Midphase

The new title is quite good...if you're a fifth grader. Congrats?

Would it be too much to ask the OP to change the click-bait title to something that more clearly describes the issue?

Redshift will apparently need Big Sur due to some AMD driver stuff. Assuming the typical Apple release cycle, that would be late September/early October at the earliest.

Well...wouldn't you know it? OTOY managed to actually deliver on their promise of an OSX Metal version of Octane. I know many C4D users prefer Octane to other options, as well as working in OSX. Now they can have both. It will be interesting to see how this shapes things up, particularly with upcoming AMD GPU's, as well as in the future with ARM based Macs (which supposedly Octane is also already compatible with). Here's a link to the official announcement: https://home.otoy.com/octane-x-pr1/

I thought Camera Mapping in Houdini is quite doable. There is however a severe lack of tutorials on it. Also, check out the brand new SideFX Labs Trim Texture.

Same here, it's a bit like visiting an old friend that you don't really hang out with anymore, but you still care about knowing how they're doing.

An even simpler solution -- create Blendercafe.com!!!

I'm curious as to what your favorite way is to send files back and forth between Houdini and Blender? I tend to use Alembic since FBX gives me issues with Blender Z-up vs. Houdini Y-up as well as the different scale.

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

ODForce seems weirdly semi-abandoned lately. The Discord server is pretty active: https://discord.gg/b8U5Hdy

Redshift for Metal official preview?

I think that's true for most industries. Everyone is (rightfully) afraid that their value will be diminished as more and more people enter their particular trade.

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.

Hello Dave, Thanks for the sympathy. I understand perfectly well the difference between a subscription and a so-called "maintenance plan" which in other industries involves being able to make a phone call to a technician whenever you please to solve whatever issue you might have -- not an option with RS. As I said, for all intents and purposes, since quite often RS will release a version with missing functionality/incorrect functionality, the end user is tied to the "maintenance plan" regardless making it effectively a forced subscription whether they want to call it that or not. MAXON is the reason for a push for RS to work with OSX since many C4D users still prefer to work in OSX. Regardless, the more colleagues I talk with offline or Discord, the more I hear various frustrations with RS. For me it's tied to the whole OSX thing, for others it's tied to other reasons -- but it's frustration nonetheless. As I said, up until recently I was a big promoter of RS, including giving lectures on RS in Houdini and making RS a big part of my tutorial channel. Now I feel like they've completely turned their back on people like me and I'm not quite sure I have much interest in going back even when they do eventually deliver an RS Metal version. Maybe they will consider doing the right thing, and create an incentive for users like me to return, like for instance allow my maintenance renewal to start from the public release of RS for Metal as opposed to backdating it from when it expired? I certainly hope so.

I guess someone should tell that to AVID and many of the other companies that allow you to do just that. Also, can we stop calling it a "maintenance" plan whatever that means? It's a subscription, paid in full for the entire year! Sure your license will continue working after the maintenance has expired, but what's the point if the version you have is riddled with bugs, or is now incompatible with the software or hardware that you're using? So whether you like it or not, you're still bound to having to pay the maintenance plan year after year. I'm on OSX -- RS promised a Metal version by the end of 2019, that came and went. Then they said 1st quarter 2020, and that is now passed. Latest from Panos is an evasive weeks or months. What am I supposed to do? Pay them $250 for the hell of it? I stayed on High Sierra for as long as I could, but ultimately I had to upgrade since all of my other apps required it (I can't move to Windows because of other OSX-only apps that are key to my business). So where does that leave me? To pay $250 if/when RS for Metal beta is released hopefully later this year (with I'm sure will have tons of bugs), and then pay yet another $250 in January in hopes that the bugs and missing features are added back in 2020? If you can step in my shoes for just a bit, you can see just how frustrating this can be -- and up until recently I considered myself an RS evangelist! I think there are better ways to handle this. Offer a returning customers discount to get back unto a full maintenance, so maybe instead of another $500 after one lapsed year, it's more like $300 or some other figure that doesn't quite feel like a spit in the face of past customers. Alternatively, maybe make the "maintenance" plan more affordable, how about $100/year? That seems reasonable. Or alternatively, if OSX is currently not-really supported, offer an option for OSX users that doesn't penalize them for missing a year of maintenance where they would be paying for absolutely nothing. Best option of all IMHO would be to just go to a subscription plan similar to Octane. $20/month, sign up when you need it, cancel when you don't. In the meantime Blender EEVEE and Cycles GPU are looking mighty fine!

Actually that’s a very limited understanding of Houdini, but I can see why people who haven’t used it might come to that conclusion.

Alembic?

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

Ok, but just because RS has the same business model as MAXON doesn't necessarily mean that it's a particularly great business model. You guys should consider an Upgrade path for users whose "maintenance" plan has lapsed that doesn't cost as much as a brand new purchase.

Not to divert the conversation into a different topic, but I find the revulsion to subscriptions-based tech apps to be weirdly misplaced. When it comes to apps where the technology is literally changing from day to day, subscription kinda makes a lot of sense. Now -- let me follow that point by saying that there are some apps which have unreasonably high subscription costs -- and that is a different conversation. However, with the speed of technology, particularly in the CG field, I don't really see a whole lot of advantage to owning a product for several good reasons. The only argument in favor that makes a bit of sense would be to have access to old files, but is that really such a big deal? Sure it's nice to be able to open a C4D file that you created 15 years ago -- but do you really want to? Chances are the model or whatever was created back then would need completely new textures and shaders, relighting, and it probably still wouldn't be as good as what could be accomplished in a much shorter amount of time just by starting from scratch!

Before all the RS fanboys chime in with outrage at your daring to speak against their favorite render engine, I want to say that I agree with you. Fundamentally what RS has managed to do is create a system which is comprised of the worst of both subscription and purchase worlds. In effect what they manage to do is punish loyalty from their user base rather than reward it. There are better and smarter ways to handle upgrades that are fair to both parties and incentivize the customer base. After two years (and $750), I have stopped renewing my "maintenance plan" with RS due to my inability to use it in OSX. The promised Metal upgrade which originally was hinted at arriving by late 2019, then announced to be arriving by the 1st Quarter of 2020, now looks like it's still many months off. At this rate, by the time there is a stable and usable version of RS for Metal I might as well purchase a brand new license from scratch since the cost will be the same.

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.

I don't know what's going on over at Redshift, but this past year has been a pretty substantial disappointment for me and I will not renew my maintenance until either they release a beta of Redshift for Metal or bring Redshift 3.0 out of beta. Of course, for the regular RS fanboys, they can do no wrong, but I can tell there is a lot of users who aren't quite as giddy. They heavily hinted at a RS 3 release in Q4 2018 back at Siggraph 2018. A year and a half and a MAXON acquisition later RS 3 is still in beta with no real idea of when it will be considered "production ready" although according to a recent GreyscaleGorilla blog, they certainly don't feel that the current beta is. I suspect that despite claiming complete autonomy from MAXON, a lot of their behind-the-scenes efforts have been diverted into either a future full integration of RS into C4D or some other MAXON-related endeavor. Of course I'm just speculating, but I really don't see how else to explain their consistent delays and evasive communication when it comes to a release schedule. I'm still optimistic about RS getting their stuff together soon, but right about now Octane is starting to look pretty interesting.

It looks like Otoy is beating Redshift to the punch: http://www.cgchannel.com/2020/01/sneak-peek-octane-x/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cgchannel%2FnHpU+%28CG+Channel+-+Entertainment+Production+Art%29