C4d is like cooler version of houdini with modelling, animation rigging capabilities. So for most motion graphic artists C4D is ideal, as for the VFX nothing can really replace houdini. Blender just getting started, compared to bifrost of the maya it's still at infant stage.
@@MultiHeheboy youre so wrong with everything houdini is easier then blender and c4d combined , the only thing which you need to learn is how houdini context work and then everything is at your fingertips any high lvl expertise youd need is 1 google away and you will be presented with information on how to create it and then you can continue on to make a masterpiece in houdini ,and it takes less then 2 months of 3 hours per week to learn houdini for one specific branch ,be it vfx, modeling ,simulations or whatever everything you do in houdini is scaling according to your skill and wits and it translates to quality and speed
@@MultiHeheboy I use C4D for 12 years now and i currently learn Houdini. C4D and Houdini are very different in a lot of ways. The whole simulation part where Houdini has it´s strenghts is pretty much non-existant in C4D. Like fluid, fire and particle simulations. Even Extensions like Realflow or XParticles are nothing compared to Houdini. And there is simply nothing worth mentioning inside of C4D
@@Gromic2k Yeah for an vfx, simulation etc.. nothing can replace houdini. But for an non hollywood works, specially in motion graphic community c4d is little houdini. Does the 80% of the job faster and easier.
As for building everything from scratch, this is where the community should come in as well including all the Pro's using Blender, build solver, build sims and make them freely available to everyone else instead of gatekeeping them as payable assets or node groups or packages for patreons, that is how you build this all up quickly and give people freedom to create, don't just wait for Blender foundation to build it all, it's upto everyone in the community to build and help each other as well, while the core elements are built into Blender
Thank you! As I've always said, we can't depend on the Blender Foundation for absolutely everything. Learn Geometry Nodes, learn C, Python, and C++ to work with the Blender source code. Blender has been, and will always be a community effort.
i understand what you're saying. you want the community to help grow it, but I also understand the other side. "gatekeeping them as payable assets" sounds a lot like you don't want to pay people for their work.
@@red4666 A balance would be best. RyanKingArt is a perfect example, having paid material packs up on his Gumroad, but also providing free tutorials for each of those materials. I follow the same balance with having my custom keymap up on Gumroad, but I also have the documentation for free if you want to spend the time and sanity.
If, say, a few hundred or a few thousand Autodesk or Adobe users were to pool the money they would have given those companies over a year, and used that to sponsor some open-source developers to add the features they feel are most important, think how much difference that would make.
You mention that Houdini being broken up into separate operator node networks is an advantage. Actually, Houdini has spent a sizable amount of rescues making more and more tools work from within sops. Within the last few releases they have been converting more and more tools into sops based nodes instead. This has the advantage of being more easily effected and integrated with nodes that were only available in sops networks. For example, the new rigging system kinefx, can start out with just a simple stick figure network of edges that can then be fed into some nodes to turn this into a skeleton. You can then use sops based nodes to further alter the things like the positions of IK effectors with classic surface based tools that were never available to the old style Rigging tools. This is just one example. So, I think the direction Geo Nodes is going in Blender fine. Having everything in one network has the advantage of using tools that were designed for one purpous, being used in unexpected ways. However, I think we are still a few years away from being at Houdini levels of excellence.
Houdini contexts are an outdated idea. They should be replaced with types just like functions in programming. They should allow to use the custom types combined of the standard ones. It should not be SOP where all the job is done. It has to be a type less (context less) canvas. The nodes (operators, functions) should be lazy and be the first class citizens like they are in Haskell or pretty much any other functional programming language (the microsolvers in Houdini are like that). But when it comes to Blender. What can I say. It goes the same way Maya and 3DSMax did - conventional 3d software + some nodes. It is the way to nowhere to be honest.
@@olexp9017 Totally agree with that Houdini nodes need types and take inspiration from functional programming languages! For example DOP context should be a state monad. Also the node networks should work as string diagrams, you should be able to braid or bend wires. Braiding will allow to easily pass multiple objects, currently you can do it with packed geometry but it is clunky. Bending wires allows to package a network and pass somewhere else as a function, doable with invoke graph node but super clunky too.
I started out with 3ds Max, then learned Maya then Blender. And now I am using and learning Houdini. To be an expert in any of these softwares you have to put in your 10 000hrs. The core principles are the same but the routes to them are different. I love different things about each of the packages but I really wish I had started Houdini alongside 3ds Max years ago. It is a very interesting package that is very well put together.
Honeslty blender is improving at a much faster rate than any of these other programs. The amount of improvements in just the last 3 years has been insane, and I think at this rate it will eventually surpass Maya and 3ds max.
@@lonelylama5222 I don't think so. Blender dev mindset suck so hard. They don't give a shit about gamedev and putting crapy things like video editing etc. We still don't have a good UV tools. Viewport optimization also garbage as hell. They copy everything from other softwares but none of them fully baked. Blender has modifiers like 3ds max but it just feels like a demo version of it or geometry nodes... None of them will be as powerfull as other softwares I mention. I really need to stop using Blender but I am get used it too much. Also without plugins Blender feels like naked. I am tired of using tons of plugins. I feel like Houdini is way to go but it just feels weird after using Blender. Especially modeling tools is not really as good as Blender and that node base system is great but for non-procedural tasks it is way too overkill and makes things harder and longer. For me Blender is the best after 3ds max when it comes to modeling. Maya is also pretty good but Blender is one step ahead. I really would like to see Blender Foundation start to optimize that software and start adding some plugins as default feauters. Also Maya style pie menus would be amazing(again they copy but just garbage version of maya). Also I love the fact that you can create your custom stuff in viewport in Maya. Better UV tools, Edit Poly modifiers like 3ds Max etc etc. Best part about Blender is that it is free.
How do you use both softwares or like implement them in your projects?? Because, I'm looking for a software to learn where I can create simulations, character animations and 15-20 seconds animation for a start-up.
@@mustafaozturk3343 Absolutely correct. The dev philosophy has stunted blender. You can review over a decade of forum discussions to see how 14 yr olds and obtuse grognards have resisted QoL and good tool functionality time and time again. Every professional using blender has a frankenblender with a 100 plugins to make it usable. The fact it's open scripted is it's saving grace. Still to this day, after 15 years of discussion on the topic you can't even edit a primitives parameters if you move it to a new position> people argue that you would never need to do that after you create one and resist that change, mind boggling.
@@lonelylama5222 Those improvements inside of blender speak to how far blender has been behind other 3d packages IMO. I love that Blender's been improving at such a fast rate but as other comments have mentioned most of these features Blender is not innovating they're catching up implementing existing features from other 3d packages. This is partially why you don't see other packages adding as many features at the rate Blender has been the last few years.
I really hope they gonna keep with the same workflow in simulation/nodes and don’t change it like always so you kinda have to start from scratch and the whole process becomes wayyy more difficult than it supposed to be
I love houdini! it's my main app. Ive been learning more blender lately and I love it too. Both are honestly the only apps I recommend people learning for 99% of cases these days. I've learned C4D and Maya in the past but have left both behind.
@@wallacesousuke1433 nope, i do some vfx but you can check my page, i mostly do character work, animation, etc. I also do a lot of motion graphics and c4d is not necessarily better, it just depends on a lot of factors, Houdini gives you way more control. Maya certainly is good for character animation but Houdini has some really unique rigging and animation tools (KineFX) for working procedurally that add a lot. There's some stuff I miss from maya, but there's more stuff I'd miss from houdini if I went back to maya for character work. Blender's great for character stuff too.
@@wallacesousuke1433 But blender is a program that does everything generally well. Maya is great for animation but not so much the other stuff. C4D is great for motion graphics, but it is more clunky than blender in my opinion.
Tried a beginner thing on both, blender was better in terms of ease and speed. Houdini was a headache, the end result was awesome, but the number of crashes and the huge time to render was not feeling worth it
I'd argue that if you are starting to learn Blender now, by the time you know it well it will be around version 6.0 and it might have Houdini like node system by that time already. It's insane how much features Blender has and how fast it's developed for an open source project.
Even after 4 years Blender isn't able to replace common 3D software. It doesn't even compare in many of it's specialities. If you are serious about it or doing stuff as your job, mostly the industry standards are still used. Blender is a cool suite but don't make it sound better then it is, it's a free allrounder, that does everything great, but it's the classic jack of all trades master of none.
Both are simply great programs. Houdini is fantastic for what it does and Blender just keeps getting better and better. Let's just be happy that both programs are amazing and only improving.
I like blender because i know that no matter what happens they can't take my blend files from me. Fail to pay sidefx? No more models or sims. This is why no matter how amazing houdini or marvelous designer is, being unable to run or even access your files unless you keep paying is gonna make me stay with blender.
@kirederf7862 My dad bought adobe CS6 back before creative cloud. He'd been a loyal adobe user since it was just photoshop 4. He had a perpetual license. Adobe forcibly bricked his license so it would no longer install or function. Given the fact that some versions of adobe software is not fully backwards compatible, this is equivalent to a film camera that when a new one comes out, burns your film, and requires you to buy a subscription to continue shooting film. There are dozens of stories like this. Another is an autodesk software that was developed for wood cutting. Autodesk bought out the company, and got rid of the software after a while. The result was a guy who used it for his business couldn't operate his hardware anymore. Because autodesk determined his perpetual license wasn't perpetual anymore. All those schmucks who bought marvelous designer on steam, then marvelous switched to a subscription model. Houdini fx is 4,495 for a perpetual license with 2.5k per year for upgrades per node. 6.5k plus 4k a year per node if you are a studio. Sure, if you are good at your job you might make more than enough to cover that, but if you get a bad client(like what happened with rhythm and hues) you can easily lose money and be forced to shutter. I like software I know will not be taken from me even if I don't make money.
@@kirederf7862 If you don't understand that, clearly you were born with a good amount of money and have never had to struggle. Good for you, but not everyone is so fortunate that they can afford to perpetually rent software, instead of own it. Especially outside of first world countries.
@@Nebulaoblivion dude, software ain’t free. Houdini is a professional software, for professionals, it isn’t fucking blender. The indie version of Houdini is 400 per every two years. That is not a lot of money for such software. And seriously, if you’re even entering the field of 3d VFX, you need a powerful pc. Are you going to say you wouldn’t pay for a pc either?
@@kirederf7862 _dude, software ain’t free._ Uhm, actually "Software" is and can be Free. Blender is Free to use and Free to modify, being Open Source. Free as in Freedom.
how do you like blender compared to cinema 4d? I don’t know which whim I should start and have fun in the long run. I always thought that after learning blender it might be easier to add Houdini (to do FX). Or should I first learn C4D and then use x particles or learn C4D and then learn Houdini ?
Blender's advantage over Houdini at the moment is the sculpting, texture painting and the real-time Eevee renderer... for everything else Houdini is light-years ahead
Try some hard surface modeling or some modeling that requires box modeling approach in Houdini. Not saying you can't do it, but it is more convoluted. You see procedural modeling is great no doubt, but parametric modeling, Box modeling, Edge or even normal Boolean operations have its place that can't be substituted with nodes.
@@UlfricStromcloak Houdini can do both... work destructively or procedural. Houdini is parametric to the point that you can make and define your own custom parameters & not just use the built in ones like other programs. Booleans have nothing to do with node or layer based data structures. I love working with booleans in Houdini & wouldn't trade it for any other program.
and sculpting is bad compared to ZBrush and Houdini doesnt want to do that... and the viewport in houdini is great enough. Blender is doing nothing great. I myself use Blender and I know its okayish but it has so much bad stuff. The performance in edit mode is a joke, the UV Unwrapper is 30! years old and super bad. we cant even "select through" till 2.8 which is a complete joke from blender. daily I find bugs
Houdini is similar to zbrush a specialist software and serves an important part in the production pipeline. Blender, on the other hand, is more like a swiss army knife, the direct competitor is Maya and not Houdini. Another thing what i want to point out with Houdini. Houdini is a very powerful software, but also a very deep and complex one. The good news is, you don't need to know everything to get the job done. Houdini is like a Linux operating System. You can use it in a lot of different ways. You can go deep, but you can also stay Sop,Vop level. I know many who work with houdini, and never touched the mighty subsystem for mathematical nerds. I think as mighty companion for Blender, is Houdini a very good choice. But the first question should always be "do i need this tool, to make it happen?" Blender does a good job, also in VFX, even in my opinion the Add-on subsystem begin to be somehow cluttered. Many workload can stay in blender, no need for specialist software. Money is also another factor.
@@theunnamedchannel3402 you can sharpen the knife, you cant turn that knife in to a spade or an axe, blender is a generalist tool and is still missing lots of features that other software have that are used in the industry, blender has a long way to reach that status
Houdini is a VFX and CFX tool, you can do much more in Houdini than what you can do in Blender, Sculpting and texture painting should be done in a separate app at a pro level, at least IMHO!
Nah sculpting and texturing should be done in Blender too because I don't want to have a bazzillion apps just to make a product. If blender implements a proper PBR texturing workflow with the open source brush engines I see no reason to go back to something like Substance painter. Same with sculpting, once they implement the proposed features a few years back I have no reason to contemplate zbrush.
Please can all Blender RUclipsrs stop comparing and talking about Blender as the new this or that, the replacement for this and that and just deal with Blender as it is! It does no good comparing it in this kind of way, it just pushes the arguments about what Blender is and isn't according to vested groups of people who want to gatekeep the industry instead of fostering what we can do as Blender users given the tools they provide in the program, i hate this stupid comparisons because Blender only needs to be what it is!
The problem with simulations in every software is that they are still stuck in understanding math more than understanding reality. One of the major improvements in texture quality, especially in the gaming industry, was with the introduction of PBR materials. Instead of having to spend hours or days tweaking computer math to simulate something that resembles reality in terms of texture behavior, PBR instead focused on real life behavior of materials. For me, someone who's struggling with the technology and aren't really interested in mastering code in order to reach my artistic vision, PBR textures is a giant leap in ditching unnecessary complexity. Simulations need to go the same route. Or rather, EVERYTHING in 3D should go down that route. Meaning, start with real life behavior, have a set of tools guiding simulations that are limited to the behaviors of the real world from the get go. For instance, have simulations of water be based on the scale of the water. If simulating water in a glass, it will behave like water in a glass if the glass is the same size as a real world glass object is. If you scale things up to a lake, the water will behave accordingly. Do this and then utilize better handling of physics using GPUs. Right now we have EmberGen which can simulate fire and soon liquids in real time, scalable with the GPU power you have. It's remarkable that 3D software today struggle so hard with physics while the team at EmberGen just went down the gaming industry route and changed everything. And looking at physics simulations like how thousands of objects can be simulated in games like Starfield, but Blender and others "struggle" to simulate 10 basic object shapes falling and bouncing around is just mind boggling. 3D software needs to focus more on standardizing objects to behave like the real world and then underneath that you can tinker around with the physics if you need to. Right now it's the other way around, starting with the complexity and having to find other people's settings in order to reach real world behaviors. And they need to become more like game engines, having real time optimization for simulations. It doesn't matter if you need more complexity to those simulations, that should come AFTER you've set the stage. Meaning, if you can test out simulations in a scene until it feels right, then you've done 99% of the work of these simulations. EmberGen is vastly superior to everything else because you can actually see the changes happening in real time. You don't have to spend weeks of waiting on simulations just to see them not work over and over needing tweaking that's just basic guesswork. I'd wish that Blender would take a look at how game engines work with simulations and just rework the entire engine for simulations. Games and GPUs handles stuff so much better than every 3D software seem to do and it's driving me nuts.
"EmberGen" wow never heard of it, just took a look.. It seems amazing! And the pricing is reasonable even for someone who lives in a developing country!
Its main focus has been on making volumetric fire/smoke or sprites of fire/smoke for games, but since their simulation quality is scalable you get the same result as normal simulations, but at a much greater speed. I actually don't think I could ever go back to simulating in any other way since it's such a giant leap over everything else and can save weeks of wasted time. I've been dying to try out their fluid version which is still in development and I've spoken to them to try and get them to get a more implemented version into software like Blender since it would be a revolution if we could use it directly in Blender. However, they don't have any plans on that at the moment since they're so early in development with everything. But the core thinking is there, use the methods of game engines to simulate. Just as Unreal Engine has been revolutionizing the film industry with real time rendering, 3D software need to take this into account. Why should I spend thousands of hours with math guesswork instead of seeing things in real time and have absolute visual feedback in my control over what I do. I wish that Blender would do something with this, stop using slow code for these things and develop game engine level simulations. The only difference is how it scales in complexity. A game engine that scale up the simulations will run slow, but the same simulation in a "normal" 3D software will not run at all without a super computer. The difference between "normal" 3D software and game engines are gone and we need that speed built into Blender.
@@christoffer886 yeah, seeing what they can do, I wish Blender followed the same path. Houdini is a big nope by me since it costs a fortune, requires coding and math knowledge, I hope that UE5 + Blender + Embergen will allow me as an aspiring game dev to create a game with great quality
All this reminds me a lot more of ICE in Softimage's XSI 7 released in 2008( just 15 years ago...) than of Houdini. Certainly Autodesk has removed XSI renamed Softimage, but what comes out with version 4.0 of Blender looks more like ICE, no ?
I look at Houdini as a data management program. The way I work in houdini vs blender is quite different. You manipulate the data the you have created to achieve a goal or solve a problem. I mainly use houdini for anything i belive i will have to change quite a bit later on so it's beneficial to have a procedural object. I use houdini a lot in product and artistic design. For instance if I'm building an art installation I'll build it in houdini so i can quickly change it later on, or directly with the client.
@@GaryParris blender is basic math whole houdini is theoretical physics. Stop trying to draw bullshit comparisons, blender is simply worse than houdini at this stuff but a LOT.
But Houdini, like any proprietary software, stores your data locked away in its proprietary format. It doesn’t just manage your data, it also owns it. And like any rentware, stop paying the fee and you lose control over your data.
@@Raecast Let me say it again: proprietary software takes control of your data away from you. Rentware means you have to rent back access to what should be yours by right.
Blender is never going to give Houdini true competition because Houdini isn't made to be your main 3D suite and Blender isn't made to be FX focused. Their philosophies are way different. Houdini should be seen more as a companion to say, Blender or Maya.
Let’s see: Blender has better sculpting tools than Houdini, a better compositor than Maya, a better Grease Pencil than anything from Adobe, and a better Python API than any of them.
For some reason, I hoped that in 4.0 some kind of physical models appeared that allow you to create this, and not visual tricks in the like of luminous tubes, as in the case of lightning.
Speaking to all commentators so far, say what you want about whatever software but the fact that Blender is not only free but also open source just blows my mind everyday
I'm currently learning Houdini after spending some time in Geo Nodes. I expect to use both for my work with Houdini for more heavy operations and simulations and at the same time I plan to build more Geo Nodes presets for procedural assets directly in Blender.
When I looked at Houdini I've noticed there's different versions, 1 of the main reasons I use Blender is to make models and then later import them into Unreal Engine 4. The information they give I read it and find it confusing something about 10 Licences per studio online?
Yes, please stay away from Houdini if the licenses confuse you already, and you can't find the free download of the Apprentice version. There's about a Steven Kings novel worth of technical jargon and computer science terminology you would have to learn first before attempting to follow or read any of that. But it's simple enough to learn on your own at a leisurely pace, after all, you first had to learn to stand on your board, and learn and Ollie before you could attempt kick-flip, right? Or rather, know what an Ollie and a kick-flip is in the first place. That's where you are right now :D
@@SkintSNIPER262 i personally use embergen bro, but lets be honest, you can't compare the results, yes embergen is easy and x1000 times faster, but houdini still gives the better quality
pointless conversation and talking points on software! they are all built for different markets and different things! at the end of the day they are all just code and everyone of them is capable of arriving at the same destination ultimately!
I wouldn’t say so, Ofc Houdini is much better and prob will always be the industry standard but blender is doing pretty well in VFX Just different ways and forms to do so Sadly Blender doesn’t keep a similar step on it , unlike Houdini which the whole workflow doesn’t change that much during time That’s quite the opposite in blender, geo nodes, simulation and the workflow of it, changes drastically to each new big update…
Blender is the perfect companion for Houdini, as it covers pretty well those areas that are not really strong in Houdini, things like hard surface modelling, sculpting etc. No Houdini designer will ever stop using it for Blender, tho. The 2 softwares are not ever comparable. Houdini is a software with virtually no limits. Only your skills and understanding of how to build your idea. Also, the level of optimisation of that software is unbelievable. Try managing 3m particles with Blender or C4d…
There's no comparison. Houdini is a simulation heavy program used to make gorgeous water, cloth and hair. Blender's simulation systems have withered on the vine for half a decade at least without significant improvement, and Blender's Geometry Nodes are essentially C++ classes with visual hooks that tell the user "You create your own 3D program and GUI" and no real physical dynamics in a usable form at all. It's like buying a car, getting it delivered in boxes of parts, and a one page instruction manual that just has the words "Figure it out bitches" printed on it.
It's like comparing an RS6 to a F1 race car. Blender is an Audi RS6. A car that can drive really fast, but one that you can also bring the family along in, take a cruise down the country side, go camping, bring home the shopping, listen to some music as you go and sit comfortably in. A multipurpose supercar. Houdini is a Formula 1 race car. It drives insanely fast, but just that. You can't do any of the other things that the RS6 could, but it WILL outrun the RS6 easily, of course.
that's such a ridiculous comparison. As Blender is slower with the same polygon amount for example and all the things you can't do in Blender. More accurate would be Blender being a hand-built toyota by multiple people that all wanted to drive somewhere else, mismatching tires and ofc a rusty decade old hull they recently painted over with 2.8. And then there's Houdini, a literal tank built-by aliens, with more power in it, and even more knowledge required to drive it. But it drives in all directions, can spin on the spot and drive as fast an F1 car. But wait, that's what you built using Houdini, Houdini is actually that flying factory over there, that puts out not only tanks, but planes, cars, spaceships everything you could imagine a blueprint for. yeah, something like that
@@MrSofazocker Yeah and since you want to go there. You can actually use and afford the Toyota. While the alien spaceship is as good as useless when you can't even touch it.
love seeing the progress of blender is incredible and great for the community , however blender is not at all houdini , there is a fundamental difference betwen LINEAR programs like most traditional modelling and the NONLINEAR workflow of houdini . in houdini EVERY action is stored as a node , meaning that it is completely nondestructive , and that any task that you do is already in a compatible form to turn into a HDA tool , its not like in blender where you might do a few operations and then realize later it could be done as geonodes or as a plugin , in houdini it is universal and therefore the transition from experimenting to making it a tool to be reused on larger workflows is seamless . and that workflow of realizing certain sets of actions could/should be turned into HDAs tools to be reused builds like lego , and accelrates especially large workflows that end up with tools within tools that just is so far out of scope for what blender offers .
We love Blender, but it's _light years_ behind Houdini (at least as far as proceduralism and simulations go), no hate, just honesty. But when their powers combine... Re: prebuilts; yes, yes YES. The Shelf Tools, The Gamedev Toolset, third party tools like MOPS from Toadstorm and Moritz (Entagma) range from incredibly helpful for beginners to outright game changers for more advanced users. Blender should absolutely follow suit.
I switched from Maxon C4D to Blender because C4D Still has poor Character rigging and character animation tools, particularly for character animated films and game pipelines. I learned just enough Houdini apprentice to make some smoke & pyro for export as VBD to Blender. Not that into geonodes because my interest is Character stuff so I have ARP and Iclone&Daz with free pipeline tools to bring in nice characters for animation after re-rigging with ARP. I even still run two seats of the old Endorphin rag doll physics software for retarget with ARP with my Flip fluids add-on and Houdini apprentice for smoke& Pyro(VDB ) I have everything I need for VFX & Character work.
Several factors extraneous to Houdini may influence how much Blender rises (or not) in the industry: 1) Hollywood appears to be in decline. With expensive flop after _even more_ expensive flop, combined with the effect of the writers and now actors strike, some are saying that Hollywood's incredibly expensive production and distribution costs is killing their old, creaking business model and even their industry. 2) Given 1), and the growing financial woes worldwide, this seems to indicate that the days of incredibly expensive effects are about to end. Fat cats like ILM etc may find themselves in serious trouble if they can't evolve. 3) This may also bring about an accelerated rise of indie filmmaking that will not support absurd budgets and require more low cost and creative effects making. I don't know if it's going to unfold as I suggest above, just my guess, but the ridiculous budget for Dial of Destiny and the massive losses seems to be an unsupportable model. I think this spells good news for more story-oriented filmmaking instead of the eye-aching, empty effects extravaganzas we see today. It may also see an increased call for cost effective alternatives and therefore accelerated evolution of Blender. Time will tell. Perhaps Hollywood will rally, but I almost hope it doesn't. I think its money men will just retreat further into recycling what's worked before while audiences continue to tire of it. It's time for much more decentralisation and a wider spectrum of voices.
Woke messaging is ruining Hollywood, not the high production cost. Topgun 2, Avatar 2, Dune, oppenheimer etc. prove that people still want to go to cinema when it's not some cringe woke bs. Some studios will learn the hard way...
It still wonders me to this day, how come Hollywood gather those big million bucks from the days of old to today paying for the thousands if not tens of thousands of names I saw in closing credits. Do they just borrow the money just like most businesses in US? What happens if it doesn't make return, then? If so, shouldn't they take their jobs more seriously?
@@vandammage1747 Barbie was probably one of the most "woke" movies I've ever seen and is outperforming Oppenheimer and Dune, and currently approaching Top Gun numbers. Not saying it's a better movie, those other movies are also great. But there's obviously a market for being "woke".
@@rustedfriend Barbie is the only woke movie out hundreds that is doing well. Oppenheimer is also not a big budget movie or some huge ip like Barbie, it's still a success among all the Disney failures. Name some woke Disney/Marvel movies that did great? I'll wait...
@@vandammage1747 Disney and Marvel usually do well across the board, so you'd have to tell me which ones you consider woke. I don't know what criteria makes a movie woke to you. I did just look up the top grossing movies for 2023 and out of the top ten, 4 are Disney with 2 being marvel. Guardians of the galaxy, Little Mermaid, Ant Man, and Indiana Jones.
For technically inclined people, Houdini is a better choice. It is moe streamlined. And there is a free apprentice version. You can build things in it, and then export geometry or VDBs into Blender scenes. Best of both worlds.
Blender in my case is very good for almost everything but rendering quality still leaves something to be desired, I know that every day the community strives to bring the best to Blender, more due to lack of investment and a license of at least 9 dollars per month this would have a profound impact on Blender in hiring more qualified people to improve the tool, the graphics market does not adopt Blender in any aspect, all professionals start here with Blender and migrate to other tools, to be able to earn a living of life, the price is the same for me, Maya is very expensive for artists and I know that companies only think about money, but this is a war that never ends, everyone already knows that the good has to pay,
as someone that uses both blender and houdini I'd say if you want to learn procedural workflows, stick to houdini, blender's geo nodes are powerful and they do get the job done but stuff changes on blender much more than houdini, if you don't want to change the way that you are doing stuff procedurally each couple versions just try to learn Houdini right away i love blender but it feels like some stuff is just being added on it without much thinking, i personally would like to see much more focused updates on the areas that need refinement, like texture painting and the video editor for example houdini feels much more grounded in this area, it's already established on what it's meant to do, and simulations, it's a joy to simulate on it
There was only one major change in how Blender does geometry nodes, and it was in a very early version as they were figuring out the design. Now they know how it should work, and all they're doing is adding new nodes for the foreseeable future. There's been six versions with the current design, the seventh will be coming in early November, and nobody's talking about it ever changing again.
at this point i literally couldn't care less about blenders new features. they are cool, but the main right now inherit issue they must address is the aging open gl pipeline. open gl at this point is the biggest bottleneck into blenders success as it severely hinders the performance of blender due to its high level nature. if we want to see true mass adoption of blender, the team MUST implement a vulkan implementation eventually. i hope to see blender 4.0 finish its initial vulkan implementation finally
We use both, and no, blender is no where near the power of Houdini. The ideas stolen might be great, but it just can't handle the data sets Houdini can. It becomes frustrating very quickly.
Houdini is much easier than geo nodes. Much better QOL and documentation, more high level features, more freedom to do things the way that's easiest for you. It's just expensive.
No comparing at all three languages inside houdini vex python, hexpression even the node can talk to each other if wire or not what type what to do for attribute sizing and and i ve
The blender program, at an average level, is better than any software in its category. Compared to Houdini, at an average level, it is easier, as well as others like Zbrush for sculpt and Maya for animation. But if you need a senior level, then you have to migrate to the specific software for what you need
The begginers Houdini was Softiamge XSI, but Autodesk bought it and killed it, so no more houdini competitor, Blender just recentrly is going for node programming, and still is not as good as how Softimage was in 2012, though its getting close, but not yet.
@@ClaudioMalagrino no. That's the same fate that blender game engine got. But in the case of the game engine, it wasn't as polished. Also, blender is a tool that does a crap ton of stuff sometimes done is separate applications. 3d modelling, simulations, material making, sculpting, vfx, 3d/2d animation etc... There's no reason to make a separate app for the blender video sequencer. Especially when it's so deeply integrated to the app.
@@gcharb2d Indeed. If you are going to pay that kind of money these software companies want, it better do a hell of a lot more and do it better than Blender - which is what I would expect.
@@stevenpike7857 Free doesn't mean that it's any good, Houdini Indie, which has no limitations, is only $200 a year, real cheap if you consider the power you get for that price, well worth it if you use it as your bread and butter!
Is this video ai generated or poorly edited? Every time you say x is better than y it seems to directly contradict previous or following context, and there's even a point around 4 minutes in where you say that x is better than what comes pre packaged with blender, and then immediately after, x is better than what comes pre packaged with houdini It's really confusing ;-;
Like Maya, Houdini has no competition in the Industry for decades. As soon as Blender get basic sims node the Blender community compare to the long standing leader.
in my honest opinion, blender can't compare due to one huge flaw. no GPU acceleration, houdini uses gpu acceleration extensively while blender cannot do that, this makes blender miserably slow with simulatons
Houdini is more easy compare to Geonodes, but yes they are similar. Need to understand Houdini have 20 year experiance making nodes compare to houdini.
I am a hardcore user of blender, but I always wanted to learn Houdini because I love simulations. Life is too short to learn Houdini
C4d is like cooler version of houdini with modelling, animation rigging capabilities. So for most motion graphic artists C4D is ideal, as for the VFX nothing can really replace houdini. Blender just getting started, compared to bifrost of the maya it's still at infant stage.
One thing I love about Houdini is the procedural aspect of the software. Sure blender geometry node is also solid and is can be procedural as well
@@MultiHeheboy youre so wrong with everything houdini is easier then blender and c4d combined , the only thing which you need to learn is how houdini context work and then everything is at your fingertips any high lvl expertise youd need is 1 google away and you will be presented with information on how to create it and then you can continue on to make a masterpiece in houdini ,and it takes less then 2 months of 3 hours per week to learn houdini for one specific branch ,be it vfx, modeling ,simulations or whatever everything you do in houdini is scaling according to your skill and wits and it translates to quality and speed
@@MultiHeheboy I use C4D for 12 years now and i currently learn Houdini. C4D and Houdini are very different in a lot of ways. The whole simulation part where Houdini has it´s strenghts is pretty much non-existant in C4D. Like fluid, fire and particle simulations. Even Extensions like Realflow or XParticles are nothing compared to Houdini. And there is simply nothing worth mentioning inside of C4D
@@Gromic2k Yeah for an vfx, simulation etc.. nothing can replace houdini. But for an non hollywood works, specially in motion graphic community c4d is little houdini. Does the 80% of the job faster and easier.
Blender is the gateway «drug» to 3D. Learn the basics, then specialize. Find what suits your interest😊
Houdini is more like a drug lab. Create you own drugs, then get addicted to them.
@@RyoMassaki lol
Agreed
If you could learn "the basics" in Blender, then yes.
blender doesn't even make the distinction between points in space and vertices.
@@RyoMassaki I can attest to that **snoorrrt** 🏔
As for building everything from scratch, this is where the community should come in as well including all the Pro's using Blender, build solver, build sims and make them freely available to everyone else instead of gatekeeping them as payable assets or node groups or packages for patreons, that is how you build this all up quickly and give people freedom to create, don't just wait for Blender foundation to build it all, it's upto everyone in the community to build and help each other as well, while the core elements are built into Blender
Thank you! As I've always said, we can't depend on the Blender Foundation for absolutely everything. Learn Geometry Nodes, learn C, Python, and C++ to work with the Blender source code. Blender has been, and will always be a community effort.
i understand what you're saying. you want the community to help grow it, but I also understand the other side. "gatekeeping them as payable assets" sounds a lot like you don't want to pay people for their work.
Well said
@@red4666 A balance would be best. RyanKingArt is a perfect example, having paid material packs up on his Gumroad, but also providing free tutorials for each of those materials.
I follow the same balance with having my custom keymap up on Gumroad, but I also have the documentation for free if you want to spend the time and sanity.
If, say, a few hundred or a few thousand Autodesk or Adobe users were to pool the money they would have given those companies over a year, and used that to sponsor some open-source developers to add the features they feel are most important, think how much difference that would make.
You mention that Houdini being broken up into separate operator node networks is an advantage. Actually, Houdini has spent a sizable amount of rescues making more and more tools work from within sops. Within the last few releases they have been converting more and more tools into sops based nodes instead. This has the advantage of being more easily effected and integrated with nodes that were only available in sops networks. For example, the new rigging system kinefx, can start out with just a simple stick figure network of edges that can then be fed into some nodes to turn this into a skeleton. You can then use sops based nodes to further alter the things like the positions of IK effectors with classic surface based tools that were never available to the old style Rigging tools. This is just one example.
So, I think the direction Geo Nodes is going in Blender fine. Having everything in one network has the advantage of using tools that were designed for one purpous, being used in unexpected ways. However, I think we are still a few years away from being at Houdini levels of excellence.
Houdini contexts are an outdated idea. They should be replaced with types just like functions in programming. They should allow to use the custom types combined of the standard ones.
It should not be SOP where all the job is done. It has to be a type less (context less) canvas. The nodes (operators, functions) should be lazy and be the first class citizens like they are in Haskell or pretty much any other functional programming language (the microsolvers in Houdini are like that).
But when it comes to Blender. What can I say. It goes the same way Maya and 3DSMax did - conventional 3d software + some nodes. It is the way to nowhere to be honest.
@@olexp9017 Totally agree with that Houdini nodes need types and take inspiration from functional programming languages! For example DOP context should be a state monad. Also the node networks should work as string diagrams, you should be able to braid or bend wires. Braiding will allow to easily pass multiple objects, currently you can do it with packed geometry but it is clunky. Bending wires allows to package a network and pass somewhere else as a function, doable with invoke graph node but super clunky too.
What is "sop"?
Few decades away from Houdini level, if ever.
I started out with 3ds Max, then learned Maya then Blender. And now I am using and learning Houdini. To be an expert in any of these softwares you have to put in your 10 000hrs. The core principles are the same but the routes to them are different. I love different things about each of the packages but I really wish I had started Houdini alongside 3ds Max years ago. It is a very interesting package that is very well put together.
Honeslty blender is improving at a much faster rate than any of these other programs. The amount of improvements in just the last 3 years has been insane, and I think at this rate it will eventually surpass Maya and 3ds max.
@@lonelylama5222 I don't think so. Blender dev mindset suck so hard. They don't give a shit about gamedev and putting crapy things like video editing etc. We still don't have a good UV tools. Viewport optimization also garbage as hell. They copy everything from other softwares but none of them fully baked. Blender has modifiers like 3ds max but it just feels like a demo version of it or geometry nodes... None of them will be as powerfull as other softwares I mention. I really need to stop using Blender but I am get used it too much. Also without plugins Blender feels like naked. I am tired of using tons of plugins.
I feel like Houdini is way to go but it just feels weird after using Blender. Especially modeling tools is not really as good as Blender and that node base system is great but for non-procedural tasks it is way too overkill and makes things harder and longer. For me Blender is the best after 3ds max when it comes to modeling. Maya is also pretty good but Blender is one step ahead.
I really would like to see Blender Foundation start to optimize that software and start adding some plugins as default feauters. Also Maya style pie menus would be amazing(again they copy but just garbage version of maya). Also I love the fact that you can create your custom stuff in viewport in Maya. Better UV tools, Edit Poly modifiers like 3ds Max etc etc.
Best part about Blender is that it is free.
How do you use both softwares or like implement them in your projects?? Because, I'm looking for a software to learn where I can create simulations, character animations and 15-20 seconds animation for a start-up.
@@mustafaozturk3343 Absolutely correct. The dev philosophy has stunted blender. You can review over a decade of forum discussions to see how 14 yr olds and obtuse grognards have resisted QoL and good tool functionality time and time again. Every professional using blender has a frankenblender with a 100 plugins to make it usable. The fact it's open scripted is it's saving grace. Still to this day, after 15 years of discussion on the topic you can't even edit a primitives parameters if you move it to a new position> people argue that you would never need to do that after you create one and resist that change, mind boggling.
@@lonelylama5222 Those improvements inside of blender speak to how far blender has been behind other 3d packages IMO. I love that Blender's been improving at such a fast rate but as other comments have mentioned most of these features Blender is not innovating they're catching up implementing existing features from other 3d packages. This is partially why you don't see other packages adding as many features at the rate Blender has been the last few years.
I really hope they gonna keep with the same workflow in simulation/nodes and don’t change it like always so you kinda have to start from scratch and the whole process becomes wayyy more difficult than it supposed to be
I love houdini! it's my main app. Ive been learning more blender lately and I love it too. Both are honestly the only apps I recommend people learning for 99% of cases these days. I've learned C4D and Maya in the past but have left both behind.
I'm starting to learn blender too!
SO you're a VFX/simulations artist? Cuz Maya is better for animations and C4D for motion graphics
@@wallacesousuke1433 nope, i do some vfx but you can check my page, i mostly do character work, animation, etc. I also do a lot of motion graphics and c4d is not necessarily better, it just depends on a lot of factors, Houdini gives you way more control. Maya certainly is good for character animation but Houdini has some really unique rigging and animation tools (KineFX) for working procedurally that add a lot. There's some stuff I miss from maya, but there's more stuff I'd miss from houdini if I went back to maya for character work. Blender's great for character stuff too.
@@wallacesousuke1433 Maya is not better at all when price of the two is taken into account.
@@wallacesousuke1433 But blender is a program that does everything generally well. Maya is great for animation but not so much the other stuff. C4D is great for motion graphics, but it is more clunky than blender in my opinion.
Tried a beginner thing on both, blender was better in terms of ease and speed. Houdini was a headache, the end result was awesome, but the number of crashes and the huge time to render was not feeling worth it
I'd argue that if you are starting to learn Blender now, by the time you know it well it will be around version 6.0 and it might have Houdini like node system by that time already. It's insane how much features Blender has and how fast it's developed for an open source project.
For real... They've already stated that their goal is "nodes everything!"
Even after 4 years Blender isn't able to replace common 3D software. It doesn't even compare in many of it's specialities. If you are serious about it or doing stuff as your job, mostly the industry standards are still used.
Blender is a cool suite but don't make it sound better then it is, it's a free allrounder, that does everything great, but it's the classic jack of all trades master of none.
@@3dbob891 Which 3D software do you think is the better one for everything? Or is your message that no software is perfect for everything?
@@MikkoRantalainen No software is perfect, but blender tries to be. Sadly it's a Jack of all trades, master of none.
@@3dbob891 Which software do you think a beginner should learn instead if the intent is to learn sculpting and hard surface modeling?
Oh, thanks, I was just looking for a video about both Blender and Houdini- v helpful! Keep up the good vids!
what a great time to be alive :D
Both are simply great programs. Houdini is fantastic for what it does and Blender just keeps getting better and better. Let's just be happy that both programs are amazing and only improving.
I'm happy for Blender, but I don't care about Houdini and anything that isn't open source and doesn't run on Linux.
@@godnyx117 So, blender?
@@emanu1674 Now I see that my comment can be misleading. I'm going to edit it!
I like blender because i know that no matter what happens they can't take my blend files from me. Fail to pay sidefx? No more models or sims. This is why no matter how amazing houdini or marvelous designer is, being unable to run or even access your files unless you keep paying is gonna make me stay with blender.
What kinda Logic is that?
@kirederf7862 My dad bought adobe CS6 back before creative cloud. He'd been a loyal adobe user since it was just photoshop 4. He had a perpetual license. Adobe forcibly bricked his license so it would no longer install or function. Given the fact that some versions of adobe software is not fully backwards compatible, this is equivalent to a film camera that when a new one comes out, burns your film, and requires you to buy a subscription to continue shooting film.
There are dozens of stories like this. Another is an autodesk software that was developed for wood cutting. Autodesk bought out the company, and got rid of the software after a while. The result was a guy who used it for his business couldn't operate his hardware anymore. Because autodesk determined his perpetual license wasn't perpetual anymore.
All those schmucks who bought marvelous designer on steam, then marvelous switched to a subscription model.
Houdini fx is 4,495 for a perpetual license with 2.5k per year for upgrades per node.
6.5k plus 4k a year per node if you are a studio. Sure, if you are good at your job you might make more than enough to cover that, but if you get a bad client(like what happened with rhythm and hues) you can easily lose money and be forced to shutter. I like software I know will not be taken from me even if I don't make money.
@@kirederf7862 If you don't understand that, clearly you were born with a good amount of money and have never had to struggle. Good for you, but not everyone is so fortunate that they can afford to perpetually rent software, instead of own it. Especially outside of first world countries.
@@Nebulaoblivion dude, software ain’t free. Houdini is a professional software, for professionals, it isn’t fucking blender. The indie version of Houdini is 400 per every two years. That is not a lot of money for such software.
And seriously, if you’re even entering the field of 3d VFX, you need a powerful pc. Are you going to say you wouldn’t pay for a pc either?
@@kirederf7862 _dude, software ain’t free._ Uhm, actually "Software" is and can be Free. Blender is Free to use and Free to modify, being Open Source. Free as in Freedom.
I learned Cinema4D, i was learning Blender but never get the time to learn more ... now i'm learning Houdini and that's amazing.
how do you like blender compared to cinema 4d? I don’t know which whim I should start and have fun in the long run. I always thought that after learning blender it might be easier to add Houdini (to do FX). Or should I first learn C4D and then use x particles or learn C4D and then learn Houdini ?
🤯Se vienen cositasss
yes! jajaja
@@sotomonte_ woot woot
This comment section will mostly be made up of "Houdini is unmatched" and "Blender gud" comments.
Indeed, it's already happening.
Blender's advantage over Houdini at the moment is the sculpting, texture painting and the real-time Eevee renderer... for everything else Houdini is light-years ahead
Try some hard surface modeling or some modeling that requires box modeling approach in Houdini. Not saying you can't do it, but it is more convoluted.
You see procedural modeling is great no doubt, but parametric modeling, Box modeling, Edge or even normal Boolean operations have its place that can't be substituted with nodes.
@@UlfricStromcloak Houdini can do both... work destructively or procedural. Houdini is parametric to the point that you can make and define your own custom parameters & not just use the built in ones like other programs. Booleans have nothing to do with node or layer based data structures. I love working with booleans in Houdini & wouldn't trade it for any other program.
You are wrong, as a 3D modeller, using Houdini would be crazy.
ACCURATE
and sculpting is bad compared to ZBrush and Houdini doesnt want to do that... and the viewport in houdini is great enough.
Blender is doing nothing great. I myself use Blender and I know its okayish but it has so much bad stuff. The performance in edit mode is a joke, the UV Unwrapper is 30! years old and super bad. we cant even "select through" till 2.8 which is a complete joke from blender. daily I find bugs
Houdini is similar to zbrush a specialist software and serves an important part in the production pipeline. Blender, on the other hand, is more like a swiss army knife, the direct competitor is Maya and not Houdini. Another thing what i want to point out with Houdini. Houdini is a very powerful software, but also a very deep and complex one. The good news is, you don't need to know everything to get the job done. Houdini is like a Linux operating System. You can use it in a lot of different ways. You can go deep, but you can also stay Sop,Vop level. I know many who work with houdini, and never touched the mighty subsystem for mathematical nerds.
I think as mighty companion for Blender, is Houdini a very good choice. But the first question should always be "do i need this tool, to make it happen?" Blender does a good job, also in VFX, even in my opinion the Add-on subsystem begin to be somehow cluttered. Many workload can stay in blender, no need for specialist software. Money is also another factor.
@@theunnamedchannel3402 you can sharpen the knife, you cant turn that knife in to a spade or an axe, blender is a generalist tool and is still missing lots of features that other software have that are used in the industry, blender has a long way to reach that status
Houdini is a VFX and CFX tool, you can do much more in Houdini than what you can do in Blender, Sculpting and texture painting should be done in a separate app at a pro level, at least IMHO!
Nah sculpting and texturing should be done in Blender too because I don't want to have a bazzillion apps just to make a product. If blender implements a proper PBR texturing workflow with the open source brush engines I see no reason to go back to something like Substance painter. Same with sculpting, once they implement the proposed features a few years back I have no reason to contemplate zbrush.
@@sidar87 then you are limiting yourself to the Blender cartoonish look!
That's not how any of that works@@gcharb2d
Please can all Blender RUclipsrs stop comparing and talking about Blender as the new this or that, the replacement for this and that and just deal with Blender as it is! It does no good comparing it in this kind of way, it just pushes the arguments about what Blender is and isn't according to vested groups of people who want to gatekeep the industry instead of fostering what we can do as Blender users given the tools they provide in the program, i hate this stupid comparisons because Blender only needs to be what it is!
I think you got a mistake at 4:04 & 4:05 ... or am I missing something?
The problem with simulations in every software is that they are still stuck in understanding math more than understanding reality. One of the major improvements in texture quality, especially in the gaming industry, was with the introduction of PBR materials. Instead of having to spend hours or days tweaking computer math to simulate something that resembles reality in terms of texture behavior, PBR instead focused on real life behavior of materials.
For me, someone who's struggling with the technology and aren't really interested in mastering code in order to reach my artistic vision, PBR textures is a giant leap in ditching unnecessary complexity. Simulations need to go the same route.
Or rather, EVERYTHING in 3D should go down that route. Meaning, start with real life behavior, have a set of tools guiding simulations that are limited to the behaviors of the real world from the get go. For instance, have simulations of water be based on the scale of the water. If simulating water in a glass, it will behave like water in a glass if the glass is the same size as a real world glass object is. If you scale things up to a lake, the water will behave accordingly.
Do this and then utilize better handling of physics using GPUs. Right now we have EmberGen which can simulate fire and soon liquids in real time, scalable with the GPU power you have. It's remarkable that 3D software today struggle so hard with physics while the team at EmberGen just went down the gaming industry route and changed everything. And looking at physics simulations like how thousands of objects can be simulated in games like Starfield, but Blender and others "struggle" to simulate 10 basic object shapes falling and bouncing around is just mind boggling.
3D software needs to focus more on standardizing objects to behave like the real world and then underneath that you can tinker around with the physics if you need to. Right now it's the other way around, starting with the complexity and having to find other people's settings in order to reach real world behaviors.
And they need to become more like game engines, having real time optimization for simulations. It doesn't matter if you need more complexity to those simulations, that should come AFTER you've set the stage. Meaning, if you can test out simulations in a scene until it feels right, then you've done 99% of the work of these simulations. EmberGen is vastly superior to everything else because you can actually see the changes happening in real time. You don't have to spend weeks of waiting on simulations just to see them not work over and over needing tweaking that's just basic guesswork.
I'd wish that Blender would take a look at how game engines work with simulations and just rework the entire engine for simulations. Games and GPUs handles stuff so much better than every 3D software seem to do and it's driving me nuts.
"EmberGen" wow never heard of it, just took a look.. It seems amazing! And the pricing is reasonable even for someone who lives in a developing country!
Its main focus has been on making volumetric fire/smoke or sprites of fire/smoke for games, but since their simulation quality is scalable you get the same result as normal simulations, but at a much greater speed. I actually don't think I could ever go back to simulating in any other way since it's such a giant leap over everything else and can save weeks of wasted time. I've been dying to try out their fluid version which is still in development and I've spoken to them to try and get them to get a more implemented version into software like Blender since it would be a revolution if we could use it directly in Blender. However, they don't have any plans on that at the moment since they're so early in development with everything.
But the core thinking is there, use the methods of game engines to simulate. Just as Unreal Engine has been revolutionizing the film industry with real time rendering, 3D software need to take this into account. Why should I spend thousands of hours with math guesswork instead of seeing things in real time and have absolute visual feedback in my control over what I do.
I wish that Blender would do something with this, stop using slow code for these things and develop game engine level simulations. The only difference is how it scales in complexity. A game engine that scale up the simulations will run slow, but the same simulation in a "normal" 3D software will not run at all without a super computer. The difference between "normal" 3D software and game engines are gone and we need that speed built into Blender.
@@christoffer886 yeah, seeing what they can do, I wish Blender followed the same path. Houdini is a big nope by me since it costs a fortune, requires coding and math knowledge, I hope that UE5 + Blender + Embergen will allow me as an aspiring game dev to create a game with great quality
just started learning Houdini and Unreal engine 5 couple moth its mind blowing
All this reminds me a lot more of ICE in Softimage's XSI 7 released in 2008( just 15 years ago...) than of Houdini. Certainly Autodesk has removed XSI renamed Softimage, but what comes out with version 4.0 of Blender looks more like ICE, no ?
No.
Nice comparison - thanks for making this video!
I look at Houdini as a data management program. The way I work in houdini vs blender is quite different. You manipulate the data the you have created to achieve a goal or solve a problem. I mainly use houdini for anything i belive i will have to change quite a bit later on so it's beneficial to have a procedural object. I use houdini a lot in product and artistic design. For instance if I'm building an art installation I'll build it in houdini so i can quickly change it later on, or directly with the client.
you got it, houdini is visual programming where you're manipulating a dataset, meanwhile blender is more like a modifier stack.
@@GaryParris blender is basic math whole houdini is theoretical physics. Stop trying to draw bullshit comparisons, blender is simply worse than houdini at this stuff but a LOT.
But Houdini, like any proprietary software, stores your data locked away in its proprietary format. It doesn’t just manage your data, it also owns it. And like any rentware, stop paying the fee and you lose control over your data.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 are you seriously using the fact you have to pay for software as a real point? Lmaoooo
@@Raecast Let me say it again: proprietary software takes control of your data away from you. Rentware means you have to rent back access to what should be yours by right.
it's Houdini's time to get some open-source competition lol
Blender is missing decades for that. It is a good beginners playground
@@pedrocx486 FX wise, yes. Mainly because there are specialized tools for the tasks.
Blender is never going to give Houdini true competition because Houdini isn't made to be your main 3D suite and Blender isn't made to be FX focused.
Their philosophies are way different.
Houdini should be seen more as a companion to say, Blender or Maya.
Let’s see: Blender has better sculpting tools than Houdini, a better compositor than Maya, a better Grease Pencil than anything from Adobe, and a better Python API than any of them.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 But we dont care about sculpting, about compositing or about a pencil hahaha. We use it for FX.
For some reason, I hoped that in 4.0 some kind of physical models appeared that allow you to create this, and not visual tricks in the like of luminous tubes, as in the case of lightning.
What about Embergen?
Thanks! Quite informative video 🔥💯
Speaking to all commentators so far, say what you want about whatever software but the fact that Blender is not only free but also open source just blows my mind everyday
I'm currently learning Houdini after spending some time in Geo Nodes. I expect to use both for my work with Houdini for more heavy operations and simulations and at the same time I plan to build more Geo Nodes presets for procedural assets directly in Blender.
When I looked at Houdini I've noticed there's different versions, 1 of the main reasons I use Blender is to make models and then later import them into Unreal Engine 4. The information they give I read it and find it confusing something about 10 Licences per studio online?
Yes, please stay away from Houdini if the licenses confuse you already, and you can't find the free download of the Apprentice version.
There's about a Steven Kings novel worth of technical jargon and computer science terminology you would have to learn first before attempting to follow or read any of that.
But it's simple enough to learn on your own at a leisurely pace, after all, you first had to learn to stand on your board, and learn and Ollie before you could attempt kick-flip, right?
Or rather, know what an Ollie and a kick-flip is in the first place. That's where you are right now :D
If you can't even navigate trough houdini website you really shouldn't even attempt to learn it, either way.
Houdini is just worth learning if you are interested in simulations, they are unmatched
Who obviously haven't seen JangaFX
@@SkintSNIPER262 Who obviously has simulated rigid bodies in EmberGen, lol
@@SkintSNIPER262 i personally use embergen bro, but lets be honest, you can't compare the results, yes embergen is easy and x1000 times faster, but houdini still gives the better quality
pointless conversation and talking points on software! they are all built for different markets and different things! at the end of the day they are all just code and everyone of them is capable of arriving at the same destination ultimately!
I wouldn’t say so, Ofc Houdini is much better and prob will always be the industry standard but blender is doing pretty well in VFX
Just different ways and forms to do so
Sadly Blender doesn’t keep a similar step on it , unlike Houdini which the whole workflow doesn’t change that much during time
That’s quite the opposite in blender, geo nodes, simulation and the workflow of it, changes drastically to each new big update…
Blender is the perfect companion for Houdini, as it covers pretty well those areas that are not really strong in Houdini, things like hard surface modelling, sculpting etc. No Houdini designer will ever stop using it for Blender, tho. The 2 softwares are not ever comparable. Houdini is a software with virtually no limits. Only your skills and understanding of how to build your idea. Also, the level of optimisation of that software is unbelievable. Try managing 3m particles with Blender or C4d…
No joke, that blue laser spreading with volumetrics right at the end... where can I find that. Been searcbing all over for that effe t.
anyone know where that laser @ 0:53 from? Tutorial or Buy link would be nice! Or is it a demo for blender 4?
Blender has come a long way... Thank God
they have a similar learning curve? :) youre the first one i hear that in over 20 years of beeing a 3d artist.
I cant imagine, that question: "Houdini or Blender?" could ever be asked some time ago
Is it possible to export your VFX pack to .gtlf format?
Yes Houdini export in all format
There's no comparison. Houdini is a simulation heavy program used to make gorgeous water, cloth and hair. Blender's simulation systems have withered on the vine for half a decade at least without significant improvement, and Blender's Geometry Nodes are essentially C++ classes with visual hooks that tell the user "You create your own 3D program and GUI" and no real physical dynamics in a usable form at all. It's like buying a car, getting it delivered in boxes of parts, and a one page instruction manual that just has the words "Figure it out bitches" printed on it.
Also, Blender is garbage car.
As a new one in 3d field, should i go learn blender or houdini? or c4d?
I went with blender because the number of tutorials available for houdini is minuscule in comparison.
Houdinii if you want to work in industry, blender for personal use.
It's like comparing an RS6 to a F1 race car.
Blender is an Audi RS6. A car that can drive really fast, but one that you can also bring the family along in, take a cruise down the country side, go camping, bring home the shopping, listen to some music as you go and sit comfortably in. A multipurpose supercar.
Houdini is a Formula 1 race car. It drives insanely fast, but just that. You can't do any of the other things that the RS6 could, but it WILL outrun the RS6 easily, of course.
that's such a ridiculous comparison.
As Blender is slower with the same polygon amount for example and all the things you can't do in Blender.
More accurate would be Blender being a hand-built toyota by multiple people that all wanted to drive somewhere else, mismatching tires and ofc a rusty decade old hull they recently painted over with 2.8.
And then there's Houdini, a literal tank built-by aliens, with more power in it, and even more knowledge required to drive it. But it drives in all directions, can spin on the spot and drive as fast an F1 car. But wait, that's what you built using Houdini, Houdini is actually that flying factory over there, that puts out not only tanks, but planes, cars, spaceships everything you could imagine a blueprint for.
yeah, something like that
@@MrSofazocker I'm gonna take a wild guess that you don't like Blender much.
@@MrSofazocker Yeah and since you want to go there. You can actually use and afford the Toyota. While the alien spaceship is as good as useless when you can't even touch it.
Calling Blender "Houdini light" it's like calling Twitter "X" - it's simply wrong. The correct term is Blendini of course.
I have a folder called Blendini. To work on combined workflow. 😀
I'd go for Houdini without think twice.
love seeing the progress of blender is incredible and great for the community , however blender is not at all houdini , there is a fundamental difference betwen LINEAR programs like most traditional modelling and the NONLINEAR workflow of houdini . in houdini EVERY action is stored as a node , meaning that it is completely nondestructive , and that any task that you do is already in a compatible form to turn into a HDA tool , its not like in blender where you might do a few operations and then realize later it could be done as geonodes or as a plugin , in houdini it is universal and therefore the transition from experimenting to making it a tool to be reused on larger workflows is seamless . and that workflow of realizing certain sets of actions could/should be turned into HDAs tools to be reused builds like lego , and accelrates especially large workflows that end up with tools within tools that just is so far out of scope for what blender offers .
Can you export the things from the Blender Dynamic Vfx to .fbx for Unity3d (including their animations)?
Was the explosion on the thumbnail geometry nodes or is it clickbait? Thought it would be a video around that, which would be impressive.
I wanna be 3d animator I would love to learn houdini. I know it is more stronger, but do I start from blender?
We love Blender, but it's _light years_ behind Houdini (at least as far as proceduralism and simulations go), no hate, just honesty. But when their powers combine...
Re: prebuilts; yes, yes YES. The Shelf Tools, The Gamedev Toolset, third party tools like MOPS from Toadstorm and Moritz (Entagma) range from incredibly helpful for beginners to outright game changers for more advanced users. Blender should absolutely follow suit.
I switched from Maxon C4D to Blender because C4D Still has poor Character rigging and character animation tools, particularly for character animated films and game pipelines.
I learned just enough Houdini apprentice to make some smoke & pyro for export as VBD to Blender.
Not that into geonodes because my interest is Character stuff so I have ARP and Iclone&Daz with free pipeline tools to bring in nice characters for animation after re-rigging with ARP.
I even still run two seats of the old Endorphin rag doll physics software for retarget with ARP
with my Flip fluids add-on and Houdini apprentice for smoke& Pyro(VDB ) I have everything I need for VFX & Character work.
ARP?
@@wallacesousuke1433 Autorig Pro for blender.
Until there's a 'looping' node Blender wont compete
Several factors extraneous to Houdini may influence how much Blender rises (or not) in the industry:
1) Hollywood appears to be in decline. With expensive flop after _even more_ expensive flop, combined with the effect of the writers and now actors strike, some are saying that Hollywood's incredibly expensive production and distribution costs is killing their old, creaking business model and even their industry.
2) Given 1), and the growing financial woes worldwide, this seems to indicate that the days of incredibly expensive effects are about to end. Fat cats like ILM etc may find themselves in serious trouble if they can't evolve.
3) This may also bring about an accelerated rise of indie filmmaking that will not support absurd budgets and require more low cost and creative effects making.
I don't know if it's going to unfold as I suggest above, just my guess, but the ridiculous budget for Dial of Destiny and the massive losses seems to be an unsupportable model. I think this spells good news for more story-oriented filmmaking instead of the eye-aching, empty effects extravaganzas we see today. It may also see an increased call for cost effective alternatives and therefore accelerated evolution of Blender.
Time will tell. Perhaps Hollywood will rally, but I almost hope it doesn't. I think its money men will just retreat further into recycling what's worked before while audiences continue to tire of it. It's time for much more decentralisation and a wider spectrum of voices.
Woke messaging is ruining Hollywood, not the high production cost. Topgun 2, Avatar 2, Dune, oppenheimer etc. prove that people still want to go to cinema when it's not some cringe woke bs. Some studios will learn the hard way...
It still wonders me to this day, how come Hollywood gather those big million bucks from the days of old to today paying for the thousands if not tens of thousands of names I saw in closing credits. Do they just borrow the money just like most businesses in US? What happens if it doesn't make return, then? If so, shouldn't they take their jobs more seriously?
@@vandammage1747 Barbie was probably one of the most "woke" movies I've ever seen and is outperforming Oppenheimer and Dune, and currently approaching Top Gun numbers. Not saying it's a better movie, those other movies are also great. But there's obviously a market for being "woke".
@@rustedfriend Barbie is the only woke movie out hundreds that is doing well. Oppenheimer is also not a big budget movie or some huge ip like Barbie, it's still a success among all the Disney failures.
Name some woke Disney/Marvel movies that did great? I'll wait...
@@vandammage1747 Disney and Marvel usually do well across the board, so you'd have to tell me which ones you consider woke. I don't know what criteria makes a movie woke to you. I did just look up the top grossing movies for 2023 and out of the top ten, 4 are Disney with 2 being marvel. Guardians of the galaxy, Little Mermaid, Ant Man, and Indiana Jones.
i have gtx1650 and blender runs somehow ok in my pc. can i run houdini better then blender or it requires better gpu
For technically inclined people, Houdini is a better choice. It is moe streamlined. And there is a free apprentice version. You can build things in it, and then export geometry or VDBs into Blender scenes. Best of both worlds.
Blender in my case is very good for almost everything but rendering quality still leaves something to be desired, I know that every day the community strives to bring the best to Blender, more due to lack of investment and a license of at least 9 dollars per month this would have a profound impact on Blender in hiring more qualified people to improve the tool, the graphics market does not adopt Blender in any aspect, all professionals start here with Blender and migrate to other tools, to be able to earn a living of life, the price is the same for me, Maya is very expensive for artists and I know that companies only think about money, but this is a war that never ends, everyone already knows that the good has to pay,
Please make a tutorial on how to make Eevee look like Cycles 🙏
I can definitely hear Adobe speech enhancement tool here.
thanks you, a very good video.
after 3 hour tutorial with 29 spread sheets and 37 popup windows I finally created a sphere in Houdini.
yes, don't know what this guy talks about. GeoNodes are 10times easier than hudini nodes
Bruh ! After hearing that looks like imma stick with blender lol
as someone that uses both blender and houdini I'd say if you want to learn procedural workflows, stick to houdini, blender's geo nodes are powerful and they do get the job done but stuff changes on blender much more than houdini, if you don't want to change the way that you are doing stuff procedurally each couple versions just try to learn Houdini right away
i love blender but it feels like some stuff is just being added on it without much thinking, i personally would like to see much more focused updates on the areas that need refinement, like texture painting and the video editor for example
houdini feels much more grounded in this area, it's already established on what it's meant to do, and simulations, it's a joy to simulate on it
There was only one major change in how Blender does geometry nodes, and it was in a very early version as they were figuring out the design. Now they know how it should work, and all they're doing is adding new nodes for the foreseeable future. There's been six versions with the current design, the seventh will be coming in early November, and nobody's talking about it ever changing again.
Where can I find a good CG designer to hire for a couple of projects I'm working on? I'm a beginner and really needing help.
Thank you!
~Mike
at this point i literally couldn't care less about blenders new features. they are cool, but the main right now inherit issue they must address is the aging open gl pipeline. open gl at this point is the biggest bottleneck into blenders success as it severely hinders the performance of blender due to its high level nature. if we want to see true mass adoption of blender, the team MUST implement a vulkan implementation eventually. i hope to see blender 4.0 finish its initial vulkan implementation finally
blender 4 bout to pull a godot 4 move???
would be epic
@@RenderingUser oh dear lord not a godot…. God not that unoptimized mess of a vulkan implementation…
@@snesmocha hopefully they will work on it better. Soon(tm)
We use both, and no, blender is no where near the power of Houdini. The ideas stolen might be great, but it just can't handle the data sets Houdini can. It becomes frustrating very quickly.
That's why I switched to Houdini, I was going out of my mind whenever I started building scenes in Blender just to see it crash all the time!
All packages price?
Is it me or are these "simulation nodes" just looping nodes with no relation to real physics?
Houdini is much easier than geo nodes. Much better QOL and documentation, more high level features, more freedom to do things the way that's easiest for you. It's just expensive.
Houdini indie is actually pretty cheap, some 300+ euros for two years, and you have professional app not that free garbage.
No comparing at all three languages inside houdini vex python, hexpression even the node can talk to each other if wire or not what type what to do for attribute sizing and and i ve
And new one added called apex script in Houdini 20.5
for outsiders there's only one choice, since nobody wants to drop Gs on software they don't know yet
@@choppiecortez8213 $US 250 means different things in every country, depending on the strength of their currency, lol
blender getting so deep, I just couldn't keep up..
wtf???
ive barely even got to use blender 3
boy they be upping the versions fast
want houdini only for Maxim Zhestkov job I cant make the particles molecules w/e it is on blender, but cant pay for houdini XD Im stuck XD
The blender program, at an average level, is better than any software in its category. Compared to Houdini, at an average level, it is easier, as well as others like Zbrush for sculpt and Maya for animation. But if you need a senior level, then you have to migrate to the specific software for what you need
If you need plugins to compare to Houdini... then you have your answer.
The begginers Houdini was Softiamge XSI, but Autodesk bought it and killed it, so no more houdini competitor, Blender just recentrly is going for node programming, and still is not as good as how Softimage was in 2012, though its getting close, but not yet.
Not even close, if you remember XSI, that was a beast and still better 3D app than Blender in almost every aspect, even 10 years after its demise.
Blender devs should focus on 3D. Drop the Compositor/Video Editor and develop more the PAINTING module. And of course, invest in nodes.
huh?
i dont think they should drop video part
its necessary for vfx
@@RenderingUserMaybe move it to another application.
@@ClaudioMalagrino no. That's the same fate that blender game engine got. But in the case of the game engine, it wasn't as polished.
Also, blender is a tool that does a crap ton of stuff sometimes done is separate applications. 3d modelling, simulations, material making, sculpting, vfx, 3d/2d animation etc...
There's no reason to make a separate app for the blender video sequencer. Especially when it's so deeply integrated to the app.
Blender is going to deliver food soon,
My biggest issue with blender is just how much it crashes during simulations
Blender is free and it's great for an old man like me who just likes to dig in and have a little fun.
Exactly, Blender is perfect for hobbyists, it is not a software developed with professionals in mind though!
@@gcharb2d Indeed. If you are going to pay that kind of money these software companies want, it better do a hell of a lot more and do it better than Blender - which is what I would expect.
@@stevenpike7857 Free doesn't mean that it's any good, Houdini Indie, which has no limitations, is only $200 a year, real cheap if you consider the power you get for that price, well worth it if you use it as your bread and butter!
Is this video ai generated or poorly edited? Every time you say x is better than y it seems to directly contradict previous or following context, and there's even a point around 4 minutes in where you say that x is better than what comes pre packaged with blender, and then immediately after, x is better than what comes pre packaged with houdini
It's really confusing ;-;
I’m just waiting for the “git gud” button 😔😂
Short answer: Yes
*no
No BS, to the point talk!
1:20 Ehemmm! node based systemS!! ☝ unfortunately there are several ones.
??? Everything is node based in Houdini, not sure if I get your point here !!! 🤨
Like Maya, Houdini has no competition in the Industry for decades. As soon as Blender get basic sims node the Blender community compare to the long standing leader.
in my honest opinion, blender can't compare due to one huge flaw. no GPU acceleration, houdini uses gpu acceleration extensively while blender cannot do that, this makes blender miserably slow with simulatons
SideFX the makers of Houdini are Blender investors.
mmm no and i love Blender and use on a Daily basis , also in sculpting is not de next Zbrush but its getting good 👋 👋
Houdini and geometry nodes are not even in the same ball park 😄 And you haven't even touched on Solaris and Houdini's deep integration of USD
I've personally never had to deal with Solaris / USD except as a way of rendering to Karma.
still haven't learnt blender
100% of Houdini but costs $#,### per month per seat.. or 69% of Houdini but costs $0 per seat?
Meanwhile Blender's hair particle system and fluid simulation: 🪦⚰️⚱️
Fast answer: for beginners Blender, for profesionals Houdini
Houdini makes my computer go brrrrrrr, so I use blender and program my stuff. It hurts
Blender is Free, a perpetual Houdini artist workstation license cost 4495 dollars
Is this video anyhow sponsored by Houdini?
Try to find a job in the industry knowing only Blender. And knowing only Houdini.
Apples and oranges
Houdini is more easy compare to Geonodes, but yes they are similar. Need to understand Houdini have 20 year experiance making nodes compare to houdini.