Then again, it's very important to clarify what you mean. But, if you're just doing simple stuff, it's absolutely fine.

That has been a meme of 'COPs 3.0' for a long time, but AFAIK there's nobody at SESI that works exclusively on COPs, so, yeah, not a priority. If you mean procedural texturing, Houdini is great.ĬOPs is pretty bad, unfortunately. You can do it, but in practice nobody does. But neither is Maya or Blender for that matter. Texturing you mean painting textures? Not really a thing. UV wrapping in Houdini is better than in any of those software. If anything, I would expect someone makes a plugin for it. If you know nothing about animation, it doesn't make a difference. There are countless little things, little scripts, little workflows, that Maya animators simply take for granted. The difference between Maya and Houdini is that people have been animating in Maya for decades. Don't waste you time on it, SideFX.Īnimation is the same shit for the past 30 years.

There are much better programs for it out there. Why? There is Nuke.īut sculpting? I don't see the point at all. What are you missing? It has everything, even an automatic unwrapper).Ĭompositing I can kind of see the point of procedural compositing, but feel it's waaay to big of a topic to cover for a 3D program. Same for UV mapping (which is actually very good. That said: Rigging is actively worked on, which makes sense with proceduralism. Amazing package - but as soon as you want to go very deep into anything - you run into a wall. Ironically the best allrounder on the market - Blender - is actually showing this quite clearly. If you try to do everything you will have to make sacrifices in certain areas. It fills a certain niche in the market that it should fill well, instead of trying to do everything. So Houdini shouldn't even try to become the 'everything' software like other programs do. Keep in mind - every function that is built in will take away development time.

Houdini software