programs is great for almost everything you could ask for. For the rare things missing, 3D coat or zbrush creates a complete suit.

Check our Rohan Dalvi’s Vimeo channel, lessons 1-4 to get started with Houdini.

This discussion seems pointless. If I create a rumor that Microsoft is buying softimage, would we discuss the ramifications for all other DCC programs for days? Oh yes, they did own XSI.

Some good advice from Cutman, quoting from 11/12/2017: "Right, that's it from me, I don't want to be THAT person who has moved to a different application and spends the next few years brow beating people who use the previous application. It gets old quickly. So cheers everyone and see you around maybe over on the sidefx forums if you happen to be in the area. "

http://3dcoat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21682-black-friday-sales/ $100 off 3D coat

Regarding crashes: houdini is not as stable as C4D, at least on OSX. The need to use VEX or python will come up well before one needs to do anything more than xpresso in C4D. As a modeling alternative, I don’t know anyone who thinks it is as easy or versatile for most modeling compared with C4D, modo, or whatever. It is a great program and very powerful, but it is still a bit of a niche in the 3D world for special effects. The indie version is no doubt the best deal of any 3D program other than blender.

Quoting from the best.... You have lots of knowledge of both programs. I've hit roadblocks with both Modo and C4D , but generally I get further in C4D. Houdini to use all its power really requires VEX and Python programming knowledge. They make xpresso look like a walk in the park.

Regarding Modo: As Nigel said in the Modo forum recently, "While the bevel tool has been improved it's still behind the competition. The Foundry push Modo as "Use best-in-class direct modeling tools combined with a robust and flexible procedural modeling system". They need to check out the Bevel tool in Cinema 4D, plus the knife tool and polygon pen tool. All are superior to Modo's equivalents. Modo's modelling guide system is so bad and unuseable they might as well remove it. Again, Cinema 4D's modelling guide system and dynamic guide are vastly superior and make precision modelling easier. While some animation enhancements would be most welcome as a modeller I want to see modelling tool enhancements. Curve / spline drawing in Modo is very primitive compared to other apps." The procedural additions to Modo are welcome, but not nearly as flexible as Houdini's. Frankly, I find this sort of modeling much EASIER in Houdini, as at any point, one has the full power to add any operators for modeling, animation, etc. I know this thread is about Houdini and not Modo, but since Modo was brought up, I think it is not up to C4D in lots of features (curves and CA and mograph notably) and it shares the slow down with complex models. I frankly don't find working in that program very enjoyable. I know people love to hate Maya, but it has come a long way over the past few years, and I would probably think about Maya before Modo if I were looking at an alternative to C4D. That is not an endorsement for Autodesk as a company though. But back to Houdini. Houdini can slow down with complicated scenes and certain render settings. However, unlike C4D and Modo, one can export out position settings for fractures or clones that give much simpler point positions. This can be reimported and linked to complex models, resulting in much faster animations. Houdini is brilliant software, and very logical and powerful. Since it gives you access to the programming behind procedurals, it can be manipulated at a lower level to create amazing models and scenes. If one tries to create complicated models without some programming, I think it would not be as useful or powerful as many of the other 3D content creating tools, such as Maya, C4D, etc. It is also easy to get lost in all the nodes. I too have been thinking of transitioning to Houdini, but the learning curve is pretty formidable.

To beat a dead horse: Finding the most powerful program by an internet search can lead you to huge waste of time and money. I know, because I've been there. I came to C4D from Softimage, and abandoned that excellent program due to lack of OSX option and its abandonment as it changed ownership. I miss it. C4D is powerful for a generalist. It may have limitations for very complex scenes, advanced mograph, the most sophisticated character animation, etc. but it performs a great job with stability and speed for the vast majority of users. Maya, for instance, may be more powerful for movie houses, but they have a team of MEL programmers. Modo used to be a good modeler, marginally better than C4D - since it had things like falloff, but it was not stable. It has become more stable but also less intuitive to me, and it lags far behind C4D for CA. At one time, its renderer was better than C4D, but I am not sure that is true anymore with physical renderer and the variety of third party renderers. I love Houdini. It makes lots of sense and is wonderful for special effects. But do you really think it is a good a powerful program for organic modeling? Have you watched the videos for creating a human figure? Mantra may be a great renderer for special effects, but it is not ideal for architectural rendering. I haven't found any program that can replace C4D for speed in the projects I've had. That makes it pretty powerful to me.

C4D has advantages of stability, intuitiveness, ease of creating models, simplicity (of things like mograph), NPR rendering, fur/hair, etc. For things like modeling a human, I would use this (or Modo or Maya or 3Ds Max) any day over Houdini, as Houdini is going to save every edit as a node. Where Houdini excels are things like particles, fire, fluids, etc. Its parametric paradigm means that one can substitute complex models for simple objects after the fact. One can do a bit of this with cloners in C4D, changing spheres to teacups etc., but unlike C4D the substitution is much more flexible and not limited to some subset of the program. For example, one can create tentacles of an octopus with something like a sweep nurb, but in Houdini, one can then select certain polygons and create bevels like the suction cup parts. The original curves are still there, so they can be animated, yet the sweep is much more complicated than C4D allows without converting to a polygon object. In addition, points can have an infinite number of attributes, not just position in space over time. One can create an attribute that is based on some function over time (like sin(time)) or add an attribute of some randomness between 0 and 1. These additional attributes can be used to drive models, particles, etc. Unlike C4D, you seldom paint yourself into a box. For instance, (excluding the bevel effector in C4D), if one creates a complicated bevel and wants to reduce the number of polygons, it just requires a click in Houdini. One has to do a lot of remodeling in C4D. The rendering system (Mantra) in Houdini also allows much more complicated shaders. However, all this comes at an expense of complexity. For instance, creating a spring (sweep nurb of circle along a helix) is a couple of clicks in C4D but requires several not completely intuitive nodes in Houdini.

Cinema 4D has worked very well for me, but since I do not earn income from 3D, the price of maintenance is pretty high. I thought about jumping ship for Modo and I own a copy of that, but its lack of history state and parametric features (beyond very elementary) made it not workable for my needs. Houdini however is cheaper and more powerful, at the expense of some ease of use and stability. On a 2017 iMac, C4D is definitely more stable, but I haven't lost any scenes in Houdini from the occasional crash. Houdini allows one to directly manipulate attributes much better than C4D. For simple animations, I do not find it any harder than C4D. Some things are simpler. For example, if one starts with a sweep nurb in C4D to build a tree, roots, or blood vessels; and then wants to create branches, one has to change the nurb to an editable polygon object. There is no such limitation in Houdini, so this is actually simpler. The issue with Houdini is that everything always is procedural, and this can create a lot of nodes that one doesn't really need. One can collapse these down, but for fast modeling, it is not as easy as C4D. If one is not doing mograph type work, I'm not sure there is much advantage in Houdini other than cost (for Indie). The material system is more powerful, but definitely more complicated.

Moi3D does a bit better converting Rhino solids to polygons than Rhino itself.