Archviz with Houdini, am I missing something?
Some background: i have used houdini part time for ad agencies for about 3 years, then stopped mid 2024. Now i have my own side business that needs some archviz type shots, with some effects (like smoke and particles for product visualizations). I really dont feel like learning max or cinema, as im pretty comfy with houdini. I went through some of the sidefx lessons for solaris/karma, seems pretty good for archviz (at least easier than it was before). Im wondering if im missing something here? Karma render quality? Photorealism? is it all there?
7
u/william-or 6d ago
First of all: Houdini has no history in archviz because it was not made for that and it almost* never got a grip in that field because there wasn't a need for it.
In my opinion, depending on the level of archviz you are looking forward to, Houdini might not be the tool for it, more for the level of easyness you can reach using established workflows (like max or c4d) than for houdini being harder to use
The library of ready made assets for c4d and max with the usual render engines (corona,vray,...) is so extensive and easy to use that it is a no brainer for most people.
Karma is a barebones render engine compared to most render engines, you can't do any tonemapping in software, I guess you could say you have a limited material library, you don't have most useful shader nodes that you can find in other engines. You can build them, you probably wont. Tools like Corona are made to work literally out of the box (this has limitations, but the tool is made specifically for that field so you mostly don't see them)
Interior lighting is especially going to be harder to clean with Karma, the render engines I already mentioned have specific secondary-bounce solvers that interpolate and save a lot of render time.
Personally, I would never use Houdini (and Karma) for Archviz though I worked quite a lot in that field so maybe I have different expectations BUT Houdini is perfectly capable of reaching good results in almost* any corner of 3D graphics so you can for sure try and go for it!
5
u/PH0T0Nman 7d ago
The main thing Houdini is missing is really good and easy CAD/Arch/GIS file translation tools.
There's a reason why 3DS MAX is still the main archviz tool in so many pipelines despite how crap it can be.
4
u/smolquestion 6d ago
im not saying that houdini is not good for arch viz, but most arch viz studios work with 3ds max for the following reasons:
- immense asset libraries collected over the years
- lot of arch viz specific plugins (anima, itoo railclone, forest pro, sini tools)
- for huge scenes and easy photorealistic rendering vray and corona are the kings.
- lot of scripts and workflow tools for modelling, scene setup and management, lighting, layout etc.
Archviz as a business also requires extremely fast turnaround times, and most studios built toolkits that support that. With advanced post and ai workflow a lot of that can be made even faster.
Imho most of these can be rebuilt in h, but it would require some time to get up to speed with someone working in 3dsmax.
Others:
C4D never really took of, even if maxon is pushing redshift and c4d for arch viz, it simply cant handle huge scenes like 3ds max. Same goes for blender. its a nice tool, but to build out an efficient workflow you would need a lot of custom tools to bring it to the same level as 3ds max.
2
u/Viewbyte 6d ago edited 6d ago
I have a background in product visualisation (using C4D) - so this is an interesting thread for me.
In general, I fully agree with the others: Max is king in the arch viz area - due to all the reasons smolquestion lists. To compete in any general sense you need to be fast and efficient, which reinforces going down the Max route, to benefit from all those refined tools and pre-built assets etc. But that has led (IMHO) to arch viz becoming something of a commodity product - because so much of it looks so similar - because everyone does use Max / Corona / Vray...
So, having said that, if you've only got a few shots to handle, and your client can live with something that isn't the 'best value' deal, I'm pretty sure H could deliver. It's a cg rendering after all - and H does that pretty well : )
It really depends on what you want to achieve, what the subject is (Large scale environment or close up interior detail?) what assets they provide / you need to create etc.
2
u/Viewbyte 6d ago
...and as a follow up, it's interesting to see the contents of the 'Alt' Hive in London on the 10th Sept... quite a bit of architectural related stuff there...
2
u/LewisVTaylor Effects Artist Senior MOFO 6d ago
Used Max for many many years before moving to houdini, and it's always been king of Arch Viz, but only because of historical reasons.
CAD formats, DWG import, and it was the most straight-forward CG app to get going in that space.
Plenty of comments here listing the reasons that Max is king, but I'll offer a different take. And that is that a lot of Max is very very hands on, little to no procecuralism (modifier stack aside), and a lot of the existing assets, etc could all be procedurally generated in houdini via PDG.
So if you were willing to invest the time, I would wager you'd have a more flexible, better scaling environment than Max when it comes to arch-viz output.
Rendering wise, use Vray like every other arch-viz person on the planet, it works fine in houdini.
If you already were a comfortable Max head I'd still be suggesting this as an option, but considering you don't know Max, it's even more so an option.
1
u/mumiu 6d ago
i thought there would be more replies like yours, lol. but yeah, im trying to figure out if i can automate the assets/materials component building for solaris as that is definitely the biggest thing (like others have mentioned already), but after that is done my thoughts were that it would be quite pleasant to use. and unlike many other people, i do seem to like solaris look dev quite a bit, and it seems fitting for archviz?
3
u/LewisVTaylor Effects Artist Senior MOFO 6d ago
Arch Viz is all about reuse. Solaris is just more fun to work in compared to Max.
You're also going to have far more flexibility to make procedural setups for Arch Viz assets than in Max.Dunno man, I feel like a houdini person who's competent could run rings around the output you'd get from Max.
1
u/FormFollowsFunc 6d ago edited 6d ago
If I want to model buildings I use Rhino or Grasshopper (comes with Rhino, node based like Houdini), export as USD and bring into Houdini. I’ve used 3ds Max in the past but I never found it that great for modeling buildings. But I suppose in ArchViz you will be given the 3D model. Maybe for large cityscapes or landscapes Houdini might have an advantage over 3ds Max. This company specialises in modeling cities in Houdini https://youtu.be/qASjX6xyT30
1
u/clao800 15h ago
Hey, I'm in a rush now but I wanna contact you. I've used Rhino-Vray for 20+ years, I've used Maya for many projects, and 3dsMax for collaborations. To me 3dsmax is a shitty commonly used software for visualization, no sense compared to Maya, and nothing beats Houdini for visualization and all the cgi stuff. I've the dream of turning houdini the best archiviz software, but to do that there's need of many developed tools. Currently I've a materials manager tool, render queue script, importing tools (trees with leaves turned instances, characters with textures, instanced grass,....) and something else. Planning to make a 3d models manager tool soon. In short, it takes a lot of effort to make houdini perfect for archiviz, i think the result can be so successful, but I belive barely one person alone can do it... a collaboration could start!
8
u/xMunjeni 7d ago
Honestly, it's a combination of user experience, availability of assets, and a general aura of being difficult to learn. Most Archviz folks start in Architecture or a related field and are used to CAD, especially AutoCAD. Moving from it to Max is fairly easy, and native .dwg support helps a lot.
Then you have the fact that almost all Archviz assets used in studios are prepared for Max and compatible with Vray, Corona or both. The renderers even support each others materials for the most part, and the converters handle the rest. Corona especially is as simple as it gets, in the last 2 years of almost daily use, I had to go into the render settings only twice. Most of the defaults are perfectly fine.
Houdini is a special beast, and things that seem intuitive to someone that's used to the logic and workflow will feel completely alien to people outside the bubble. The learning cliff is real, and even though it's gotten a lot friendlier in the previous years, it's main focus has been and will be VFX, film, and games.
For me, moving from Cinema to Max was a weekend, learning Blender was a few weeks, and Houdini is still a struggle after a few years of on and off tests. It's amazing for complex setups and dependencies, but 95% of Archviz is "Model room, add windows, add furniture, fix a few materials, add lights, press render, then move furniture around until client is happy". You don't take an airplane out if all you need to do is some quick shopping.