Leaderboard

I have made my 4D Paint Bundle free. https://www.plugins4d.com/4DPaint The newest version is available for R20-R25. But the is also a link to an older R17-R19 version on the page as well. Have fun! Kent

There are simpler ones

I had half the picture with this tool until recently. I don't use Redshift and didn't know how useful it could really be with it.

Hi everyone, I've registered on this forum some time ago and finally I have the chance to introduce myself:) I'm Stefano from Italy, some users may already know me from other forums as Sirio76. I own a small boutique studio dedicated to high end architectural visualizations and I'm here to learn and share C4D knowledge.

Yep - I use fog volumes quite a lot with Redshift. You can do some really powerful manipulation with fields. Here are a couple of examples from jobs I've done - the cloud is just a quick and dirty test:

Is there any difference?

I totally understand that. It wasn't my intention to ruin the thread or change the topic. I just wanted to prevent any bias from new C4D users towards other applications with a node system. If you need that deleted PM me (or delete it yourself), no problem, it'll be like it never happened. I don't bother writing.

As I've already mentioned here : Most of these can also be made natively in C4D without the use of a node system, for reasons I already analyzed. Having said that I will compare some Blender and Houdini scenes with C4D for C4D users that may not be too familiar with C4D or don't know how to reverse engineer a final image in terms of C4D tools. And I'm doing that only to debunk the "almighty Blender node system" for new C4D users. Of course some scenes are impossible with classic C4D tools and I'm going to note that, I'm not trying to glorify C4D, I just find that this thread might not do justice to the capabilities of some DCCs and get misunderstood by some readers leading them to overestimate the use of nodes. In my opinion anything related to Houdini is just going to be superior in terms of Nodes just because nodes is what Houdini is made of. It's like comparing a fish with a duck on how fast they can move only by their swimming capability. I hope Maxon doesn't interpret the node enthusiasm of users in the wrong way (as the preferred way of working and not considering practicality) and make everything node-dependent. OK here we go: 1) Cloner, Random Effector, Step Effector, Fields 2) Scattering Effect using Cloner, Fields using Vertex Maps, Push Apart Effector 3) XPresso for the springs (I guess this counts as nodes), Fields and Plain Effector for deforming the rail. XPresso could be omitted if a Pain Effector with a Field can scale the springs towards -Y when passing above them. 4) Cloner with animated instances and Delay/Time Effector, maybe some FFD Deformer to avoid physics simulation (requires a special setup), a Vertex Map can be used instead of the Delay Effector. I think this can also be done using Hairs instead of Cloner. 5) Looks like hair clamping available under the Hair Material. Can also be done using some attractive forces to guide hair to a single point. I don't think the final image cannot be done in C4D. But the tool being used to grow hair like this is not present in C4D (yet) 6) Field with Vetex Map and Grow effect. It's possible in C4D but a bit expensive to replicate due to the great number of polygons. It could be faked with a Sub-polygon Displacement texture but that should be done in an other app. Doing it as a static image is totally possible using Splines on Fields. But making the Splines have multiple Outlines spreading outwards parametrically is not possible yet (as far as I know). I have a hunch a Spline Outline tool is underway on the next release. 7) Hair, just because a non-experienced C4D user might think hairs can only be very thin non polygonal lines. 😎 oops, meant to type 8 ) This is exactly the reason why we needed nodes in C4D in the first place. Modeling this in C4D, totally doable, very easy. Making the "Wafer" effect is even easier with the current state of nodes in C4D. But making this whole setup with real-time drawing the boundaries of the structure and have the rest of the area grow foliage ... I have a strong feeling that this is not possible (yet). These kind of demonstrations make me wonder though... Why make such an elaborate node structure for one model ? Doesn't the client know the area of the construct yet ? Don't get me wrong, generative/evolutionary Architecture is a thing but C4D, Blender and Houdini are not CAD apps. A variety of similarly looking structures could be a time saver for game assets but I think that a tool like that is more suited to be natively used in the game engine itself. But making a movie with similarly looking buildings to populate a large area, yes, totally worth it. I just think this particular example does not sell the importance of nodes well, it's just the WOW factor. 9) I would say, hair with cloners, or splines and cloners BUT, I don't know how to make an instance spline or particular hair strand grow to a particular state using Fields or Effectors. MoSpline can grow splines the way depicted here but I don't think they work with Fields like this. Happy to discuss how some node scenes could be done in C4D with alternate methods because in this early stage of SceneNodes I find the comparison a bit trivial.

Hm? Actually I prefer not be drawn into (as Cairyn would say) "one of these threads". Also I'm not sure, which insights I'm supposed to share. I assume, I'm being asked as developer and not as a former Maxon employee. So I will keep it more general. From my point of view onboarding new developers is (or at least can be) a difficult task. It almost always takes quite a bit of resources (aka time of already experienced developers) for a significant time. Every developer is different. And like all humans every developer learns differently. Can bug fixing be a good learning path? Yes, I think so. If you have a tenacious and masochistic type of a developer, this can work out great. I do not mean this in any bad way. Maybe in other words, you need somebody with a lot of will to reach the goal. If you have someone with such characteristics, then the result can be awesome, because the knowledge collected on the go is immense. On the other hand there the "this baby has to run as quickly as possible" type of developers. For those a smaller or simpler starter project can offer a better learning curve, as they have better chances to reach the needed feeling of success to keep them going. Also bugs are pretty human in this regard. Every one is different (I hope, now I do not get drawn into a discussion, how theoretically many bugs are identical) and like with humans you can't really judge it by looking at its cover. So it can already take quite a lot of work from an experienced developer to judge, if a bug is suited to be worked on by a beginner (usually you want "isolated" bugs, where the fix has little potential to influence or break other stuff). And afterwards you need an experienced developer to check and verify the fix of the newbie. This can lead to a situation, where it costs more resources than would have been needed if the experienced developer worked on the bug in the first place. I think, comparing Blender and C4D in this regard is misleading and probably also a bit unfair. Open source in a way is way better suited for onboarding new developers. Of course a) the code base is open, so chances to get somebody, who already has some experience, are better. And b) there's a kind of playful flavor in the process, which you usually do not have in closed environments. I do not want to say either way is superior. It's different and the difficulties are different. I don't think, it's a good idea to transfer the paradigm of either to the other. And of course either side can also learn from the other, but chances are the result of such learning process or evolution will not be identical to the other side you started to learn from in the beginning. The constraints are too different to end up with an identical result. I could go on talking for hours about this, but as I said in the beginning, I'm not even sure, what I have been asked for. For example the topic, how many interesting ways there are to make even the best developer have merely no output at all. Although I tend to like the view from the other side a bit more, the many ways you can get productive output from bad developers (or as I would put it, there are no unproductive employees, only employees used in wrong ways). Or the topic of team mindedness of developers, something my breed is probably not really the best in (which on the other hand is most likely the reason, they got developers in the first place...). Just to be not completely off topic: I see nothing wrong in a service pack focusing on bug fixing. And I'm a bit irritated, about certain views for example about the number of bugs in "UI change" release. To me it's pretty obvious, even if there were no features to present, there is way more work going on than visible at the surface. Please, do not misunderstand this, I'm not interested in another discussion if R25 is a release worth its money. Or if the communication strategy is right or wrong. Or Maxon's business strategies. In my view Maxon tries nothing less but rebuilding a skyscraper from scratch without scratching the old facade during the process (better: with as little scratches as possible). Or trying a heart surgery on a living walking human without any support machinery. Not many companies have even dared to try this. For this alone they have my fullest respect. It's even worse for them. Their customers grew used to one of the most stable and backward compatible software products (not talking about DCCs but software in general) out there. And for such an endeavor this luxury turns into an immense burden. Whatever you do, somebody will always be pissed (even worse, most likely rightly so). And I doubt, many can imagine how different, how much more complicated and how much more time consuming this is compared to building something new from scratch. Maybe not even all developers at Maxon did foresee the complexity to its full extend (which is no critique). I mean, hell, I live in a country, where we are not even able to build an airport from scratch anymore. Something which has been done thousands of times all over the globe. Complexity is a bi... and forums can be a bad place to discuss complex topics. Most humans are not interested in understanding complexity. We usually prefer the simple, black/white answers. And, again an example from the country I live in, people can get pretty angry and even violent, if the answers to questions which frighten them are neither black or white (yep, talking pandemic here). I think, same patterns can be seen in the C4D discussions since a few years. Understandable. Inevitable. Certainly not constructive or helpful for anybody. Sorry for being carried away. Probably another reason, why I shouldn't be pulled into threads...

Some very interesting posts on this thread. Interesting that Maxon has become Adobe in terms of artists perceptions. Some have stated that Maxon "rushed out" to purchase Z-Brush. I really don't think that was the case. Acquisitions take a great deal of time to negotiate if you want to get a fair price plus there are regulatory considerations and due-diligence investigations in Z-Brush's value, debt, assets, etc. In short, an acquisition is never an impulse purchase. This is part of a long- term strategy. So, what is the end state and what is driving this strategy? Well, I do believe that pace of C4D innovation significantly slowed after R20. Since then, it has been nothing but catch-up. Nodes could be source of innovation but is now only starting to show its potential -- in short, taking too long to implement and capture the market attention necessary to keep C4D competitive. And that is the crux of the problem. The pace of improvement is just too slow for C4D especially with Blender chugging along. To continue explaining the Z-Brush acquisition, you need to consider that the long-term strategy for Maxon is to grow Maxon One services more than any of its individual subscriptions or perpetual licenses. Everything Maxon does needs to be considered with respect to Maxon One and Maxon One ONLY makes sense for users if it offers a suite of inter-connected applications that support the user's artistic goals. Otherwise, save some money and just buy the individual licenses. The core of Maxon One is C4D. Everything connects to or uses C4D within the Maxon One suite of services. The value of Maxon One is tied to the success of C4D in the marketplace. Unfortunately, C4D development is faltering as it is less innovation and more catch-up. The big 2021 innovation for C4D was the new interface and that came out looking like Blenders with the added benefit of missing icons. So, if C4D falters in the marketplace, then so does Maxon One. You have two choices if you want to grow the services of Maxon One: More investment in R&D to organically grow the capabilities of its existing products or use part of that R&D budget for acquisition. If your long-term strategy is Maxon One, then acquisitions can immediately feed into the value of Maxon One much faster than organically grown R&D funded projects. Plus, the marketing is built into the acquisition. Z-Brush is a well-known brand. That brand value now increases Maxon One's brand value. Plus, it sounds like Z-Brush was ripe for acquisition given their financials. In my view, it was a no-brainer. Now, I hate subscriptions especially when they take something away for the same amount of money. C4D subscriptions did just that because you were paying the same but lost perpetual access. In contrast, I looked at Adobe's Creative Cloud and saw more value in what they were offering in that there was a much larger suite of products to choose from for a fair price that was easier on the annual pocketbook with a fair monthly billing charge. Maxon's started subscriptions with just C4D. Now that suite of products is growing and if the price stays the same then the value of Maxon One increases with each new acquisition. Give me a great deal of value for my dollar with a Maxon One license and giving up perpetual access now starts to make sense. Unfortunately, I am not a sculptor, I don't use After Effects so I have no use for Forger, Z-Brush or Red Giant. But should Maxon's acquisition strategy continue while keeping Maxon One subscription price's affordable (or offer indie pricing), then I could be enticed into that program. What would it take? Well, purchase Insydium, e-on, Jawset, Otoy, Embergen and the assets of Kitbash 3D and I think you may actually have something. ....or they become greedy blood sucking leaches and we all go to Blender. Dave

Hello everyone, I try to dig deeper into C4D and realise watching tutorials only doesn't help solving every problem. So talking to a community will hopefully help to improve my skills and maybe one day I can return my knowledge. 😉 Cheers, Bjoern