Procedural Lake Village
anastasiaopara.com
anastasiaopara.com
One of the things I most dislike about tools like Blender is that it can be really hard to go back to earlier stages of the process and make adjustments. Most changes are destructive, even though they don't really need to be. I follow lots of digital artists on Twitter and some of them use Houdini, and the kind of stuff they can generate is just mindblowing.
I'd try it out myself if it weren't for the price; I've always been drawn to procedural creation as a bridge between what a person imagines and what they can get a computer to render.
I do not think it is a big drawback of Blender since other tools such as Maya and 3ds Max are also destructive.
There are some great free tutorials here: https://entagma.com/
As the OP said, parametric modelling is what makes Houdini so nice.
And if you want any chance to rework anything in a project - say - 10 years later, exporting to a "baked" format is a dead end.
There's always a trade-off between editability and fidelity with any format. Non-destructive stacks of modifiers bring that trade-off into sharp relief.
The modifier stack is, to a limited extent, a flaccid ersatz for full-blown parametric, but it's light-years away from what Houdini can do.
Not terribly familiar with how things work in Houdini (and only dabbling in Blender a few times), but that's been compared to it.
I'm also a big fan of Houdini, though, and would recommend the free edition to anyone wanting to learn. It's the most fully featured piece of free software I've ever used. I almost can't believe that it's free, it's so good!
You have software like 3ds Max, Maya, C4D, Blender and others. And then you have Houdini.
But you can use Blender more procedural with the modifier stack. And there are great add-ons like Boxcutter: https://blendermarket.com/products/hard-ops--boxcutter-ultim...
'Most people probably do not directly register it, but we are great pattern recognition machines, and to make procedural generation believable the patterns we face on daily basis should be present.'
Absolutely true. Most artists know this, but are unable to effectively describe these patterns. Instead, these patterns 'posses' them, and from this possession comes the art. Its kinda like the car driving the motorist.
'For me, this process resembles painting: first, you make very wide and general brush strokes and only then, when you are satisfied with that stage, you start refining and adding specifics.'
A simple observation, but very true. The student mistake is to obsess over details (small features) before the layout (large features) phase is complete. The lack of an undo in oil painting taught me a lot about process.
* Work from the core body (hip and 'spine') out to the extremities
* Weight bearing limbs first
Only then obsess about the positions of the fingers
I wish the documentation had said this as well as going on about the mechanics of the user interface
I recommend following her - she does amazing things at Embark Studios these days :)
Never built a palafitta by hand, but I'm not sure it makes sense for the foundation poles to be only on the external perimeter.
I believe that would be great to have. And this post looks very promising that such software is possible.
Here's an Alan Kay talking about it in 1987: https://archive.org/details/AlanKeyD1987?start=249.5