Leaderboard

It's kind of sucky that they didn't use the most recent version to announce the end of perpetuals so people knew from then on this would be the last, rather than just all of a sudden not have perpetuals, say basically nothing about it, and have the previous year's be the last perpetual. It's a bit of a sleazy way of doing it imo.

As a hobbyist, when I am using Cinema 4D it's an hour here, an hour there. Accumulating the hours I think it's safe to say that over the span of a year I probably am not using it more than a full week (nowadays). With that in mind I definitely am not fond of going subscription now, and am glad I can rely on my trusty R20. Granted, I upgraded yearly from R9-R11 (?) till R21 via MSA, but also spend more time with it back then. Still happy that I didn't take the jump to go subscription then. I seem to remember that in one of the forum discussions David McGavran, at one point in time, mentioned that getting rid of perpetual license was not on the table. Sad to see that this decisions has been reconsidered, for whatever reason. Still, I am not comfortable with reading how he keeps being referred to as the "AdobeGuy", even if it is being used as a pet name/nick name. Over the past weeks I have had been considering getting up-to-date with a brand new perpetual 2023, and use it every now and then for the coming years. With the news from this thread it's clear this won't be happening. I will stick to my R20 for as long as possible. Maybe get tempted to try some Blender, although I am currently not mentally available to learn new stuff. It seems difficult for some to understand that while users can be dissatisfied, they don't want to just Get Over It and simply switch DCC. After having spend more than a decade investing in Cinema4D, and liking it (till R21), I don't simply want to switch and needing to relearn all that is needed, including muscle memory.

Oh...how I wish they would take a cue from Houdini and offer Cinema 4D Indie (a subscription at Houdini prices of $270 rather than $720 a year). Heck I would even opt for Maxon One if that price dropped for Indies as well to half price. Maya and Houdini have indie licenses for less than $300 a year. Blender is free. Not sure what is keeping Cinema 4D immune to this type of competition unless indies are just not that big a market for C4D. Dare to dream. Dave

Time for Volume 2 i think, kicking it off with a classic , keeping it clean as always 😄

I really don't understant this kind of decisions. I'm sure subscriptions are much more profitable to a company in a long term, but is it worthy to disturb the user community with such decisions and making users leave the software forever? Unlike adobe software , cinema 4d has a LOT more competition. So, removing options like perpetual licensing creates rage among the cinema 4d "veteran" users that use the software for years. Also its not appealing for new ones, knowing that they must spend a lot of money to have a license. Cinema 4d biggest commercial advantage is the price for studios with some anual income. The commercial license is way cheaper than any in autodesk soft and wayyyy cheaper than houdini's. In this case scenario it's ok. However, if your company groes and you need let's say to use some team render nodes via team licenses (in order to work with deadline), then the price per license goes wayy higher. But it ceases to be ok for freelancers or hobbyists that don't make much money per year. In that case, the indie licenses are much more appealing. And there is an enourmous community of c4d freelancers that are already checking other options. Despite the fact that i really like to work with c4d i see somehow a dark cloud above in c4d's future. Users can adapt, so probably what many users will do is: changing software (to blender, or something else with indie) use c4d pirated versions remain in older versions until its not usefull anymore, I fear that if users start to fade away and there is no more new users, this software will start to die like many others (less plugins being written, less help online, etc). Thats why its really important to listen to community advices and wishes. I would keep perpetual, subscription, and a long lasting free learning edition with limitations to at least help new users to integrate (and when i say learning edition i meant to everyone that wants to learn and not just people in school) cheers

Tags: Contrast Level of Importance: 8/10 When showing a polygonal geometry with wires, it is not at all helpful if the wires cannot be seen. This is best illustrated via an example that is intended to show the edges of a simple cube, when using a 4x4x4 segment scheme: I purposely saved this image as a medium quality JPG, in order to further convey the topic being discussed, since on-line training videos are heavily compressed using similar lossy compression techniques. Can you clearly see the wires on the right side and bottom sides of this cube? No? Why not? The answer is obvious: The wires lack contrast with respect to the polygons/faces they are a part of. When a presenter shows enables the display of wires, but said wires have very little contrast with respect to the face to which they belong, little to no explanatory information gets conveyed. Present/future watchers of the video/stream, who are possibly viewing it on phones, tablets, TVs, computers, etc., simply cannot be expected to make out or possibly even see the wires/edges. The problem is at its worst when the role that the wires play and/or their layout is part of the very topic being presented. How can the lack of contrast be addressed? Let me show some examples: 1. (Good) Use a much darker shade of gray as the Project/Display Color: 2. (Better) In addition, instead of using the default Gouraud Shading (Lines), set the Viewport to use Constant Shading (Lines) as its Display Shading mode, allowing for the edges to be highly visible, regardless of the position of the camera with respect to the object (i.e., lighting/shading no longer comes into play as the view camera is moved around - all vantage points are equivalent with regard to shading): 3. (Best) Alternatively, use a slightly lighter and more colorful (default object) Project/Display Color, combined with a very dark Preferences/Viewport/Background, and a significantly lighter custom Preferences/Viewport/Edges color, presented using the Constant Shading (Lines) Display Shading mode of the Viewport. This will make the edges of the object clearly visible and the topology being illustrated much easier to grasp: I am hopeful that the above illustrations or something along their lines (pun intended), will help guide educators when making future educational videos with regard to how topology, edge flow, and/or edge layout get presented to the viewers. I will close with an important tangential side-note on a similar matter: It is perhaps an even greater faux pas to discuss the topology of an object, while using a display mode that does not show the points, edges, or polygons being discussed.

Tried copy pasting again my shortcuts from R26 to release 2023. Didn't work. Then used the 'load' option and navigated here to my R26 .res file. Shortcuts got imported successfully!

Its assumed that all C4D users make enough money from it to pay for itself, and once you no longer can afford it, it means your retired from it, are not skilled enough to get work from it and therefore should not have it anymore. C4D is not about the hobbiest, its not about the art and community, its about money. (not how I feel about it) I dont like Subs because I don't do it full time, I am skilled enough but have other family commitments. These are personal circumstances, and Maxon is not personal, its business. C4D was once available to all users, and the MSA made it that much more affordable to many to keep it up. Subs work for Maxon, they have produced some decent features from it, and have made perpetual that much more less desirable with intent since the price increase, removal of MSA and Cinevercity. The ones you remain are finally pushed out with the removal of upgrades altogether. The reasons may be given that subs are more desirable but this was caused by two things. 1: Make perpetual less desirable option by doing what I said above. 2: Keep the full time earners using the software on Subs, get more customers in from bigger studios.

Maya. Including Arnold cost me €290 (Minus tax) this year as an Indy licence. C4D - with effectively no production render engine - would cost me €736. More than double. Hard to justify the upgrade from R21. Even with 95% of my work still in cinema. The BIG problem with subs is that you basically lose the ability to open your own files and assets (that you've spent years creating) if you evey stop paying . I dont think that's OK.

Unless Maxon releases a low-cost or free C4D indie, I think Cinema 4d will go the way of Lightwave (best scenario) or Animation Master/Strata3D/Electric Image/etc... (worst scenario). They will keep their current and professional users, but there is no reason for students and new users to use Cinema 4D when they can get Maya and 3ds Max for less than U$300 and Blender and Houdini for free. But I think they don't care. They bought three heavyweights (Zbrush, Red Shift and Red Giant) and those will be their focus from now on. Because this forum used to be the Cinema4D café, we tend to think of Maxon as the Cinema 4D company, but that's not the case anymore Well, at least Cinema 4D 2023 is a good release. They could have been a little bit more generous and let that be the last perpetual version,, but I wasn't expecting AdobeGuy to be generous.

Sadly, I think you're being too generous Chris. It's sleazy, dishonorable and nasty to the nth degree. Maxon is a company I no longer want to do business with.

I was expecting this to happen with Cinema4D but the even saddest news is that Zbrush is probably the next one.

As a general workflow tip, edge weighting is best used in ADDITION to control loops to add tightness under subdivision where putting additional control loops would be time consuming or impossible. It shouldn't be relied upon alone to define the main characteristics of your model. This is both for compatibility / export reasons, and also generally good practice - usually the better the model the less edge weighting it will have. Point weighting, on the other hand is almost universally a terrible idea, except on flat planes, and as a rule you shouldn't ever combine point and edge weighting. CBR

I don't care for renderings – I just want to see the viewport buuUUURRRRrrn! (I love Embergen 😊)

Pure node example! A beacon, radar or radio station, whatever you want to call it 🙂 Graph is not complex at all 109_Beacon.c4d

I've been using this workflow for my gltf export; C4D to fbx (with proper UV's) Create texture maps in Substance Painter Export to Sketchfab directly from SP If you don't use Sketchfab you can use Unity and a free export plugin made by Khronos Group that also works well. I converted over 100 CAD files last year for import into Three.js library, some with and without animation. I have not tried using Blender yet but others on my team use it exclusively and it also works well.