Leaderboard

The smart thing about Embergen (and correct me if I am wrong) is that it is tied to the render engine more so than the host DCC application. This is plainly evident from their timeline where they plan to implement the ability to import animated meshes in Q3. Nevertheless, having the software linked to the render engine opens ups its market to more than just one DCC application. So wherever Octane is used, so can't Embergen. So points to JangaFX. XP is tied to C4D only which explains why it can be a multi-physics system. So points to Insydium. But which company do you think has the larger addressable market size? Obviously JangaFX. XP, from their perspective, tied themselves to a Cycles 4D which time has shown was not the best choice for the reasons I mentioned. They really need to get XP fully integrated into Redshift. Also, as they have their own built in physics engine, you then have to ask: well...why do they need to be coupled to C4D? Can their multi-physic capability be agnostic to the host application? If so, then what is needed next to be taken seriously in the broader markets outside of C4D: GPU acceleration. So what is the goal for all? Multi-physics particle and fluid simulations that is GPU accelerated and independent of the DCC application. That opens you up to the largest possible markets. Why wouldn't Insydium be thinking about that? JangaFX is thinking about it based on their timeline. Future Embergen enhancements are "particles as debris (bricks, wood shards)", "granular solving for dirt/sand within explosions)", "support for multiple simulations per scene" and "USD - universal scene description". In essence, overall tighter integration of physical simulations within a scene. Now, I would imagine JangaFX is way ahead in approaching that goal as they have already have the GPU and fluid simulation capability and a tight integration to Octane. I have to imagine implementing particle simulation and hard body physics simulations is not as tough as what they have already achieved. XP on the other hand has a tougher road with getting both tight Redshift integration and GPU acceleration. So points go to JangaFX. Dave

I think that is a very real possibility. Remember that there was a long pause in Cycles 4D development because (unfortunately) the lead developer was out of the picture for a year due to illness. Thankfully, I think she/he is back but that gap may have put Cycles 4D a bit behind that could have impacted its sales and stunted its growth at a time when Maxon is purchasing Redshift, and Octane is working with Embergen. As I think about it...and this is pure speculation but with a positive spin.....I have to imagine that Insydium is focusing on porting XP to be GPU enabled and as the Cycles 4D developer has that experience with writing GPU enabled software (as Cycles is GPU enabled), they decided that is where they are putting the resource. As such, they are evaluating whether or not Cycles 4D is worth the extra investment of hiring another person to continually keep it current. I would imagine...probably not. But a big factor in all of this is (again, pure speculation but something that makes a huge amount of sense to me) is that XP is under threat from Embergen and Embergen is tightly integrated with Octane. Embergen is GPU enabled and super fast. XP is tightly integrated with Cycles 4D and...not so fast. More people use Octane than Cycles 4D. So from an Insydium perspective they had two cap-stone products: XP and Cycles 4D. XP is doing well, Cycles 4D is not. Now, XP is under threat from Embergen. That is not a good position to be in for any company. So Insydium needs more products (thus Meshtools and Terraform) to sell to insure that they have the funds to support XP development to be GPU supported and (hopefully) tighter integration with a more mainstream GPU renderer than Cycles 4D. My guess is Redshift as they have a good relationship with Maxon. Now, as Meshtools and Terraform took shape, I am sure they evaluated how much revenue they would generate if sold as separate plugins and deduced not enough to keep XP development going. But...if bundled with a bunch of other goodies as part of a subscription plan then that could get people over the hump of moving into a re-occurring revenue model, especially for those who let their existing maintenance plans laps (which I imagine is more than you would think given their very generous 24 month allowance for lapsed licenses). So do or die for Insydium is to get XP to be GPU enabled and tightly integrated with Redshift to the same level as they had it integrated with Cycles 4D. Cycles 4D made sense in 2016 when it was the least expensive GPU enabled renderer for C4D at the time...but subscription models have changed all that with monthly purchasing. So Cycles 4D is an "okay" product to have but honestly, brings nothing to the table for Insydium in the face of what C4D users can get from Octane or Redshift. So it is an albatross now and that is why they are no longer selling any more perpetual licenses. I do not think it is because of some subversive plot to push people to subscription but rather an easing of the pain when they discontinue development on it all together...thus the bundling with all the other goodies in Fused. Dave

I think if you are currently under maintenance, then you get Fused now -- no additional cost. But after that maintenance expires, then cost to renew annual maintenance does increase from £180 to £190 (if I did my USD to £ conversions correctly). The only big change for any current Insydium customer currently under maintenance is that you Cycles perpetual license will convert to subscription at some point. XP perpetual licenses will stay as perpetual. Still trying to figure it all out as there are a few scenarios as I outlined previously with Cycles that have yet to be addressed, but I think the above is true. Dave

I am not shure about that. For me this screams "unfortunately we are unable to continue c4d perpetual, as redshift is now included into the all new and expensive C4D subsciption and there is no perpetual redshift license" 20 years ago i started with c4d because I had the feeling that many people would love the userinterface. Now I have the feeling that in 20 Years a lot of people will use Blender, because subscription is not the right thing for everyone. And the companies have nothing against free software when it is capable and they find good artists. I don't know what I will do. All I know is that I finished the transition away from Adobe and am really xtreemly happy with it. Maybe I have to wait a couple of years till the request is there and blender is even better usable. The funy thung is, that I would prefer to pay for my software, so that the developers can make apropper living, but on the other hand I also can pay the blender foundation.