So just to clear things up, Houdini has a lot of features that will take Blender a while to catch up on, like the very advanced attribute system and the Vex programming language, however geometry nodes in blender was released less than a year ago, before then there was almost no resemblance to Houdini at all, I do feel Houdini will be in the lead for quite a long time, but there is only so many features one can add to a software, and I do think that blender will eventually tie or even surpass Houdini, just my opinion though😇
I'm not sure about that. In order for something like this to happen, the interface architecture of Blender would need to be changed. Primarily, the property panel should be universal rather than having each plugin and function have its parameters scattered across the screen. Secondly, the node design should be changed. As it is now, it is very easy to make a mess. It's not really straightforward to create a digital asset. Working with nodes in Houdini is incredibly pleasant. They are easily hooked and unhooked. The nodes are visually personalized so that they can be remembered by the look of their icons and design style and color. But most importantly, they interact with the viewport. When you selected the transform node, you got handles and so on. These are just interface advantages. At this rate, it would take Blender 5-7 years to get close to where Houdini is now, assuming that Houdini stops developing. However, all of this, when taken into account, doesn't mean that Blender needs to be like Houdini at all. People are already doing crazy stuff with the geometry node. And I'm sure it will get even better. So when it comes to procedural modelling, Blender really has a chance. Because Houdini will never have such good direct modeling. The same is true for classic character animation and many other things.
@@mladenpajdic503 I actually looked into how solvers are built in Houdini, and it's all to do with the previous frame updating every frame in a loop, and then putting functions within that loop. It's exactly the same with blender, literally.. My point is that even if blender isn't copying Houdini 100%, it will probably find a way to get to the same result, but I do agree, Houdini is way more flexible and stable as of now, And every software has its pros and cons I guess
All solvers, no matter software uses the previous frame, that’s the definition of a solver. The specific designed solvers in Houdini for simulating pyro, water, vellum, particles are the most advanced and flexible because they are just attributes on points, voxels etc… made in a software that has soon been around for 30 years. In houdini anything can be converted to anything in 3D.
I think they might be working on this issue in the future at some point...that's the major drawback of Blender compared to other industry standard 3D apps...so when that happens then yes...Blender will then be actually able to kind of be on par with other CG apps like Houdini and such but for a free program this is already very amazing and this is just the beginning of it...imagine what's to come next..in future updates..who knows
As someone who loves blender and has been using it 8 years and uses Houdini professionally. Blender is only starting to scratch the surface of proceduralism. Some things I would like to see blender explore is a PDG esque task dependency management system. Better visualization of the flow of data. And engine integration for creating game engine tools. There is much more but this would be a good start. I really do wish them the best
The comment is made by someone who has experience using both Blender and Houdini software. They mention that they have been using Blender for eight years and also use Houdini professionally. The commenter believes that Blender is just beginning to tap into the potential of proceduralism, which refers to creating complex effects and animations using algorithms and rules. The commenter suggests a few areas where they think Blender could improve. They mention wanting to see Blender explore a task dependency management system similar to Houdini's PDG (Procedural Dependency Graph). PDG is a feature in Houdini that allows artists to manage and visualize complex procedural workflows. The commenter believes that incorporating a similar system into Blender would be beneficial. Additionally, the commenter expresses the desire for better visualization of the flow of data in Blender. This likely refers to having a clearer representation of how data is being processed and manipulated within the software, which can help artists understand and optimize their workflows. Lastly, the commenter mentions engine integration for creating game engine tools. This suggests that they would like to see Blender improve its integration with game engines, making it easier for artists to create assets and tools specifically tailored for game development. In conclusion, the commenter appreciates Blender's progress but believes there is still room for improvement in areas such as task dependency management, data flow visualization, and game engine integration. They express their support for Blender's development and hope to see these enhancements in the future.
the strength of Houdini is not the node graphs. heck even the substance designer does that. It's Houdini's attribute driven design that works ever so elegantly.
in reality houdini used way more then simulation. from outside of the industry you wouldnt able to understand. blender is getting better, geometry nodes are good thing but blender no where near killing houdini
@@vfxpraveen yeah man, I don't want it to be a fight between softwares, obviously the title of the video is an exaggeration, but I do think blender has a bright future ahead of it;)
@@sealishproductions me neither, I love blender it really works well with houdini, its getting more and more ground in actull production too. maybe its just this title can trigger more fight :)
For blender it is massive update, but to compere to Houdini, Geonodes are much harder to understand. GeoNodes are to RAW maybe someday become more easy.
No, Blender is not in the same league as Houdini, as much as I'd like to see it that way it's just not true, and won't be for a long time yet. There will be more possibilities with loops of course, but for now blender lacks some crucial features like procedural fracture(technically with volume cube is possible, but without good smoothing node it's not really usable), bevel node will be ready next year, and I don't even know if jiggle is planned, not to mention that Houdini sims simply outperforms Blender with mesh amount. I see it like this there is a potential, but way is really long ahead of Blender which I love to use everyday but not enough for such clickbait title as this.
I actually made a smooth node and a remesh node using SDF Vector math. Geometry nodes are really powerful because they borrow a lot of ideas from Houdini. You can create your own custom nodes and manipulate attributes better with the new fields, now obviously its not on the same level since you can't really simulate in any kind of stable features but Blender is a solid modeling tool so having access to procedural nodes that are pretty much directly integrated into the modifier stack is something that can't be ignored.
Houdini is built like an OS for simulation and attribution manipulation. Which lend it self to handling complex relationships really well. Of course it also why Houdini had a steep learning curve, when you trying to go beyond the presets. IMO Houdini is one of the most satisfying software to play with and it quite easy to include this tool into your pipeline since they support nearly all file formats in some way.The animation tool still kind of suck 😅 and I wouldn’t use it as my primary modeling tool.
lmao. no. Blender is cool and all, but maybe in 10-15 years blender will be somethning like houdini, at which time houdini will be like the holodeck on the enterprise
Well yeah. Blender currently is like the protagonist of a shonen manga series. It will take a while for it to pick up speed but it is a force to be reckoned with.
Simulation nodes in Blender are equivalent to a SOP solver in Houdini but Houdini goes way beyond that when it comes to simulation but there is a lot of parallels between the two applications. It will be interesting to how geometry nodes develop.
I dont really get Houdini being compared to DCC tools. Houdini behaves more like an operating systems like windows, or mac etc. It is a completely different way of working.
LOL! I like the way Blender developing, but this is a hilarious statement. Take a closer look at what Houdini has. Just for an example, full USD authoring support in LOPs/Stage/Solaris and the pipeline tools in TOPs/PDG are features Blender has 0% of. And a geometry solver is pretty basic stuff compared to all the different solvers Houdini has. Good luck with creating more klick bait!
@@sealishproductions not really, I mean I could just buy them, but I’m just a hobbyist and I don’t want to spend 4k for a piece of software unless it makes me money.
That's the only reason I'm forcing this comparison between Blender and Houdini. I went into the video understanding that when it comes to procedural generation, Houdini is likely many times more powerful and versatile, and the comment section basically confirmed that. Blender is totally free and open source, whereas Houdini has a limited free version...that seems severely limiting in terms of actually producing content, and several very expensive paid versions. The options are convoluted with Houdini.
Kinda hard to make an argument for Blender when the only example you have of Blender rivaling Houdini is a broken soft body simulation that looks incredibly complicated to set up. The scalability, proceduralism, and implementation needs to be worked on for at least another decade before it starts to rival Houdini from 2013
As a blender artist I am very proud that I learnt and learning blender which has accelerated it growth too much in recent years. With that pace blender will definitely beat all the 3D softwares in existence very soon
Houdini is useful for VFX as much as it is useful for game asset creation with hundreds of dedicated nodes only for games, and I don't see blender even reaching 1% of that level.
When you say it has "hundreds of dedicated nodes" it doesn't push the conversation forward, all it does is it creates an argument purely for argument's sake:(
@@sealishproductions then is it ok to compare softwares? People be comparing one software to the another all the time but how much of this community is actually interested in discussing art as it is? Knowledge of any particular Software doesn't make such differences as the lack of knowledge of art, composition, etc. does.
@@mridulsarmah5974 yeah, but it is the software that enables the creative freedoms and limitations, i don't see where you're going with this, looking back at your original comment, you claimed that blender will not reach 1% of the hundreds of gaming nodes in houdini, I really don't know what you mean by that, Houdini has nodes that you can use to build solvers for Sims in the software, Blender simulation nodes makes that possible now, I don't see your argument being useful or even productive to the discussion, especially when my video wasn't even about video game creation in the first place. There is this software called upbge, I've used it before and it's a continuation of the blender game engine, you can build a fully fledged game with physica and character animation in there.
@@sealishproductions from my original comment, I meant that if you're finding a competition in another software or package, it has to compete in the key areas and Houdini not only extends to vfx but also in the key areas of game asset creation. Besides that even in VFX, not everyone needs simulation but there are other areas like terrain generation, etc. Which are extremely important but sadly blender can't even handle a high poly environment without lagging or even crashing. If there has to be a genuine competition the first thing Blender Dev's should focus upon is handling high poly stuff.
@@mridulsarmah5974 look man, i appreciate the discussion, but why can't you just admit that the original comment you made is just false, with these new simulation nodes, anyone can build their own simulation solver, one guy called Albin already created a sand dune solver, to say that blender will not even reach Houdini by 1% is incredibly ridiculous to say, blender are literally adding in the same nodes, they just added a smoothing node, which I'm pretty sure is in Houdini, along with all the points in volume nodes and others, and they are adding around 20 new geometry nodes every release and that number might increase, I really think that blender has potential and the fact that you cannot see that is incredibly disheartening
The argument that if you can make a solver, you can do everything is really absurd. Just because everyone can write C code on their computer today doesn't mean we should expect a new OS tomorrow. It's the same here. Also, the architecture of the two software programs is radically different, and this video is really a proof of a deep misunderstanding of Houdini. Houdini nodes can be written in C++, Python, VEX, OpenCL, some parts of the source code are open source, and above all, each update of Houdini represents major advancements in the industry, rivaling the development speed of Blender without any problem. The mere existence of Houdini Engine, PDG, Solaris, and now Copernicus or APEX, once again places Houdini in a new paradigm. Houdini is not just a 3D software with solvers. Today, Houdini represents complex pipelines that allow it to control all the software in a production, enabling almost all AAA studios to produce the open worlds we know today. I really don't understand your video. If you think Blender will catch up, I agree in the context of software like Maya or 3ds Max or Cinema4D, but Houdini is not just a software that makes explosions/destruction with solvers.
What I'm trying to argue is that Houdini is not built from magic, it's built from math. And if we are talking about simulations then what we are really talking about is differential equations, integral equations, etc... I agree with you, blender needs to seriously completely overhaul how it deals with nodes in the background in order to even be able to compare to Houdini, what I ve suggested before is a system where in blender everything is really just nodes, but is skinned to look like the blender of today, but the nodes are always updating in the background, exactly like Houdini. The blender foundation is going along with my proposal, even though I wasn't the only one to propose it at the time, it seems like the logical next step for blender to get closer to Houdini. I feel like the last thing for blender to worry about right now is the scripting and nodding relationship, I do feel that it will naturally take effect as this everything nodes overhaul to blender will take effect over the years. But to end my ramblings, I agree with you, Houdini is by far the most powerful 3D software right now
I feel the development of blender for the past recent years has been pushed by invisible hands. I have a feeling in the future a lot of apps will become free or free & open source. You don't need to pay for the apps, instead you can buy assets/plugins created by individuals, the apps become platforms, everyone can create contents freely without restriction. I don't know if this has anything to with the coming age of A.I., digital currency, or a new form of economic model.
if you understand nodes you've already joined the insane. that said i do find it highly likely that the Huodini devs will enjoy the mostly friendly competition that blender offers mainly because the lack of competition in the world of payed and closed source software breads stagnation and the eventual downfall of a software once a new competitor enters the markets and fills the needs of the the users. We are seeing that happen with blender and autodesk as we rapidly pow head on into critical mass. C4D is feeling it as well but its off in motion grapghis land and has a bit more time before blender starts building those tools
@@jeffreyspinner5437 it's actually quite simple the simulation nodes are the loop so you could just add a constant condition to the node tree within them and it would turn into for loop by definition if you added a switch node with a condition like getting to close to the other object, I literally did it in the video LoL
@@sealishproductions I learned a lot today... let me check if I didn't watch this. I also just woke from my daily afternoon toddler nap, so I'm thinking better too. Are saying instead of being happy I was able to do this, just combine GNs with a sim: th-cam.com/video/0hWIT--A1AA/w-d-xo.html I can do even more!?
@@sealishproductions Wait, multiple GN Blender ytube creators are saying the sim nodes of 3.5 are too broken to use yet, e.g., th-cam.com/video/m4ScZmzLLvY/w-d-xo.html That being said, there has been a long fantasy in the Blenderverse that they want to morph Blender into some form of Houdini... I'm saying they have an extraordinarily long way to go, e.g., if I want to select some arbitrary group of faces (called primitives in Houdini) I just highlight the faces I want to select, group them and then operate on them easy peasy. If I wanted to do that in Blender GNs, I have to vertex paint the faces, and use that as a selection, because you can not without yoga level flexibility select even a row of a sphere because the selection tools of Blender will fail if you just move the sphere... e.g., this was NOT trivial to do in Blender and it should have been: th-cam.com/users/shorts23cP9lGToJs All my videos are unlisted because to me ytube is just a free offsite video storage thing... Given past experience with Blender from over a year ago (I gave up, but because UE4 fubar'd my rendering ability all at once after one update... never did figure out what happened there), being back for maybe 2-3 months, running out of all the movies and tv shows I would consider watching, Blender finds a way to make itself as opaque as Houdini, without any of the power. Until Ton gives us the ability to toggle a primitive creation as shaded smooth with smooth normals, I will never consider Blender anything that a genius way to get around the illegality of using microtransactions (addons) to make money. That's my opinion... I'll still duplicate what you did and download the latest 3.5 alpha... not yet feature complete... Sophicles did say, "You don't know if you can do a thing, until you've already done it."
I used Blender earlier and now I use Houdini now as FX artist ..Houdini has no competition its more like blender people tryna give themeselves validations .Blender is 1% of Houdini ..In future it can be better than C4d and Maya ..but Houdini lmao never. SideFX devs are best developer and more knowledgeable as they work with Epic games Unreal Devs in collabration. I assure you again blender cant be compared with any tools . The major aspect where blender sucks is taking high dense mesh and large amount of assets stacking. I switched to Houdini FX now works for big companies FIlms and Games.
Blender node system sucks and pretty overcomplicated what c4d scene nodes offers which is straightforward ...and Houdini just do shit in 2 Nodes what blender does in 60 nodes . Save time not money . Houdini is still affordable and usable ...considering the crazy updates on simulations side of Houdini .. Blender is a software which heavy depends on fields and node system bcz they hired cinema devs do make fields stuffs ...whereas Houdini unbeatable in every aspects for what other programs arent capable.
The only thing holding blender back from Houdini is two things, everything nodes, which blender is still implementing and better memory utilisation of mesh and geometry, as it right now can't handle nearly as much as Houdini. Here's how I see it, blender is implementing alot of features very quickly, and then after they are all i.plwmented they will work more on performance and cleaning up bits and bobs that have no use. Blender 2 years ago had almost no comparisons to Houdini, now they are almost following in houdini's footsteps by implementing the exact same node architecture(loops, attributes, operations) Give blender some time and then we can see, i find it very frustrating when people lose hope on a software that's literally doing a better job than almost all other 3d applications out there. Don't even get me started on Maya, the Autodesk Devs don't care about it
@@sealishproductions Blender is a just free hype by fans sadly as a tool . its not upto quality tool .i will suggest take a dive in houdini and understand what is blender is capable and not. Houdini is capable of extreme stuffs if you have knowledge. I still suggest you to take a dip Blender is no close to simulations even. I used recent geo nodes update it doesnt make sense and lenghty uneccesary . it will take a huge amount of knowledge to come upto houdini level . Just knw that blender is great tools for normal 3d not proceduralism and sims or movies
It's a good thing, not a bad thing, if it wasn't getting updates this often I'd consider it a downside and not the other way around, you just have to selectively pick the right version you actually need and skip other new versions, unless there is a crazy cool and powerfull new feature like sim nodes...then once in a while you only download one more new build to do experiments on and then to uninstall it is nothing hard (neither to download and install another one if needed)
You don't *have* to update. Blender has fantastic backwards and forwards compatibility. If a new version coming doesn't have anything you need, don't upgrade, it's pretty simple. On the other hand, for people who want christmas more often, the rapid update cycle of blender is a godsend. It also helps that even pre-release alpha versions are incredibly stable. That makes for a lot of confidence in the software.
Sorry but it is not. I use both and the complexity of simulation that you can do in Houdini is incoparable. Imagine that you want to simulate a variety of object with different type of simulation that interact toghether like fluid, rigid body, cloth and FEM all togheter, well, you can do only in Houdini!
I used to think that blender would be a good start for learning modelling and then changing to other powerful softwares, but the way things are going, guess I better learn how to make juices
The new generation treats software like digital influencers, they don't know what they do, they only care about getting likes by putting them in a fight. the video is self explanatory, it mentions only nodes and nothing else. simply the software that's been in every high-end movie for years and another that's still trying to make it. He didn't kill maya imagine houdini.
This will be awesome. But it could be just more hype if the simulations nodes wind up with more puzzle solving with little gain for just basic sims. Showing off huge webs of nodes for relatively simple sims, you can do now in the current sim systems in a few clicks, is not much of a help.
I think the geo node and simulation node are complex and also flexible, there's huge room for creativity, it's for ppl to create addons to sell in blender market. It's not for artists to create things from scratch every time when starting a new project. In general they are more like tools for TDs and asset creators. The thought process of handling nodes are just so opposite of artist's thought process.
Home artists tell the world how Blender can beat Houdini...it is like old folks tale of Toad vs Cow...not to Trash talk since I use Blender too...but last year, when Maya, Max, C4D and other bunch release new features constantly, Blender produces new similar features a month or weeks later...almost the same as those from other software...then in 2022, those big software stop releasing new features, Blender seems to have nothing new either but dot release and Geo Node...also, to be fair, the cost of spending on Blender add on is much more than getting a license from industry software itself...well, it helps but production wide as a team, it quite cumbersome.
Thats what people that never tried Houdini would say. You really have no idea what Houdini is. Zero. I will give you some help: If Blender was 10 times more powerful from what it is right now, Houdini would STILL be like 50 times better for VFX. You have know the tools before making videos like this. Clearly you have no idea. But I understand it was for clickbait.
It's not clickbait and it seem that you haven't tried blender simulations nodes, because if you did then you'd understand its potential, sure Houdini has the attirbute wrangler node which one node out of many thta is incredibly powerful, using VeX and such, but blender has a different workflow and will find other ways, it's not up to Houdini's level yet, but I feel like once the momentum gets going with this feature, then it will be painfully obvious that you are wrong
@@sealishproductions Do you actually know how to use Houdini? Say If I asked you to make a basic sim of something in geometry nodes and then asked you to make the exact same thing in Houdini would you be able to do it?
@@dreamsprayanimation i guess the most i could do right now is use the attribute wrangle node and maybe right somme vector math calculations with if statements in vex, idk
Blender is such a amazing program but I just wish I could get my mind wrapped around the user interface. As a former Maya user for 20 years I seem to be stuck in that mindset and I'm having a difficult time adapting to the blender way of doing things. It seems to be not as intuitive as Maya and it seems to require a lot of knowledge of underlying and complex processes to set things up to make things work properly.
Bin off the gizmos and use hotkeys for moving, scaling, rotating etc, and get to love the 3D cursor (How other 3D programs don't have one I'll never understand...) Do the Blenderguru donut tutorial (For Blender 2.8) and you'll be well on your way...
@@MrMargaretScratcher I wanted to set up hotkeys similar to Maya for move, rotate and scale, but those hotkeys are in use in Blender. I've done quite a few tutorials, but quite often I get about five steps in and than something doesn't work, or Blender becomes unresponsive.
@@basspig I must admit q,w,e,r for your general translations etc does make a lot of sense as you can keep your fingers on those keys, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still have to actually use the gizmo to move/scale the object etc, correct? As for the other issues, not sure, but the community at Blender Artists is really good, as is the comment section in youtube tutorials - if you explain what's not working for you there will likely be someone who has had the same problem and fixed it.
@@MrMargaretScratcher I have to click on the tool palette at the left upper side of the application window to select which mode I need. In Maya, that was a three fingers on the keyboard and tap the one I need affair. The major issue I have is I'm too stupid to use Blender. Remember the Star Trek movie where Bones put on the Vulcan teacher and was about to do brain surgery on Spock? He couldn't retain that knowledge for more than mere seconds as he would forget it too fast. I feel the same way with Blender. I forget what I learned as fast as I learned it!
@@basspig Forget the tool palette - G (grab), S (scale) R (Rotate), and you'll start doing your transformation immediately. Wanna scale just along X? Just press G then X. Wanna rotate 57 degrees on Y? Press R, then Y, then 57. Wanna move but *not* on the Z-axis? G and then Shift+Z. Sounds complicated but a lot less fiddly than using the gizmos, especially in Maya when you're zoomed in and the gizmo isn't even on screen any more... But yeah, like anything, it's using it often, and when you use a piece of software that is similar to something that you're good at, it's hard to get past that feeling of being plonked back at the beginning again.
All these triggered Houdini fans are so funny and can crawl on the ground like roaches. They're jealous that blender is free. Blender will be king someday due to it's super fast expanding development.
@@jay_wright_thats_right epic games, warner bros and studio pierrot to an extent changed to blender recently and many more companies are following the footsteps. More and more users are seeing that paying 1k a month ain't worth it when the same or better can be done for free. Stay triggered and get back to crawling on your knees
Listen, we can all agree that Houdini sims look great but that's just a small piece of the pie, Houdini's amazingly complex proceduralism is unmatched. Before I learned Houdini, I too didn't fully understand the sheer power it holds. Since learning Houdini I haven't once faced a problem where the issue was Houdini's limitations, the problem is almost always me and my knowledge. Blender is amazing but I think trying to rival Houdini instead of Maya is a losing battle. Especially considering the fact that Houdini is also constantly evolving.
Very good perspective you have, but blender is too also evolving, and I'm not sure what the future holds with blender and Houdini in comparison, but I did here of a project blender.is going through, called everything nodes, where it is basically going to create a back door for every feature in blender into a node and you can theoretically control everything through nodes through blender, I believe this is the same as Houdini for the most part and that is where is blender is going, they are almost finished implementing the hair system into the nodes, and everything else will follow, but I do appreciate your opinion
There are also people who are doing amazing things with the limited amount of nodes blender right now has, like this person who made a fully functional neural network in blender: th-cam.com/video/ZbZ3ZZPnHtc/w-d-xo.html
So just to clear things up, Houdini has a lot of features that will take Blender a while to catch up on, like the very advanced attribute system and the Vex programming language, however geometry nodes in blender was released less than a year ago, before then there was almost no resemblance to Houdini at all, I do feel Houdini will be in the lead for quite a long time, but there is only so many features one can add to a software, and I do think that blender will eventually tie or even surpass Houdini, just my opinion though😇
I appreciate you changed the title of the video. Cheers!
I'm not sure about that. In order for something like this to happen, the interface architecture of Blender would need to be changed. Primarily, the property panel should be universal rather than having each plugin and function have its parameters scattered across the screen. Secondly, the node design should be changed. As it is now, it is very easy to make a mess. It's not really straightforward to create a digital asset. Working with nodes in Houdini is incredibly pleasant. They are easily hooked and unhooked. The nodes are visually personalized so that they can be remembered by the look of their icons and design style and color. But most importantly, they interact with the viewport. When you selected the transform node, you got handles and so on. These are just interface advantages. At this rate, it would take Blender 5-7 years to get close to where Houdini is now, assuming that Houdini stops developing. However, all of this, when taken into account, doesn't mean that Blender needs to be like Houdini at all. People are already doing crazy stuff with the geometry node. And I'm sure it will get even better. So when it comes to procedural modelling, Blender really has a chance. Because Houdini will never have such good direct modeling. The same is true for classic character animation and many other things.
@@mladenpajdic503 I actually looked into how solvers are built in Houdini, and it's all to do with the previous frame updating every frame in a loop, and then putting functions within that loop.
It's exactly the same with blender, literally..
My point is that even if blender isn't copying Houdini 100%, it will probably find a way to get to the same result, but I do agree, Houdini is way more flexible and stable as of now,
And every software has its pros and cons I guess
All solvers, no matter software uses the previous frame, that’s the definition of a solver. The specific designed solvers in Houdini for simulating pyro, water, vellum, particles are the most advanced and flexible because they are just attributes on points, voxels etc… made in a software that has soon been around for 30 years. In houdini anything can be converted to anything in 3D.
Houdini will have a competitor when blender will be able to manage the same amount of data without slowing down
Amen to that. I want geometry nodes GPU accelerated SOMEHOW... pls devs make it happen. I'm crying. My CPU is crying. And my power supply is frying.
@@Siphonife just get a Intel titanium 96 core. You Silly
I think they might be working on this issue in the future at some point...that's the major drawback of Blender compared to other industry standard 3D apps...so when that happens then yes...Blender will then be actually able to kind of be on par with other CG apps like Houdini and such but for a free program this is already very amazing and this is just the beginning of it...imagine what's to come next..in future updates..who knows
Thats what people that never tried Houdini would say.
As someone who loves blender and has been using it 8 years and uses Houdini professionally. Blender is only starting to scratch the surface of proceduralism. Some things I would like to see blender explore is a PDG esque task dependency management system. Better visualization of the flow of data. And engine integration for creating game engine tools. There is much more but this would be a good start. I really do wish them the best
Are you a vfx artist?
@@Soulis98 I’m a synthetic data designer so kind of
Não entendi nada do que você disse, mas amei!
You have a really great attitude about learning, instead of bashing the blender you are really pointing out issues & where they can improve.
👍👍
The comment is made by someone who has experience using both Blender and Houdini software. They mention that they have been using Blender for eight years and also use Houdini professionally. The commenter believes that Blender is just beginning to tap into the potential of proceduralism, which refers to creating complex effects and animations using algorithms and rules.
The commenter suggests a few areas where they think Blender could improve. They mention wanting to see Blender explore a task dependency management system similar to Houdini's PDG (Procedural Dependency Graph). PDG is a feature in Houdini that allows artists to manage and visualize complex procedural workflows. The commenter believes that incorporating a similar system into Blender would be beneficial.
Additionally, the commenter expresses the desire for better visualization of the flow of data in Blender. This likely refers to having a clearer representation of how data is being processed and manipulated within the software, which can help artists understand and optimize their workflows.
Lastly, the commenter mentions engine integration for creating game engine tools. This suggests that they would like to see Blender improve its integration with game engines, making it easier for artists to create assets and tools specifically tailored for game development.
In conclusion, the commenter appreciates Blender's progress but believes there is still room for improvement in areas such as task dependency management, data flow visualization, and game engine integration. They express their support for Blender's development and hope to see these enhancements in the future.
the strength of Houdini is not the node graphs. heck even the substance designer does that. It's Houdini's attribute driven design that works ever so elegantly.
Houdini and competition i think this guy dont know of what is Houdini capabil of
@@derbao870 Agreed. And He probably doesn't know about PDG and Karma renderer.
Remember, blender is still in early stages of development when it comes to simulation nodes.
in reality houdini used way more then simulation. from outside of the industry you wouldnt able to understand.
blender is getting better, geometry nodes are good thing but blender no where near killing houdini
Of course, but blender will overtake houdini
@@sealishproductions we will just have to wait, we can meet here after next houdini relese. cheers!
@@vfxpraveen yeah man, I don't want it to be a fight between softwares, obviously the title of the video is an exaggeration, but I do think blender has a bright future ahead of it;)
@@sealishproductions me neither, I love blender it really works well with houdini, its getting more and more ground in actull production too. maybe its just this title can trigger more fight :)
wait and watch :)
For blender it is massive update, but to compere to Houdini, Geonodes are much harder to understand. GeoNodes are to RAW maybe someday become more easy.
Nice little history lesson right here, thank you for explaining!
No, Blender is not in the same league as Houdini, as much as I'd like to see it that way it's just not true, and won't be for a long time yet. There will be more possibilities with loops of course, but for now blender lacks some crucial features like procedural fracture(technically with volume cube is possible, but without good smoothing node it's not really usable), bevel node will be ready next year, and I don't even know if jiggle is planned, not to mention that Houdini sims simply outperforms Blender with mesh amount. I see it like this there is a potential, but way is really long ahead of Blender which I love to use everyday but not enough for such clickbait title as this.
It's not clickbait
I actually made a smooth node and a remesh node using SDF Vector math. Geometry nodes are really powerful because they borrow a lot of ideas from Houdini. You can create your own custom nodes and manipulate attributes better with the new fields, now obviously its not on the same level since you can't really simulate in any kind of stable features but Blender is a solid modeling tool so having access to procedural nodes that are pretty much directly integrated into the modifier stack is something that can't be ignored.
You made it kid.
Houdini is built like an OS for simulation and attribution manipulation. Which lend it self to handling complex relationships really well. Of course it also why Houdini had a steep learning curve, when you trying to go beyond the presets.
IMO Houdini is one of the most satisfying software to play with and it quite easy to include this tool into your pipeline since they support nearly all file formats in some way.The animation tool still kind of suck 😅 and I wouldn’t use it as my primary modeling tool.
I am your 1000th subscriber:)
Congrats broo!
Ayo party in the house!
I like style of this video regardless of contents👍
The son asks his father, when will we be able to have features in Blender like Houdini 19.5. When Houdini 35 comes out, the father answers.
lmao. no. Blender is cool and all, but maybe in 10-15 years blender will be somethning like houdini, at which time houdini will be like the holodeck on the enterprise
Check out what cartisan caramel is doing with blender and this feature 😇
Ye, cool stuff. abstract. Why would I, or anyone wanna do that? For the sake of creating something abstract? Nobody will pay me for that 😮💨
@@lonesomealeks4206 you sound like you're own a low carb diet
@@sealishproductions you sound like you have 0 experience in the industry. annoying blender fan boy lol
not even close to Houdini's SOP level basics 😂😂 blender kids u really thought it was a competition huh,..
apparently they don't know about houdini...
Blender releases updates faster than you can learn the software lol
Well yeah. Blender currently is like the protagonist of a shonen manga series. It will take a while for it to pick up speed but it is a force to be reckoned with.
I dont know man....I feel like the strength is in the googly eyes.
Simulation nodes in Blender are equivalent to a SOP solver in Houdini but Houdini goes way beyond that when it comes to simulation but there is a lot of parallels between the two applications. It will be interesting to how geometry nodes develop.
I dont really get Houdini being compared to DCC tools. Houdini behaves more like an operating systems like windows, or mac etc. It is a completely different way of working.
LOL!
I like the way Blender developing, but this is a hilarious statement.
Take a closer look at what Houdini has. Just for an example, full USD authoring support in LOPs/Stage/Solaris and the pipeline tools in TOPs/PDG are features Blender has 0% of. And a geometry solver is pretty basic stuff compared to all the different solvers Houdini has.
Good luck with creating more klick bait!
Blender is cool and most importantly free. But if I could have Houdini and c4d, blender would be nothing but a memory to me.
The choise is yours😇
@@sealishproductions not really, I mean I could just buy them, but I’m just a hobbyist and I don’t want to spend 4k for a piece of software unless it makes me money.
@@spiralmoment 👍
That's the only reason I'm forcing this comparison between Blender and Houdini. I went into the video understanding that when it comes to procedural generation, Houdini is likely many times more powerful and versatile, and the comment section basically confirmed that. Blender is totally free and open source, whereas Houdini has a limited free version...that seems severely limiting in terms of actually producing content, and several very expensive paid versions. The options are convoluted with Houdini.
Kinda hard to make an argument for Blender when the only example you have of Blender rivaling Houdini is a broken soft body simulation that looks incredibly complicated to set up. The scalability, proceduralism, and implementation needs to be worked on for at least another decade before it starts to rival Houdini from 2013
Subscribed!!! Let's do this!!! :)
As a blender artist I am very proud that I learnt and learning blender which has accelerated it growth too much in recent years. With that pace blender will definitely beat all the 3D softwares in existence very soon
Houdini is useful for VFX as much as it is useful for game asset creation with hundreds of dedicated nodes only for games, and I don't see blender even reaching 1% of that level.
When you say it has "hundreds of dedicated nodes" it doesn't push the conversation forward, all it does is it creates an argument purely for argument's sake:(
@@sealishproductions then is it ok to compare softwares? People be comparing one software to the another all the time but how much of this community is actually interested in discussing art as it is? Knowledge of any particular Software doesn't make such differences as the lack of knowledge of art, composition, etc. does.
@@mridulsarmah5974 yeah, but it is the software that enables the creative freedoms and limitations, i don't see where you're going with this, looking back at your original comment, you claimed that blender will not reach 1% of the hundreds of gaming nodes in houdini, I really don't know what you mean by that, Houdini has nodes that you can use to build solvers for Sims in the software,
Blender simulation nodes makes that possible now,
I don't see your argument being useful or even productive to the discussion, especially when my video wasn't even about video game creation in the first place.
There is this software called upbge, I've used it before and it's a continuation of the blender game engine, you can build a fully fledged game with physica and character animation in there.
@@sealishproductions from my original comment, I meant that if you're finding a competition in another software or package, it has to compete in the key areas and Houdini not only extends to vfx but also in the key areas of game asset creation. Besides that even in VFX, not everyone needs simulation but there are other areas like terrain generation, etc. Which are extremely important but sadly blender can't even handle a high poly environment without lagging or even crashing. If there has to be a genuine competition the first thing Blender Dev's should focus upon is handling high poly stuff.
@@mridulsarmah5974 look man, i appreciate the discussion, but why can't you just admit that the original comment you made is just false, with these new simulation nodes, anyone can build their own simulation solver, one guy called Albin already created a sand dune solver, to say that blender will not even reach Houdini by 1% is incredibly ridiculous to say, blender are literally adding in the same nodes, they just added a smoothing node, which I'm pretty sure is in Houdini, along with all the points in volume nodes and others, and they are adding around 20 new geometry nodes every release and that number might increase,
I really think that blender has potential and the fact that you cannot see that is incredibly disheartening
The argument that if you can make a solver, you can do everything is really absurd. Just because everyone can write C code on their computer today doesn't mean we should expect a new OS tomorrow. It's the same here. Also, the architecture of the two software programs is radically different, and this video is really a proof of a deep misunderstanding of Houdini. Houdini nodes can be written in C++, Python, VEX, OpenCL, some parts of the source code are open source, and above all, each update of Houdini represents major advancements in the industry, rivaling the development speed of Blender without any problem. The mere existence of Houdini Engine, PDG, Solaris, and now Copernicus or APEX, once again places Houdini in a new paradigm. Houdini is not just a 3D software with solvers. Today, Houdini represents complex pipelines that allow it to control all the software in a production, enabling almost all AAA studios to produce the open worlds we know today. I really don't understand your video. If you think Blender will catch up, I agree in the context of software like Maya or 3ds Max or Cinema4D, but Houdini is not just a software that makes explosions/destruction with solvers.
What I'm trying to argue is that Houdini is not built from magic, it's built from math. And if we are talking about simulations then what we are really talking about is differential equations, integral equations, etc...
I agree with you, blender needs to seriously completely overhaul how it deals with nodes in the background in order to even be able to compare to Houdini, what I ve suggested before is a system where in blender everything is really just nodes, but is skinned to look like the blender of today, but the nodes are always updating in the background, exactly like Houdini.
The blender foundation is going along with my proposal, even though I wasn't the only one to propose it at the time, it seems like the logical next step for blender to get closer to Houdini.
I feel like the last thing for blender to worry about right now is the scripting and nodding relationship, I do feel that it will naturally take effect as this everything nodes overhaul to blender will take effect over the years.
But to end my ramblings, I agree with you, Houdini is by far the most powerful 3D software right now
I feel the development of blender for the past recent years has been pushed by invisible hands. I have a feeling in the future a lot of apps will become free or free & open source. You don't need to pay for the apps, instead you can buy assets/plugins created by individuals, the apps become platforms, everyone can create contents freely without restriction. I don't know if this has anything to with the coming age of A.I., digital currency, or a new form of economic model.
if you understand nodes you've already joined the insane.
that said i do find it highly likely that the Huodini devs will enjoy the mostly friendly competition that blender offers mainly because the lack of competition in the world of payed and closed source software breads stagnation and the eventual downfall of a software once a new competitor enters the markets and fills the needs of the the users.
We are seeing that happen with blender and autodesk as we rapidly pow head on into critical mass. C4D is feeling it as well but its off in motion grapghis land and has a bit more time before blender starts building those tools
I wish. Until geometry nodes gets even a for loop, don't be ignorant bruh.
You can do that now though with switch nodes😂
@@sealishproductions What blender version, (3.3, 3.4, 3.5? Deprecated 2.93?) and if so, I've never seen a tut on it or using it. Have a link?
@@jeffreyspinner5437 it's actually quite simple the simulation nodes are the loop so you could just add a constant condition to the node tree within them and it would turn into for loop by definition if you added a switch node with a condition like getting to close to the other object, I literally did it in the video LoL
@@sealishproductions I learned a lot today... let me check if I didn't watch this. I also just woke from my daily afternoon toddler nap, so I'm thinking better too.
Are saying instead of being happy I was able to do this, just combine GNs with a sim:
th-cam.com/video/0hWIT--A1AA/w-d-xo.html
I can do even more!?
@@sealishproductions Wait, multiple GN Blender ytube creators are saying the sim nodes of 3.5 are too broken to use yet, e.g., th-cam.com/video/m4ScZmzLLvY/w-d-xo.html
That being said, there has been a long fantasy in the Blenderverse that they want to morph Blender into some form of Houdini... I'm saying they have an extraordinarily long way to go, e.g., if I want to select some arbitrary group of faces (called primitives in Houdini) I just highlight the faces I want to select, group them and then operate on them easy peasy.
If I wanted to do that in Blender GNs, I have to vertex paint the faces, and use that as a selection, because you can not without yoga level flexibility select even a row of a sphere because the selection tools of Blender will fail if you just move the sphere... e.g., this was NOT trivial to do in Blender and it should have been: th-cam.com/users/shorts23cP9lGToJs
All my videos are unlisted because to me ytube is just a free offsite video storage thing...
Given past experience with Blender from over a year ago (I gave up, but because UE4 fubar'd my rendering ability all at once after one update... never did figure out what happened there), being back for maybe 2-3 months, running out of all the movies and tv shows I would consider watching, Blender finds a way to make itself as opaque as Houdini, without any of the power.
Until Ton gives us the ability to toggle a primitive creation as shaded smooth with smooth normals, I will never consider Blender anything that a genius way to get around the illegality of using microtransactions (addons) to make money.
That's my opinion... I'll still duplicate what you did and download the latest 3.5 alpha... not yet feature complete... Sophicles did say, "You don't know if you can do a thing, until you've already done it."
This again lol
I used Blender earlier and now I use Houdini now as FX artist ..Houdini has no competition its more like blender people tryna give themeselves validations .Blender is 1% of Houdini ..In future it can be better than C4d and Maya ..but Houdini lmao never. SideFX devs are best developer and more knowledgeable as they work with Epic games Unreal Devs in collabration. I assure you again blender cant be compared with any tools . The major aspect where blender sucks is taking high dense mesh and large amount of assets stacking. I switched to Houdini FX now works for big companies FIlms and Games.
Blender node system sucks and pretty overcomplicated what c4d scene nodes offers which is straightforward ...and Houdini just do shit in 2 Nodes what blender does in 60 nodes . Save time not money . Houdini is still affordable and usable ...considering the crazy updates on simulations side of Houdini .. Blender is a software which heavy depends on fields and node system bcz they hired cinema devs do make fields stuffs ...whereas Houdini unbeatable in every aspects for what other programs arent capable.
The only thing holding blender back from Houdini is two things, everything nodes, which blender is still implementing and better memory utilisation of mesh and geometry, as it right now can't handle nearly as much as Houdini.
Here's how I see it, blender is implementing alot of features very quickly, and then after they are all i.plwmented they will work more on performance and cleaning up bits and bobs that have no use.
Blender 2 years ago had almost no comparisons to Houdini, now they are almost following in houdini's footsteps by implementing the exact same node architecture(loops, attributes, operations)
Give blender some time and then we can see, i find it very frustrating when people lose hope on a software that's literally doing a better job than almost all other 3d applications out there. Don't even get me started on Maya, the Autodesk Devs don't care about it
@@sealishproductions Blender is a just free hype by fans sadly as a tool . its not upto quality tool .i will suggest take a dive in houdini and understand what is blender is capable and not. Houdini is capable of extreme stuffs if you have knowledge. I still suggest you to take a dip Blender is no close to simulations even. I used recent geo nodes update it doesnt make sense and lenghty uneccesary . it will take a huge amount of knowledge to come upto houdini level . Just knw that blender is great tools for normal 3d not proceduralism and sims or movies
Warner 'broes'?
Have they changed their name or does the person live in murica, going by his accent?
hahaha that's a funny title 🤣
i just wanna say damn!
Blender was created back in the 90s as a paid product and released for free in the earl y 2000s.
The only downside of Blender is the constant updating, i have like 8 Different Version folders just this month
It's a good thing, not a bad thing, if it wasn't getting updates this often I'd consider it a downside and not the other way around, you just have to selectively pick the right version you actually need and skip other new versions, unless there is a crazy cool and powerfull new feature like sim nodes...then once in a while you only download one more new build to do experiments on and then to uninstall it is nothing hard (neither to download and install another one if needed)
You don't *have* to update. Blender has fantastic backwards and forwards compatibility. If a new version coming doesn't have anything you need, don't upgrade, it's pretty simple. On the other hand, for people who want christmas more often, the rapid update cycle of blender is a godsend. It also helps that even pre-release alpha versions are incredibly stable. That makes for a lot of confidence in the software.
Sorry but it is not. I use both and the complexity of simulation that you can do in Houdini is incoparable. Imagine that you want to simulate a variety of object with different type of simulation that interact toghether like fluid, rigid body, cloth and FEM all togheter, well, you can do only in Houdini!
So you have used blenders simulation nodes?
I used to think that blender would be a good start for learning modelling and then changing to other powerful softwares, but the way things are going, guess I better learn how to make juices
The new generation treats software like digital influencers, they don't know what they do, they only care about getting likes by putting them in a fight. the video is self explanatory, it mentions only nodes and nothing else. simply the software that's been in every high-end movie for years and another that's still trying to make it. He didn't kill maya imagine houdini.
It's a tickle simulation!
Haha yeah, I guess it is:)
This will be awesome. But it could be just more hype if the simulations nodes wind up with more puzzle solving with little gain for just basic sims. Showing off huge webs of nodes for relatively simple sims, you can do now in the current sim systems in a few clicks, is not much of a help.
I think the geo node and simulation node are complex and also flexible, there's huge room for creativity, it's for ppl to create addons to sell in blender market. It's not for artists to create things from scratch every time when starting a new project. In general they are more like tools for TDs and asset creators. The thought process of handling nodes are just so opposite of artist's thought process.
quick answer: Nope
I'm a seal 🦭 not a duck 🦆
Home artists tell the world how Blender can beat Houdini...it is like old folks tale of Toad vs Cow...not to Trash talk since I use Blender too...but last year, when Maya, Max, C4D and other bunch release new features constantly, Blender produces new similar features a month or weeks later...almost the same as those from other software...then in 2022, those big software stop releasing new features, Blender seems to have nothing new either but dot release and Geo Node...also, to be fair, the cost of spending on Blender add on is much more than getting a license from industry software itself...well, it helps but production wide as a team, it quite cumbersome.
Until Blender doesn't have PDG workflow, it can't even reach Houdini. The difference in pipeline is ridiculous.
Thats what people that never tried Houdini would say. You really have no idea what Houdini is. Zero. I will give you some help: If Blender was 10 times more powerful from what it is right now, Houdini would STILL be like 50 times better for VFX. You have know the tools before making videos like this. Clearly you have no idea. But I understand it was for clickbait.
It's not clickbait and it seem that you haven't tried blender simulations nodes, because if you did then you'd understand its potential, sure Houdini has the attirbute wrangler node which one node out of many thta is incredibly powerful, using VeX and such, but blender has a different workflow and will find other ways, it's not up to Houdini's level yet, but I feel like once the momentum gets going with this feature, then it will be painfully obvious that you are wrong
@@sealishproductions Do you actually know how to use Houdini? Say If I asked you to make a basic sim of something in geometry nodes and then asked you to make the exact same thing in Houdini would you be able to do it?
@@dreamsprayanimation i guess the most i could do right now is use the attribute wrangle node and maybe right somme vector math calculations with if statements in vex, idk
lmao
Blender is such a amazing program but I just wish I could get my mind wrapped around the user interface. As a former Maya user for 20 years I seem to be stuck in that mindset and I'm having a difficult time adapting to the blender way of doing things. It seems to be not as intuitive as Maya and it seems to require a lot of knowledge of underlying and complex processes to set things up to make things work properly.
Bin off the gizmos and use hotkeys for moving, scaling, rotating etc, and get to love the 3D cursor (How other 3D programs don't have one I'll never understand...) Do the Blenderguru donut tutorial (For Blender 2.8) and you'll be well on your way...
@@MrMargaretScratcher I wanted to set up hotkeys similar to Maya for move, rotate and scale, but those hotkeys are in use in Blender.
I've done quite a few tutorials, but quite often I get about five steps in and than something doesn't work, or Blender becomes unresponsive.
@@basspig I must admit q,w,e,r for your general translations etc does make a lot of sense as you can keep your fingers on those keys, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) you still have to actually use the gizmo to move/scale the object etc, correct? As for the other issues, not sure, but the community at Blender Artists is really good, as is the comment section in youtube tutorials - if you explain what's not working for you there will likely be someone who has had the same problem and fixed it.
@@MrMargaretScratcher I have to click on the tool palette at the left upper side of the application window to select which mode I need. In Maya, that was a three fingers on the keyboard and tap the one I need affair.
The major issue I have is I'm too stupid to use Blender. Remember the Star Trek movie where Bones put on the Vulcan teacher and was about to do brain surgery on Spock? He couldn't retain that knowledge for more than mere seconds as he would forget it too fast. I feel the same way with Blender. I forget what I learned as fast as I learned it!
@@basspig Forget the tool palette - G (grab), S (scale) R (Rotate), and you'll start doing your transformation immediately. Wanna scale just along X? Just press G then X. Wanna rotate 57 degrees on Y? Press R, then Y, then 57. Wanna move but *not* on the Z-axis? G and then Shift+Z.
Sounds complicated but a lot less fiddly than using the gizmos, especially in Maya when you're zoomed in and the gizmo isn't even on screen any more...
But yeah, like anything, it's using it often, and when you use a piece of software that is similar to something that you're good at, it's hard to get past that feeling of being plonked back at the beginning again.
so i spent all this time trying to grasp houdini for nothing...its ok blender gang.
Geometry nodes is actually One branch of Houdini too, so I don't think you'd have a big issue if you wanted to learn it in blender
Looks like a web not a tree 🌴
Yes, I no
All these triggered Houdini fans are so funny and can crawl on the ground like roaches. They're jealous that blender is free. Blender will be king someday due to it's super fast expanding development.
This made me laugh out loud😸
Houdini is free....
@@ollicron7397 only apprentice and for ue4/5 and unity developers. everyone else has to pay up. blender has none of that bogus
@@jay_wright_thats_right that is very true, i was forced to learn maya for the mesh topology job, but I think blender is much better
@@jay_wright_thats_right epic games, warner bros and studio pierrot to an extent changed to blender recently and many more companies are following the footsteps. More and more users are seeing that paying 1k a month ain't worth it when the same or better can be done for free. Stay triggered and get back to crawling on your knees
LOL
Listen, we can all agree that Houdini sims look great but that's just a small piece of the pie, Houdini's amazingly complex proceduralism is unmatched. Before I learned Houdini, I too didn't fully understand the sheer power it holds. Since learning Houdini I haven't once faced a problem where the issue was Houdini's limitations, the problem is almost always me and my knowledge. Blender is amazing but I think trying to rival Houdini instead of Maya is a losing battle. Especially considering the fact that Houdini is also constantly evolving.
Very good perspective you have, but blender is too also evolving, and I'm not sure what the future holds with blender and Houdini in comparison, but I did here of a project blender.is going through, called everything nodes, where it is basically going to create a back door for every feature in blender into a node and you can theoretically control everything through nodes through blender, I believe this is the same as Houdini for the most part and that is where is blender is going, they are almost finished implementing the hair system into the nodes, and everything else will follow, but I do appreciate your opinion
There are also people who are doing amazing things with the limited amount of nodes blender right now has, like this person who made a fully functional neural network in blender: th-cam.com/video/ZbZ3ZZPnHtc/w-d-xo.html