Leaderboard

Your hunch is pretty wrong. The condescending assumption that I don't know how much time it takes to get comfortable with a DCC is typical of Blender fanboys. I've been a professional 3D artist since my last year of high school and teach this at university level. I'm pretty high skilled in Maya and Cinema 4D. When Blender 2.8 was released was super enthusiastic about it (because the prior versions of Blender were crap. Right click selection anyone?) and spent six months learning the software. I'm ok at it. I just don't like it. The short-cut depended workflow is the anti-thesis of Cinema 4D and Maya. And, frankly, of any other professional DCC. Blender fans should accept that some people just don't like Blender. It doesn't mean we didn't study the software properly.

Dear All, we are in search architectural 3d modellers who are capable of correctly reading and understanding 2d cad plans and can model precise nice, and clean arch models, in reasonable time frames, for rendering inside C4D (corona, vray, vantage, RS) Modelling is preferred to be made in C4D, or also in Rhino3d and/or Archicad. the open positions are as freelancer, and can be done from anywhere, probably as side job (not full time). speaking fluent english OR german is required. if you are interested or have questions send me a personal message here, so we can contact you. best greetings Stefan

Wondering if anyone knows or has heard a rumor about a Zbrush Update for 2023. I would really like to see Maxon work some magic and revamp the UI to something that makes sense for new users.

I'm putting most of my energies into Houdini these days - and finding it quite enjoyable.

they mentioned on their discord Fused update for 2023 is coming. While you may not like the newer modes of communication it is what we are all supposed to use now. With regards to contacting them... ummm ok, people need to try harder and vent less.

Yeah I'd hate being stuck with just Blender too. Their developers have made some pretty dumb choices, and some good ones too, but you're completely reliant on them, or buying 1000 addons to supplement. That's a whole other can of worms they hadn't addressed, which is addons stepping on each other and where they should reside in harmony (N panel is an outdated idea). Feels very patch-work. I say that as someone who does use it for modeling and occasional sculpting but doesn't care for much else in it. Another option is Houdini of course. Unreal Engine. Plasticity, Moi3D, Shapr3D for cheaper-cost hard surface modeling.

You might want to look into a dedicated construction programs like MOI or fusion 360 for tasks like that. You can tesselate and export it as you need it for c4d. it is such a difference - you will love it.

Oh I agree that this is NOT a good thing. I think my posts have plainly laid out this possible future as a nightmare scenario. But remember that this future of "everything on the cloud" is also rolling out on the backs of a whole generation of cell phone users who are freely downloading apps which offer NO guarantees of data privacy. It is one thing to be concerned over your right to past C4D files existing in the cloud, but there are whole generations of people who freely put the contact information of everyone one they know on the cloud (how else can you migrate to from your old to new iPhone) along with personal photos and text messages. Plus, these same people are using Siri freely in their homes quite unaware that Siri is listening to EVERYTHING. For older folks who still remember what true privacy was like, this is horrifying. But try and explain your point of view to someone in their 20's or 30's and they look at you like you are a superstitious, knuckle dragging moron: "Why does this bother you? It's perfectly safe and okay. Oh, BTW...can you give me permission to track your phone's location?" If everything wasn't moving quickly to a cloud central storage model, then data science would not be the fast-growing field that it is today. Honestly, I think the battle for personal privacy and ownership was lost long ago. Dave

On the scene nodes/capsules topic, the biggest problem I see is that they are being abused in the sense that people create these completely uninterpretable monstrosities out of them, not because there is a flaw in scene nodes themselves or because they are a very low level toolset, but rather, just as with the deficiency found in most programs written by professional programmers, people just don't understand the following simple concept: As something gets more complex, you need to add meaningful names, create levels of abstraction, componentize (with further meaningful naming of entire assemblies of sub-components), layer (to allow for viewing of a subset in isolation), and in the end present multiple "vantage points," containing various levels of details and subsets of objects, from which the entirety of a scene can be viewed. This is not an issue that was introduced with scene nodes, it existed with xpresso and modeling in general. But, as items that are more complex, dynamic, and low-level get added, the problem becomes greatly exacerbated. To use an illustrative analogy, no auto-mechanic open a car service manual to find a single diagram containing every nut, bolt, part, and assembly that makes up the car. They wouldn't be able to find a thing or even comprehend the image as a whole - it is just too complex to be taken in by a human being. Furthermore, illustrations that are present don't show every screw, regardless of length, diameter, type, or use, as just: screw, screw.1, screw.2, screw.3, screw.N, making any similarities and differences between their various characteristics completely undecipherable. Instead, illustrations of various systems of the automobile are divided by subsystem, and even then, there are various levels of detail shown to make the diagrams both comprehensible and cohesive (i.e., limited to the function/component being depicted). Even at the highest level of detail, perhaps showing individual screws, said screws are labeled with meaningful identifiers or group labels and perhaps even given a context in order to help convey the role they play as part of a greater whole. This is the very thing that most modelers who create large scene node graphs seem to completely lack. I see very few (if any at all!) counter-examples to this. It's hard enough to find scene files where people actually label objects properly and use layers, often skimping on these barest of necessities, and leaving things named as they were originally by Cinema 4D when their testing/hacking ultimately evolved into a final scene. Even with all of the "smarts" in its engine, Cinema 4D could not possibly know the semantic meaning and role of every particular piece of geometry or group of geometries and come up with a meaningful label to (re)name it. We wind up with scenes containing sheer stupidity like Cube, Cube.1, Cube.2, Cylinder, Cylinder.1, and when grouping at the very least is attempted, we have Null, Null.1, Null.2, etc. I am not referring to test scenes made by someone who just started to learn Cinema 4D and perhaps polygonal modeling in general. These are scenes made by professionals and educators, across the board. How in the world can one make sense of such a scene, even if referring to the very person that created the scene, some six months down the road? Is it that difficult to label things when they are created, or if uncertain due to experimentation, to go back once things settle and (re)label them with meaningful names more descriptive of their final roles? Is it that hard to assign layers to parts of a scene to allow it to easily be viewed in meaningful cross-sections, representing subsets of the whole, rather than having to view every little thing with every last detail, all of the time? I am not only addressing this at modelers, but, even more so, at training presenters/professionals on Maxon's own YouTube channels, the very people who should be imparting these concepts on the more novice viewers, but instead are making the very same mistakes mentioned above and teaching "all the wrong things," as perhaps an unintended side-effect, indirectly affirming or conveying that this is standard practice for modelers. Here is an example from the Maxon Training channel of the very thing I am talking about, at least with regard to the naming portion, screen captured from Quick Tip #48 (with a small amount of sharpening, because it was a bit blurry having originated from a YouTube video screenshot): Take a look at the Object Manager in the right third of the scene, above. How can one possibly hope to make heads or tails out of those names with regard to the function they serve or the role they play? There are at least three critical flaws here that I would like to describe in greater detail: 1. The names are generic and completely non-descriptive of the semantics of each operation. Even worse for the case of this particular scene is that names are repeated, even though said names are highly ordering dependent (with respect to operations above and below them) and therefore, the operations they perform be completely different, depending on where they appear in the list (i.e., ordering). 2. The list is flat (i.e., linear) and not hierarchical, which combined with the naming makes it completely impossible to ascertain which items, when combined as a logical group, perform a particular higher level task. 3. There was no attempt to modularize and/or componentize, to present the above in the Object Manager using higher level functionality that the user could then drill down into, piece-meal, in order to see how a particular task was accomplished in terms of its underlying lower level node operations, in isolation (think of soloing a small group, rather than viewing the entire scene as a whole). Naming is important, levels of detail are important, organization is important, modularization/componentization is important, layering subsets is important, reuse (of the same object via instances/cloner/etc.) is important, and many more similar topics should really be stressed, taught, and engrained on junior modelers from the get-go, and this advice is even more applicable to presentations made by professionals for purposes of education. Just my two cents...

import c4d def main(): objs = doc.GetActiveObjects(0) for obj in objs: inst = c4d.BaseObject(c4d.Oinstance) inst.InsertAfter(obj) inst[c4d.INSTANCEOBJECT_LINK] = obj inst.SetName(obj.GetName()+"_inst") c4d.EventAdd() if __name__=='__main__': main() Enjoy 🙂

Hey everyone, I recently made my little sculpting tools plugin free. On the phone right now so check the links below to find out what it does and where to download. Supports R20 to S26. Note that this has absolutely nothing to do with Xpresso, but the forum forced me to add that tag otherwise I couldn’t post. @IgorSomething you could fix perhaps? This is a C++ plugin. https://www.plugins4d.com/Product/SculptProjectionBrush https://www.plugins4d.com/Product/SculptAnimator Cheers, Kent