/3/ - 3DCG

[Anonymous No.633041]

Are there Houdini users on /3/? What are you learning or working on?

[Anonymous No.633073]

I've been learning it for the past two months, so I'm pretty much still a novice. Currently, I'm learning to light in it, using Mantra, following Birn's Digital Lighting and Rendering.

[Anonymous No.633086]

Houdini Procedural Lake Houses from Anastasia Opara
This gal has absolutely BLOWN my mind about what this package can do in hands of competent mathematician and artist.

Now I lament I skipped maths when I had a chance.

[Anonymous No.633214]

Just finished up on a large scale crowds project, posted it here in WIP: >>633196

Other than that, just enjoying my time off between studios. I'll probably do some pyro rnd in the next couple weeks, and experiment a bit more with rebuilding solvers. Houdini is truly my favourite 3d app, it has opened so many doors.

>>633086
She's incredible. One of the extremely rare cases where someone is both creatively and technically gifted to an insane degree. Massive respect for her.

[Anonymous No.633223]

>>633041
I actually just installed an apprentice version today. Getting used to the interface and all of the nodes

[Anonymous No.633234]

>>633223
my wip on an ocean I decided to be my first project

[Anonymous No.633236]

>>633041
quick maths

[Anonymous No.633244]

>>633236
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.633477]

Anyone had any luck exporting rigs and animations from Houdini to something like UE4? It seems that Houdini's way of handling skeletons (bone based rather than joint based) fucks up when I try to export it to a joint based system (UE4, Maya).

Is there a way to convert it on export or something? If this worked, I could finally ditch Maya for good.

[Anonymous No.633569]

Do you people polymodel in Houdini, or elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.633779]

>>633477
If you have 10 bux to spare, this third party tutorial might be helpful:
https://www.sidefx.com/tutorials/game-rigging-in-houdini-creating-export-friendly-character-rigs/

>>633569
I've personally always modeled in Houdini.

[Anonymous No.633781]

I'd like to ask this to people who use Houdini. What made you choose Houdini over a more traditional modeling software? How hard was it to learn and how do you enjoy it now?

[Anonymous No.633822]

>>633781
Initially I mainly did VFX, so Houdini was a no-brainer. When I started learning it properly, I realized I'd never go back to non node-based modelling, it's just so insanely convenient. If Maya decides to wreck your mesh for no apparent reason there isn't really much you can do without it being a huge headache, but if that happens in Houdini it's very much like debugging a piece of code, usually fast and simple. I think the best comparison is Maya being Microsoft Word, while Houdini is LaTeX.

The real benefit comes when you learn to model procedurally. You still get the above benefits if you model normally, but when you start actually using the procedural elements it gets even better. Also, it does fucking everything without needing plugins, best example is how I'd have to buy a plugin or use After Effects to compose a flipbook from Maya, but I can just set up Houdini to directly spit out a flipbook instead, saving me a lot of work.

[Anonymous No.634111]

Is Houdini truly the endgame of 3d software? What can't it do? Everything I've read and seen about it so far just presents it as the perfect 3dcg production suite. Outside of price, is there even a reason why alternatives are considered over it?

[Anonymous No.634113]

>>634111
It can do basically anything another package can do.

There are still some quirks (keyframes automatically bezier, why the fuck), but overall yeah if it continues on this trajectory it will be a staple in every VFX department.

Reasons for using other software at the moment are that Houdini is still mostly used for FX work, while other packages are used for animation, etc (though it is becoming popular in assets modeling). Big companies with a lot of time and effort spent on their pipeline won't switch to Houdini for a lot of this work for a fair while, and I'll bet animation will be the last to transition, even though RIGHT NOW Houdini is objectively better for rigging and animation.

[Anonymous No.634262]

This might be a really dumb question but does VFX software differ between games and film/media industry?

[Anonymous No.634264]

>>634262
No, but how you use it does. For movies and such you usually use the simulation itself directly, while for games you'll need to take several snapshots of it to make a flipbook sequence that you then bring into the engine and try to make it look like it's not just a sequence of flat sprites.

[Anonymous No.634395]

>>634264
Here we have a true pro...

[Anonymous No.634482]

Well I'm trying to make a monster emerge from the ocean but for some reason I'm unable to find any good resource on what a setup like that would look like, as in a flip tank driven by an infinite ocean around it with realistic foam. Does anyone know of something like that?

[Anonymous No.634517]

>>634111

any of the big packages can do anything houdini can do, except usually 50x faster and you dont require a maths degree to do it

only exception is stuff that is fundamentally procedural....like fractals, generative modeling and such. houdini excels at that.

its like the difference between writing a term paper in microsoft word, or writing it in html and formatting it in css. sure, css is going to ultimately give you more customization options, but why waste time with that shit (unless totally necessary), when you could just use a cookie cutter solution that will get the job done way faster.

[Anonymous No.634531]

>>634517
>when you could just use a cookie cutter solution that will get the job done way faster.
That's the thing. You use a cookie cutter when that's enough for the job. You use something like Houdini when you want to fit the process to your ends, and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.634685]

>>634517
you don't need math to do shit in houdini though
It helps, sure, but you can just work with wrangles and nodes and shit

[Anonymous No.634694]

>>634517
>any of the big packages can do anything houdini can do, except usually 50x faster and you dont require a maths degree to do it
>only exception is stuff that is fundamentally procedural....like fractals, generative modeling and such. houdini excels at that.
How about VFX, you massive retard?

There's a reason Houdini pros are paid a lot more than others: Houdini is LaTeX where Maya/Modo/3DS/etc are Word.

[Anonymous No.634698]

>>634685

You really don't know what your're talking about, correct? You just read term "wrangle" somewhere and now want to sound knowledgeable.

"Wrangles" are Houdini nodes in which you input Vex code, so you are basically writing snippets of programming code in them. Now you don't "need" math for programming, but when it comes to manipulating points in 3D space you kind of have to understand some of it. Vectors, arrays, matrices, dot product, trigonometry - you NEED that in Houdini if you want to use Vex and "wrangles" and shit.

You can get away in Houdini with just using shelf tools and basic nodes, but if you want to do custom advnced stuff you need wrangles and math and shit

[Anonymous No.634700]

>>634698
nah, I do know what I'm talking about, I'm just being retarded and called an attribute vop a wrangle.
Also you don't really need to be good at math to use vex on beginner and even intermediate level, and vectors, trigonometry and matrices are part of the school program (at least in my country), which I assume everyone has studied.
I understand why someone would say something like that, but in al seriousness you don't even need Vex to be good at Houdini, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.634715]

>>634698
>Vectors, arrays, matrices, dot product, trigonometry - you NEED that in Houdini if you want to use Vex and "wrangles" and shit.
That's high school math. Please, tell me that when people are afraid of Houdini & math they are thinking of something more complex. Or tell me otherwise, and make my day, because I'll plunge right away into the program.

[Anonymous No.634746]

>>634715
Trig, vectors and matrices all you need for basic procedural modeling and effects. Nothing more complex than you would need for e.g. building a high quality rig in Maya.

It gets more complicated when you want to do things like write your own fluid simulation. Which is something that can be necessary if you want to get to the highest levels of simulation. This is comparatively "easy" to do in Houdini, as the solvers are open box if you want to plug in your own algorithms, but you'll need to do physics math to take advantage of those features.

[Anonymous No.634761]

Voxelization + Decimation seems pretty good.

I'm having trouble with the autouv thing though, it likes to generate a lot of tiny single poly islands

[Anonymous No.635471]

This made me laugh: https://vimeo.com/282088899

What's the story behind the rubber toy?

[Anonymous No.635472]

>>633041
>>>/pol/180582140

[Anonymous No.635485]

>>635471
I'm not sure there's any exciting story behind it. Houdini has a handful of built in oddball primitives. The pig head and squid show up in plenty of tech demos.

[Anonymous No.635504]

>>634694

how about vfx? huh? are you seriously implying that other packages can't handle "vfx"

were you dropped on your head as a baby you stupid fuck?

[Anonymous No.635505]

>>635485
The pig head is the weirdest one, it's not even a normal pig head, it's some sort of humanoid pig head you'd see in a horror movie.

>>635504
>how about vfx? huh? are you seriously implying that other packages can't handle "vfx"
Not even half as well as Houdini, you shit-smeared mongoloid.

[Anonymous No.635524]

hey my dudus,
looking to get into houdini but a little bit confused as to where to start. i'm most interested in the non-dynamics based procedural stuff it can do, but i know i still need to have a handle on the core dynamics stuff before even approaching the other stuff.

anyone got recommendations for a specific course, or even a curriculum of sorts? i've been looking at:
-adam swaab's learn squared courses
-gnomon workshop's houdini kickstart
-rohan dalvi's stuff (but not sure which one to start with)

ideally i want something that touches most of what houdini has to offer, before diving into a specific area.

also, how good is the arnold implementation in houdini compared to something like the native mantra renderer? i know none of the courses/tutos use arnold so it's not a consideration there, just wondering how viable it is down the line.

[Anonymous No.635527]

>>635524
>-gnomon workshop's houdini kickstart
Skip this one. Bad practices.

>-rohan dalvi's stuff (but not sure which one to start with)
Good enough. https://www.sidefx.com/learn/collections/introduction-to-houdini/

For procedural modeling, the gold-standard course may very well be Anastasia Opara's "Houdini Procedural Lake Houses" series. But you need to have some experience already with Houdini and especially VEX.

>where to start
I'd suggest this: https://www.sidefx.com/learn/getting_started/
Start with the book, then the Basics, then Dalvi's introduction, then go over http://www.tokeru.com/cgwiki/index.php?title=HoudiniGettingStarted in the presented order. If you do this while constantly referring to Houdini's docs, you'll get a good basic grasp of all areas of the program.

Also, the docs are a good way to start, however it can be a bit dry at times. Read at least the introductory sections -- "Getting Started", all of it; "Using Houdini", preferably all of it; "Nodes", go over them so you know is there available to you. https://www.sidefx.com/docs/houdini/

[Anonymous No.635528]

>>635527
>so you know is there
*so you know what is there

[Anonymous No.635529]

>>635527
>>635528
ta v.much. very helpful.

[Anonymous No.635541]

>>635524
I recommend the Pluralsight intro. It touches most areas of the software, teaches best practices and the instructor is adorable.

[Anonymous No.635567]

>>635541
Cheers. I might quickly run through the dalvi one and then do the pluralsight thing. The book and the dalvi tutorial don't appear to get into the sim stuff much at all.

[Anonymous No.635568]

>>635541
>>635567
Just a quick question tho, I know Houdini has had some major changes in the last few years. Is it okay to look at tutorials from v15 without worrying too much about that there are better ways to do things in 16.5?

[Anonymous No.635595]

>>635527
>how hard could it be?
>Hard surfaces sounds cool
>brutal Rohan Dalvi course from hell
>jesus christ
>maybe he has an easier one
>the hot fudge brownie tutorial
>fuck
Fudge brownie took me 3 weeks to finish and its one of the best.
>>635567
check out abstract effects in houdini by Niels PRAYER for a good intro to sims

[Anonymous No.635656]

No mention of H17 at SIGGRAPH so far, but a few TBDs in the schedule. It's about time we get a sneak peek, isn't it?

Also, pic related. Sounds very interesting.

[Anonymous No.635657]

>>635656
Yeah would be about time now. I imagine there will be a lot of modelling and animation stuff, maybe I can finally ditch Maya for good.

[Anonymous No.635663]

>>635657
I am re-familiarizing myself with Maya since we are switching our pipeline at work from Lightwave (lol).I don't want judge too quickly, but this application seems a bit old and crusty, which is funny because Houdini has been around just as long. On the surface it looks and feels like something from the 90s, I'm hoping it's not that bad once we are deeper into it.

>>635656
I have a feeling 17 will be another monster release, like 15.5 -> 16. I've read that they will be introducing a couple of new contexts as well (LOPs & TOPs), should be interesting.

[Anonymous No.635665]

>>635663
>new contexts as well (LOPs & TOPs),
I didn't know about that, just read now on odforce some speculation about what they might be. I'm hoping LOPs have to do with lighting, which would make sense considering RenderMan 22 IPR is expected to come Q4 this year.

[Anonymous No.635669]

>>635657
Please God let them push the animation and rigging forward. I am so sick of the Autodesk monopoly on animation tools.

[Anonymous No.635670]

>>635663
Maya suffered a curse of popularity. They can't change a damn thing about it because there are so many piles of proprietary tools that are built around its strangeness. The strange APIs, bullshit nodes, MEL, it's calcified and untouchable. I mean the tool ecosystem is incredible, but the software is stuck in the 90s.

[Anonymous No.635672]

>>635663
>On the surface it looks and feels like something from the 90s
That's because it is, and it only gets worse. Partly because of what >>635670 said, partly because Autodesk is incompetent (see: recent attempts at adding modern features into Maya and how horribly they were handled).

[Anonymous No.635713]

>>633041
R20 seems to make houdini less interesting now

[Anonymous No.635715]

>>634113
>RIGHT NOW Houdini is objectively better for rigging and animation.
>bone-based
>better than joint-based
Hell fucking no.
No.
I'll take stuck-in-the-90s Maya any day of the year.

[Anonymous No.635748]

>>635715
I don't understand. "Bones" and "joints" are interchangeable terms AFAIK. Both refer to the thing that a game engine like Unreal does. What does Houdini do differently?

[Anonymous No.635757]

>>635713
I suppose you're talking about C4D. Had to look up what new features it's got. They are good, but nothing new for a Houdini user. Anyway, the great thing about Houdini is the nodal-based process, and its programmability; nothing in the new C4D release (as far as I could see) gets it closer to Houdini in that regard.

[Anonymous No.635758]

>>635748

[Anonymous No.635763]

>>635656
>>635657
I missed it somehow. In the schedule, it reads "H17 Sneak Peek - PolyDraw 1.0".

[Anonymous No.635780]

>>635595
>mfw i go to his twitter and see he's making daz titty girls

[Anonymous No.635784]

>>635780
kek
Yeah, was surprised to see what content he makes in his free time when he puts out Houdini tuts of that quality.
We even had a thread bashing him a while back: https://archived.moe/3/thread/621100/

[Anonymous No.635811]

>>635784
had a good laugh while scrolling through his tweets.
heard about the rohan in an interview with serjan burlak and thought the dude would be doing some next-level autistic shit, so it's hilarious that he's so devoted to the dazgirls.
good for him tho.

[Anonymous No.635812]

>>635748
Maya handles rigs the way it should be done, Houdini is fucking stupid instead.
AFAIK Blender is also bone-based.
Bone-based rigs are literally unusable.
Not being able to move joints freely means you can't adapt to model/proportion changes (just think about mocap) and rework hierarchies on the fly. Just so people can deal with a "more intuitive" concept like a bone instead of an oriented point in 3d space.
Fuck that shit.
Fuck, just thinking about it makes me angry.

[Anonymous No.635818]

>>635811
Unironically better than 99% of DAZ output.

[Anonymous No.635841]

>>635818
>creates most if not all of the assets himself
>uses a very powerful render engine
As opposed to normal DAZ content that's all purchased assets arranged in a scene rendered in Iray. Shame that he tries to force the anime look onto his mannequins though, the faces really look terrifying. He made one portrait of Widowmaker that actually looked pretty good, but I don't know why the rest of his DAZ Dolls are all bug-eyed and shit.

[Anonymous No.636475]

>>634113
>(keyframes automatically bezier, why the fuck)
Does this solve it? (I'm no animator.)

[Anonymous No.636518]

>>634113
>RIGHT NOW Houdini is objectively better for rigging and animation
really? any reels/making-of/tuts you can recommend? can it do animation layering?

[Anonymous No.636523]

>>636518
https://vimeo.com/269110716

https://vimeo.com/273798604

[Anonymous No.636632]

Houdini Customer Reel 2018. Enjoy!

https://vimeo.com/283047555

[Anonymous No.636699]

>>633041
I'm also a studunt of the houdinis
I'm primarily focussed on building digital assets, and using vex. VEX is just amazing, its quick, its pretty easy to use if you are a bit versed in programming. The only downside is that documentation on it can be pretty obscure, notably in regard to intrinsic attributes.

The last thing I made was a vine gen with AI and optional gravity, so it could crawl along the floor and climb up things.

I'm getting into Dop Pop's next, so I can build some particle stuff for a unity project someone at the studio is working on.

[Anonymous No.636701]

>>634746

Knowing a bit about quaternions is pretty handy to. I'm struggling with them but I find some functions VERY handy, such as the dihedral to get a correct qrotate going

[Anonymous No.636978]

>>636475
Answering myself, since I'm learning to work with the animation tools. Yep, that setting sets the default tweening function -- I chose constant() and it works as expected.

[Anonymous No.638183]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqlL-_o8ioQ
Blender BTFO

[Anonymous No.638189]

>>638183
That course looks dope af. But why mention Blender, though?

[Anonymous No.638196]

>>638189
because some mental midgets here seriously claim that Blender is a contender for Houdini

[Anonymous No.638279]

>>633214
Any tutorials you can share? I do composting myself and really wanna open my skills up beyond nuke. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.638729]

>>638279
Not who you're replying to but I got my kickstart with this

https://vimeo.com/194219623

Don't know if it's still up for sale but you can probably get it on cgpeers.

If you comp with nuke your transition to houdini will be much smoother due to node workflow. I even got to learn some things to use in nuke, such as creating null nodes to use as master switches for motion blur / defocus on my entire comp

[Anonymous No.639023]

>>635568
ahhh It's hard to say, I would go through the docs first then look at tutorials but I've been reading the docs veraciously for the past week and I'm only about halfway through rofl

[Anonymous No.639041]

>>635568
>>639023
The Illume webinar videos might be a good thing to reference when you are checking out older tutorials. Sometimes they cover topics where workflows or best practices have changed.

https://www.sidefx.com/learn/talks/
Change the drop-down from All Types to Illume Webinar.

[Anonymous No.639131]

>>638729
I think Fusion 9 might be a second place contender for houdini pass off

[Anonymous No.639152]

https://vimeo.com/286242378

[Anonymous No.639164]

>>633041
Don't work on anything at home, usually doing small tests and example setups for work if needed. I work as FX TD for film however current company where I'm at is shit and now looking for new one. Almost decade of work experience.

[Anonymous No.639169]

how good are houdini's hair tools, compare to say xgen or gmh plugin?

[Anonymous No.639171]

>>639169
Traditionally hair and cloth have both been lackluster in Houdini but I think hair is now in quite good position. In next version of Houdini the cloth will get new solvers as well so maybe it will be good as well.

[Anonymous No.639172]

>>633041
Okay, this is epic

[Anonymous No.640131]

Peeps, do you participate in any of the Houdini forums? If so, and you see a question that can obviously be answered by reading the docs, do you bother to answer?

I'm of two minds here. I mean, on the one hand, I'd be helping someone learn, giving back, in a way, to a place from where I learn lots; but, on the other hand, I know the answer because at some time I read the docs, and this person clearly didn't, so I can't but think, "why should I spoon feed them?"

[Anonymous No.640179]

>>639164
It's really bothering me that the air flows along the disintegration.... What's supposed to be happening? If the object is being disintegrated by a laser or something, then wouldn't the force move the particles backwards? Or if it's like a meteor, wouldn't the particles start disintegrating from the front and then to the back?

[Anonymous No.640199]

>>635713
LOL just because C4D is better than Blunder doesn't mean its anywhere close to Houdini

[Anonymous No.640496]

Should I use smoke solver or pyro for regular smoke stuff ? I don't really get the difference other than pyro solver already have some built in micro solvers like turbulence and dissipation

[Anonymous No.640516]

>>640496
dunno lol I Blender only

[Anonymous No.640533]

>>640496
Smoke solver. I use smoke solver for explosions too, the pyro combustion model is pretty slow so often it's better to make your own.

[Anonymous No.640554]

>>640199
Just a comment

[Anonymous No.640558]

>>640554
What is that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.640562]

>>640533
thanks m8, any tips you'd like to share? I'm just messing around with each microsolver parameter to get a better grasp at what they do. I'm at the level where I can make some cool stuff, but if my supervisor asks "make it more X" I'd be lost

[Anonymous No.640572]

>>640558
Not who you're replying to but I have a big tip for you anyway. Study nature and the science of the pheonomen you wish to recreate. Understand what is happening and why. Software knowledge is good but not essential. You can always search the documentation once you've figured out what you want to do.

Solver settings are great and all, but the key to a good simulation is a good source. Good shit in, good shit out.

[Anonymous No.640573]

>>640179
Magic is happening! Bullshit magic that doesn't make any sense. But people eat it up because it "looks cool". There is an effect similar to this in A Wrinkle in Time and the new Jumanji

[Anonymous No.640613]

>>635505

>Not even half as well as Houdini, you shit-smeared mongoloid.

oh gosh. he actually believes this. will someone tell him??

[Anonymous No.640659]

>>640573
AAAAAlright, yeah I get, so it's being sucked by something, Jumanji style, it sort of makes sense then

[Anonymous No.640678]

building procedural ovens than crushing them

[Anonymous No.640757]

>>640678
That’s super cool. Why are you crushing ovens tho?

[Anonymous No.640832]

>>640613
>RRRREEEEEE ALL THE PROFESSIONALS AND THE ENTIRE MOVIE INDUSTRY IS WRONG USE MY SOFTWARE INSTEAD
Let me guess, you use Blender?

[Anonymous No.641065]

>>640613
Blundertards and their crappy amateur package

[Anonymous No.641091]

>>640613

Will someone tell him what? That blender sucks?

[Anonymous No.641092]

>>640832
>>641065
>>641091
Why do you think he must've been thinking of Blender? He could be honestly thinking of Maya or who-knows-what-else.

[Anonymous No.641096]

>>641092
it's /3 on Fagchan here
not a forum where any professionals waste their time

[Anonymous No.641097]

>>640678
>>how you do that?

[Anonymous No.641103]

>>641096
>not a forum where any professionals waste their time
But where else would professionals go to shitpost about anything and everything 3D related?

[Anonymous No.641215]

>make mesh in Houdini
>export to Substance Painter
>horrid seams
>google it
>"you gotta pixel snap your UVs"
>apparently not doing so will lead to unsightly seams
>google how to do that in Houdini
>ZERO results
>no options in any of the UV-related nodes in Houdini
Someone explain to me how to pixel-snap UVs in Houdini, I've been losing my sanity over this.

[Anonymous No.641220]

>>641215
Can you share a slice of the problematic geo, with UV mapping of course? No promise that I will be able to solve the problem, but I'd like to give it a try.

[Anonymous No.641223]

>>641220
Not really much to share, last hour or so I've been trying to find the root of this issue I have just been using a simple sphere made in Houdini, quick-UV'd with the new game auto UV tool (but any other method has the same result). Just make a sphere, UV it however you want (leave an exposed seam so it's easier to see), export to Substance, and apply any material (or even worse, a smart material). As you can see on the image, the seam is there, in this case I simply applied pure copper to it.

I've tried tri-planar projection, doesn't work (it does help pattern-heavy materials ignore the seam so you can't see it very well as they kinda hide it, but it's still there). I've tried with baked maps and with no maps, same result (so it's not a normal or curvature map bake issue). Isn't the whole point of applications like Painter that since you are painting on a 3D mesh, it doesn't give a fuck about UVs and its seams? Quite sure Mari for example cares nothing for UV seams.

[Anonymous No.641230]

>>641223
Is the seam visible on a render? Substance's viewport can't really be trusted for this, it may show seams because it's not using texture maps as they will be when exported, that is, with dilation and diffusion. Pic related, it's how a similar setup renders in Mantra.

[Anonymous No.641231]

>>641223
>>641230
Regarding smart materials, as far as I know, Substance Painter (or rather, the material in question) doesn't consider the shape of the mesh when projecting the material, it just fills the UV tile. The way around this is to carefully align the UV islands.

I assume it may be possible to do it more easily / automatically with Substance Designer, but I have no experience in that regard.

[Anonymous No.641235]

>>641230
>>641231
>Is the seam visible on a render?
Yes, both in the Substance render and inside UE4. It seems to be some sort of normalmap issue, the seam goes away for opaque materials (e.g. concrete) like concrete if I use tri-planar projection in Substance, but persists regardless if I use a shiny material (e.g. pure copper). The same happens with exports from Maya, so it seems that it is something with Substance rather than Houdini.

I don't mind not being able to use smart materials as I make my own stuff, but base materials (which are a good starting point) and smart masks fucking up is very annoying, though I guess my options are to either move to Mari (that can use PTEX) or simply hide my seams better.

[Anonymous No.641744]

>>638196
Blender + Houdini is consummate love.

[Anonymous No.641749]

>>640179
>>640573
Goddamn you are stupid. Middle-schooler brainlets. Do you fucking understand what is "test" or "setup"? Do you fucking understand the purpose of just toying around? Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.641824]

>>639152
Thanks for posting this.

>>641103
I want to know.

>>641749
Yo, fuck that. Look up dispersion rates of wood burning's gas production or shit. Just looks like a timelapse to me.

Personally, I'm learning Houdini so I can procedurally generate stupid, weird 3D printed art- but a lot of the basic tools may replace other bits I've used in the past.

[Anonymous No.641867]

Yasss

[Anonymous No.641870]

>>641867
LOL I wonder if X-Force manages to crack the license server in time or some P2p realease a hex.edited crack again and X-Force will be sulky like little girls again :"No Houdini 17 from X-Force beacause you've been bad!"

[Anonymous No.641876]

>>641867
Oh shit son! Judging by the background art I'm guessing cloth is one of the things getting updated?

>>641870
Yeah that was really silly.

[Anonymous No.641878]

>>641876
>Judging by the background art I'm guessing cloth is one of the things getting updated?
I guess so. It was like that with hair for H16. Plus in the Polydraw sneak peek there was a new tab visible, "Vellum", which some have hypothesized may have to do with cloth sim. Soon we'll know!

[Anonymous No.641917]

why is importing a camera to houdini such a retarded process? I have to pull it in through a alembic archive node and after 5 subgroups it's there but I can't scale it to houdini measurements, nothing happens. In nuke you create a camera, link the alembic fine, fucking done

[Anonymous No.641947]

>>641867
>>641876
I imagine there will be a lot of game development pipeline, modelling, and animation improvements, since Houdini is expanding rapidly in that direction.

[Anonymous No.641948]

>>641876
>>641878
Yup I've used it, it's fucken fantastic

[Anonymous No.642011]

>>641948
Great to hear. How did you get to test it, are you at a facility that gets the new toys early to test-drive?

[Anonymous No.643193]

I know there are a few jokes in the docs, so I thought, well, maybe this has to do with the Marquis de Sade, and I did a search to make sure. As it turns out, the first results weren't about the Marquis, but a porn actress who goes by the name "Sasha de Sade". Coincidence?

[Anonymous No.643246]

>>643193
>Sasha de Sade
>actress
Googled Sasha deSade : Shemale Pornstar Model
are you trying to get people off Houdini?

[Anonymous No.643415]

>>641948
how it compares with marvelous designer?

[Anonymous No.643448]

>>633041
>>641867
fuck, does this mean my sicrit cool software is gonna be overrun by mongs now? I mean it has been happening for 2 years now, but is this the straw that breaks the camel's back?

[Anonymous No.643451]

>>643448
What makes you say that?

[Anonymous No.643466]

>>643451
I'm gonna be nice I guess. After 16.5 there was a huge wave of newcomers watering down the forums. Everyone in the Houdini community is feeling it, the software's becoming the hot new meme among the Maya/Max/Blender brainlets (jk all these tools are great). Since 17 will probably give us even more tools for non-procedural modelling, game development and other quality of life features it's safe to assume that it's gonna pour more gasoline on the fire.

[Anonymous No.643473]

>>643466
That's obviously a byproduct of making the software more welcoming and giving it more attractive features, but it doesn't detract from the power that Houdini offers. Even if Houdini becomes the leading DCC of choice, you will still be able to do all the hardcore shit you want, and that will set you apart from the majority of the userbase.

Regarding the forums, you have a point. I'm more optimistic, though. Unless there's a massive influx of lazy, uneducated people (not possible with the current Houdini's learning curve, I believe), the community that currently fuels them will stay.

[Anonymous No.643536]

>>643466
so the only thing tat's missing is a procedural pr0n node

[Anonymous No.643541]

>>643536
soon™ there are people who already work on procedural orifices next step is algorithmically describing the actual process

[Anonymous No.643542]

>>643541

[Anonymous No.643561]

https://youtu.be/MIcUW9QFMLE

Did Houdini 17 just btfo Marvelous Designer?

[Anonymous No.643569]

>Watching a Houdini tutorial
>There's a siren blaring in the background of the video

[Anonymous No.643573]

>>643561
GPU accelerated multi-layer cloth solver.

Yep, it looks like it.

[Anonymous No.643575]

Hey guys does this looks to you like cgi or drone footage?

[Anonymous No.643601]

>>643561
Holy shit, everything in that looks incredible. Maybe it's time to switch.
>>643573
I wouldn't exactly say though, even if the cloth sim is far superior I personally find the 2D pattern-based workflow of Marvelous to be its strongest suite. It's what makes MD incredibly easy and convenient to use. Unless Houdini implements a similarly simple interface for their clothing stuff (or better yet: a bridge between MD and Houdini to port patterns and avatars for simulation in Houdini), I don't think Marvelous is out of the game yet.

[Anonymous No.643619]

>>643561
This shit looks BALLER! Although not as whiz-bang as some of the other features shown, the "straighten UV islands" thing is going to really come in handy.

[Anonymous No.643637]

>>643448
>>643451
>>643466
>>643473
This is an actual issue, happens with a lot of software (even worse for software that used to be paid and then went "free"). The forums get flooded with retards asking retarded questions, the devs can't keep up, and solutions get diluted, in the end your actual question that would have gotten a dev answer a month earlier gets ignored (or worse, some brainlet mongoloid tries to hijack your thread with a retarded question).

This happened to Unreal 4 when they removed the fee. Immediately underage and third world hordes swarmed the forums and wrecked the place.

[Anonymous No.643639]

>>643575
It looks like satellite data extrapolated to 3D.

[Anonymous No.643641]

>>635812
Wait so what happens if you use a morph target ona rigged model that changes proportions? That just doesnt work with houdini? Jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.643644]

>>635812
>Just so people can deal with a "more intuitive" concept like a bone instead of an oriented point in 3d space.
Man that's really weird, considering I've heard that Houdini already treats everything as point in 3d space, and houdini adepts are pretty fanatical about pushing that
Why would they choose bones? Joints-as-points would logically fit into "houdini way" as far as I understand it

[Anonymous No.643671]

>>643561
new unity plugin? fuck I have so much to learn

Houdini
Unity
Resolve15
Fusion 9
Substance Painter
Substance Designer
zBrush or Coat3D
Python
Vex
C#

anal fuck me up my ass

[Anonymous No.643672]

>>643641
>>643644
Is there a knowledgeable Houdini rigger out there to comment on this? I'm interested to hear both sides of the argument.

[Anonymous No.643673]

>>643671
man up bruh if you learn all this stuff you will become a god walking amongst mere mortals

[Anonymous No.643840]

I wanted to get a better understanding of VOPs, so I rebuilt the Principled Shader using the Classic Shader interface. It still lacks a couple of pieces, but it's 90 % done.

[Anonymous No.643851]

> Spend a day learning about how to make HDAs and use them in Houdini Engine
> Carefully rebuild one of my fap setups to turn it into something portable and interoperable with Maya
> Load plugin, fail
> wtf, freaking out
> Assume something is wrong with my complex setup, try to fix it, no help
> Try to build a simple HDA that generates a tetrahedron
> No output
> Open UE, load Houdini plugin
> Works perfectly
> Maya 2018.4 completely broke Houdini Engine

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/maya-programming/array-attr-inside-a-compound-are-not-evaluated-maya-2018-update/td-p/8233305

Makes me happier I'm moving to Houdini.

[Anonymous No.643863]

>>643851
I wanted to try Houdini Engine for the first time the other day. Fiddled with it for half an hour trying to get it to work until I finally googled "houdini engine maya 2018.4" and discovered that same thread. Good job Autodesk. I mean bugs are forgivable and expected, but why do users have to wait months between point releases when SideFX is able to push daily bug fixes.

We just started using Maya at work (after years of LW) and I'm really surprised at how janky and unpolished the program is. I was definitely expecting more from the industry standard. If Autodesk and SideFX each maintain their current pace of development I can see Houdini taking a good chunk of market share from Maya in the next few years.

[Anonymous No.643875]

SideFX are also pretty good at viral marketing it seems

[Anonymous No.643888]

>>643875
Imagine if the Blender Foundation had half the money available for marketing at SideFX. In a couple of years, Houdini couldn't compete.

[Anonymous No.643892]

>>643875
>people are praising something i don't like, must be the jews at work
Fuckin' Jews, amiright?

[Anonymous No.643893]

>>643892
Who said I don't like houdini? Im currently learning it
it's just all my friends in this sphere and you guys suddenly started talking about it

[Anonymous No.643895]

>>643893
We've always been talking about it, probably so have your friends. You're just becoming aware of it, broski. Plus, with 17 on the horizon talks about Houdini's obviously gonna be more prominent.

[Anonymous No.643990]

[Anonymous No.643991]

[Anonymous No.644024]

>>643990
re: Hydra.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmH4KYcmHOo

[Anonymous No.644051]

>>643990
>>643991
>>644024

Help a brainlet out. What is the implication of a 3d package having USD/Hydra support? Would it be treated as another import/export format or something like an alternative scene format?

[Anonymous No.644077]

>>644051
The way I understand (and expect) it to be is a replacement of the current viewport. Hydra is an OpenGL renderer intended to work as the direct interface between the artist and the scene. In the Pixar video, they demonstrate it in their own Presto software, how it helps the artists have a better idea of what the scene is going to end up looking like. And at a whopping 60 fps for all the detail involved (ambient occlusion, depth of field, caustics...).

USD deals with scene representation. My understanding of it is pretty limited though. Some core benefits seem to be a much increased performance, improved team workflow by allowing incremental changes in scenes using layers/branches, and working as an exchange format for geo/animation/shading (one step over Alembic, if you wish).

[Anonymous No.644125]

>>644077
Interesting, thank you. I guess we'll know more in a couple of days.

[Anonymous No.644146]

>>644024
damn that's awesome

[Anonymous No.644268]

Is Houdini's work flow similar to Substance Designer's and would be easy to get into if you know it well enough?

[Anonymous No.644290]

>>644268
If you're good at Substance Designer you're more likely to be good at Houdini since it shares a lot of thought processes. Knowledge of Substance Designer won't particularly help you get into Houdini much easier since there's very little overlap in the actual nodes or data models.

[Anonymous No.644303]

>>643888
Viral marketing is low budget marketing you fucken pleb. If the Blender Foundation could create videos showcasing things as good as Houdini they would get the exact same attention

[Anonymous No.644428]

Launch Presentation - Houdini 17 Banshee:

https://vimeo.com/293116223

[Anonymous No.644490]

>>644303
Something tells me blender can't really compete with houdini in these vids, houdini specializes on the stuff after all, they can easily find a senior vfx artist work made in their package to show

[Anonymous No.644492]

>>644428
Good stuff.

>There is one particular feature that we didn't cover that I wanna single out, and that's the integration of nvida's OptiX denoiser into Mantra IPR and batch rendering. Now that's a very cool feature and definitely useful. But the reason I wanted to bring it up, is that it holds a much greater significance to us, and hopefully to you in the future, as it is an early foreshadowing of a major new architecture that we are very busy developing in RnD these days. You've heard of it, possibly as LOPs, or Project Solaris. It's an architecture that goes straight to the heart of lighting and rendering, and in one big swoop, takes Houdini's proceduralism, it combines it with GPU-accelerated workflows across the board, dedicated artist workflows, and it weaves all of that into a live and native USD core. But that's a story for another day...

Kind of sounds like Houdini will be treading into Clarisse/Katana territory, no?

[Anonymous No.644511]

>>643466
It's happening.

[Anonymous No.644521]

>>644511
>implying

[Anonymous No.644522]

>>644490
It can't. A lot of what makes Houdini so powerful is the workflow, not any particular feature. Until Blender catches up in workflow it will never get anywhere near Houdini, nor will anything else.

[Anonymous No.644524]

>>644522
Does it need to adopt that workflow tho?

[Anonymous No.644530]

Why is Houdini's interface on mac os fucking tiny?
iMac 27 incher

[Anonymous No.644532]

>>644530
Aging Qt 5.6 basically, I'm not sure whether Houdini 17 is upgrading to Qt 5.12 but that should improve things

http://www.vfxplatform.com/

[Anonymous No.644539]

>>644524
To get on Houdini's level? absolutely!

[Anonymous No.644717]

>hair card generator
WANT

[Anonymous No.644719]

>>644530
Probably no high-DPI support. Retina screens are considered high-DPI and apps that support high-DPI will look normal on them, however apps that don't will have severe scaling issues (too small like you described). Either wait until high-DPI gets supported or look around for some UI scaling function.

[Anonymous No.644726]

>>644530
Maybe it's Mac-specific, but if not, have you tried the High DPI setting?

[Anonymous No.644811]

I fucking love Houdini.

[Anonymous No.644830]

>>644719
>>644726
already did that

I guess I have to squint then

[Anonymous No.644857]

>>644830
File a bug, then. If they find the same issue it'll probably be solved in a few days.

[Anonymous No.644876]

17 W H E N

[Anonymous No.644882]

>>644876
October 10.

[Anonymous No.644886]

>>644830
Try putting this line into your houdini.env file:

HOUDINI_UISCALE = 150

Adjust the number to whatever looks good. You can also adjust UI font size independently:
https://www.sidefx.com/forum/topic/47950/?page=1#post-216211

[Anonymous No.644947]

>>644882
nice
I wonder will it let me export cards from apprentice

[Anonymous No.644950]

>>644947
Sure why not?
Apprentice does write obj files so it shouldn't be a problem.

[Anonymous No.644963]

>>644950
NOICE

I'm currently learning Houdini because I saw an asset that makes cards out of grooms, and it turned out that getting grooms themselves done in Houdini is much faster, easier and comfy than setting up xgen, but the cardmaker asset is pretty limited so I thought "hey why don't they have some similar stuff in house?"
...two days later I was reading some cg news channel and *BAM* they were working on that all along!

[Anonymous No.645237]

https://vimeo.com/293870919

this is best type of autism

[Anonymous No.645239]

>>645237
At first I thought, well, they must've implemented an assembly interpreter in VEX, but then... woah.

[Anonymous No.645241]

Apple wins again, unfortunately. This, and the reliance on OptiX for denoising (understandable, though, given the lack of competition), leads me to assume that SideFX does not intend to stay fully vendor-independent any longer.

[Anonymous No.645245]

>>645241
if AMD's behaviour in the gpu render space is anything to go by, they will shoulder most of the blame.

i expect to see rtx in viewports before cuda over opencl in solvers though.

maybe intel's new gpu efforts will sav..... hahahhahahhahah

[Anonymous No.645257]

>>645241
Not so fast.
I sincerely doubt any of the major DCC apps are getting ported to Metal. Apple is pretty much a dead-end for 3D work.

[Anonymous No.645259]

>>645257
Phew, I'm glad I misread too much into his previous post.

[Anonymous No.645264]

>>645241
who the fuck does 3D work on Apple, anyway?

[Anonymous No.645268]

It's up homies

https://www.sidefx.com/download/

[Anonymous No.645276]

>>645268
let's hope X-force doesn't fuck up again

[Anonymous No.645302]

>>645276
Why not use Apprentice?

[Anonymous No.645312]

>>645302
>Apprentice
restricted and limited BS version

[Anonymous No.645321]

>>645302
because

here be pirates

I really don't want to learn houdini but it's force is beckoning me like a slut to a dick

[Anonymous No.645327]

>>645312
only on render size.

[Anonymous No.645353]

>>645302
>>645327
How about not being able to export as FBX?

[Anonymous No.645360]

>>645353
And Alembic. Valid point. But you have Houdini Indie for that. If you are making money, that is.

[Anonymous No.645365]

>>645268
HELL YEAH

[Anonymous No.645367]

Introduction to vellum.

https://vimeo.com/294379827
https://vimeo.com/294375836
https://vimeo.com/294374382
https://vimeo.com/294388853
https://vimeo.com/294385572

Have fun with it boys.

[Anonymous No.645370]

>>645367
god damn man
is marvelous finally topped?

[Anonymous No.645375]

>>645370
I honestly don't know. I am barely able to create a t-shirt in MD and a complete nob when it comes to Houdini. (I can use the shelf tools...yeah!)
If MD doesn't move forward it will be over-rolled by Houdini sooner or later, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.645378]

>>645370
See the latter part of >>643601.
I don't get why people keep saying "marvelous is dead!" whenever advanced cloth dynamics like these pop up. MD isn't about its cloth sim, it's about its ease of usage. Marvelous is super easy to use and has an incredibly gentle learning curve compared to other programs. Its 2D pattern window makes making clothing ridiculously simple once you get the hang of things.

[Anonymous No.645414]

[Anonymous No.645418]

>>645414
I don't know what I'm looking at.

[Anonymous No.645421]

>>645414
I knew where this would go after the first few frames

[Anonymous No.645477]

>>645418
Welcome to the club

[popeye No.645488]

>>645418
You'll understand at the end...

[Anonymous No.645537]

I'm working on crowd sims in Houdini and I want to bring them into Maya to render with Arnold. It's proving to be harder than I thought. How the hell do I export as .ASS?

[Anonymous No.645543]

>>645537
Just use HtoA, it's a huge pain in the ass exporting crowd sims to maya

[Anonymous No.645559]

>>645537
Why not use crowd sims plugin for Maya?
There are several to choose from.

[Anonymous No.645586]

>>645559
Not sure if serious or memeing...

[Anonymous No.645593]

>>645586
I am serious but i also don't know shit about crowd sims.
What is the problem with Miarmy or Goleam?

[Anonymous No.645594]

>>645586
Golaem? Miarmy? These do their job in many studios.

[Anonymous No.645607]

>>645594
>>645593
I've used both but prefer Houdini, and for this project I will have to run the simulation on another pc without either of those plugins.

>>645543
I thought as much, the cracked version of HtoA from CGP is a bitch to get working. I'll give it another try.

[Anonymous No.645938]

Playing with the vellum solver.

[Anonymous No.645952]

hey dudes i need a little help with summin:

gfycat /IckyRawIndianhare

this is a very basic popnet driven by a pyrosim
i've just got a trail connected to the output and it behaves nicely until it absolutely freaks the fuck out

additionally if i try and add a collider object to the pop sim, the trail sop starts including points from it initially (and eventually freaks the fuck out)

anyone know why this is happening?

[Anonymous No.645953]

>>645952
oh and the trail is connecting as polygons

alternatively, is there a better way to do particle trails?

[Anonymous No.645987]

>>645938
>and they say this will not absolutely btfo marvelous

[Anonymous No.646007]

>>645987
While it's better than marvelous, it won't btfo it. Think about the kind of people who use marvelous. You think they could learn Houdini in a short enough amount of time for them to justify dropping marvelous?

[Anonymous No.646008]

>>646007
they will if they want to keep their jobs

[Anonymous No.646010]

>>645987
>>646008
It's been said like 4 fucking times in this thread already, it won't because the use cases are entirely different. People aren't using MD for cloth simulations, goddammit. Its main usage is to easily make clothing. Look at all the testimonies on MD's site. It's all about how "MD's helped [game] make stunning clothing!", not "MD's made my tarps and tents look so much better!". Until Houdini implements a similarly easy-to-use UI as MD's 2D pattern window, there's little reason to switch over, even if the end product looks better, because it just won't be as efficient.

[Anonymous No.646016]

You know you can use both, right? I think that's the best way now: design in MD, simulate in Houdini.

At least, until someone makes an HDA mimicking all of MD's patterning/stitching/draping niceties.

[Anonymous No.646023]

>>646010
>>646016
You can make clothes in Houdini using a panel/pattern workflow. A workflow which could easily be procedural. However it looks like the stitching capabilities are pretty limited at this point.

[Anonymous No.646027]

>>645952
That looks pretty cool. Is it maybe freaking out because the point count changes as particles die out? Maybe try point advection instead.

http://www.entagma.com/colored-trails-point-advection-rendering/

I *think* with this setup you would start out with your particles at the first frame (or wherever they are starting in your gif) and feed that into the Volume Trail's first input, with your pyro sim going into the second input to provide velocity.

[Anonymous No.646045]

>>646010
dude dude dude
just think about it
procedurally
generated
cloth
designs

[Anonymous No.646053]

>>645938
how fast of a computer do you need?

Marvelous is slow as fuck on my core i7

[Anonymous No.646077]

>>646027
Ty dude, I'll give it a shot tomorrow. You're probably right about point count changing.

I also discovered the trail > add polys by id method which I'll also try out when I'm back home.

[Anonymous No.646194]

>>633041
Today I managed to force FEM to simulate on top of a alembic animation. It was a bit of a struggle but I got it working.

[Anonymous No.646195]

>>646045
Houdini's new Vellum solver has made that easier than ever. Constraints are a breeze, go try it out!

[Anonymous No.646517]

>mfw when i'm typing out a question and as a consequence of writing it out i figure out the solution

feel nice mang.

now i can spend the rest of my days making shitty material transitions using an infection sytem

[Anonymous No.646592]

>>646517
Oh yeah those are fun lol, try volumetric infection next, surface is easy.

I made the most boring shit yesterday, I made a system that spawns points on a line at regular division, and then can offset those points along the line as well. When the points get offset more than the division length, they snap back to their original position, thus making it infinetely animatable.

I'm pretty happy, I did it with fucking pops first but that requires a bit of time before the particles fill up the line and while that's possible to avoid using the timeshift node, it's really fucking janky.

It's for animating a conveyor belt.

[Anonymous No.646799]

From compilation to render: USD in Houdini on Windows 10!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XiGnm6_Jvg

[Anonymous No.646901]

>>646592
>try volumetric infection next
i'm a bit new to houdini (and a bit of a brainlet) so i'm just borrowing the core infection code from ben watts t b h.

the infection code works on points in a volume, so i can do some basic shit (like blasting away infections etc) but i'm not really sure how to approach an infection on a purely voxel level or how attributes even work at a voxel level.

i'll probably look into it this week, but would you mind pointing me in the right direction? tavm

[Anonymous No.647135]

Does someone have the hex edited keygen for houdini 17?

[Anonymous No.647156]

>>647135
I can upload it when I get home in a few hours.

[Anonymous No.647207]

>>647156
hey that would be great!
Thanks man

[Anonymous No.647214]

>>647207
Hopefully this link works

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=92496956666487477544

[Anonymous No.647239]

>>647214
Wow, thanks, faggot!

[Anonymous No.647244]

>>647239
I hex edited the 16.5 keygen myself now and it doesnt give a warning (at least not in MSE) so be careful
here is the video its a bit hard to see
https://streamable.com/dgb72

[Anonymous No.647245]

>>647244
Yeah, sorry I photoshopped it to make you feel bad.
It works great, thanks.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.647246]

>>647245
the upload from >>647214
wasn't me so i dont know if its infected or not

[Anonymous No.647333]

all green lights
Houdini FX 17.0 Generic available 0/0

everytime I start houdini it starts the houdini license administrator instead
this is on mac

what do?

[Anonymous No.647345]

>>647333
nevermind
I misspelled my own server name

[Anonymous No.647351]

>>645414
a lamp?

[Anonymous No.647615]

>maya keeps taking alembics with instances and tries to unpack them into geo
>htoa doesn't support packed primitives in houdini

jesus christ, is there a sane way to render packed geo in arnold?

[Anonymous No.647622]

x-particles 4 vs houdini particles

who you got?

I assume houdini particles if you know vex?

[Anonymous No.649812]

>>640678
make a tutorial pham

[Anonymous No.649818]

>>646010
I don't get it. Wouldn't zbrush be easier than both?

[Anonymous No.649875]

Is 17 on Linux already?

[Anonymous No.649879]

>>649875
Since release, of course.

[Anonymous No.649884]

>>649875
Houdini always launches on Linux day one. Has ever since Irix was fading. Houdini's studio user base is majority Linux.

[Anonymous No.649926]

>>649884
On top of it all, it runs better on Linux than it runs on Windows.

[Anonymous No.651505]

best resource to become a houdini god?

[Anonymous No.651512]

>>649926
Yup it is incredibly performant under Linux. Makes you realize how shit windows truly is.
>>651505
Odforce.net do a complete project start to finish in Houdini. All modeling, texturing animation and rendering. If you get stuck search odforce. If you need some hand holding there is a guy named rohan dalvi that makes tutorial projects from start to end.

[Anonymous No.651558]

>>651505
http://www.tokeru.com/cgwiki/index.php?title=Houdini

Anyone learning Houdini should have Matt Estela's page bookmark. Use the Houdini drop down menu at the top, what I linked above is just the quick tips.

[Anonymous No.652255]

thats all nice and dandy but where's my loonix keygen doe

[Anonymous No.652303]

>>646053
Vellum is gpu accelerated but anyway if you have i7 you can do simple tests easily.

[Anonymous No.654863]

>>641215

You idiot, use the uvlayout node.
The seams are just your UVs going slightly past the 0,1 range and the uvlayout fixes this.
Alternatively you can use a uv transform and just scale everything down by 0.01

[Anonymous No.654892]

>>651512
>>649926
>>649884
>>649875

I'm assuming I can just use the hex edited keygen but does it need to update sesentd or can I use the 16 ver and just add the keys?

[Anonymous No.654908]

>>654892
On Windows you can use the old sesinetd from 16, I assume it's the exact same for Linux.

[Anonymous No.654909]

>>654908

Oh nice!

[Anonymous No.654923]

>>635595
Dalvis tuts are great for learning but once he starts converting shit to voxels my computer gets slowed all to hell