hvanderwegen

AMD Radeon Prorender 2.5 is released for Blender. Now works in 2.83. https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/radeon-prorender-blender PS The release of Blender 2.9 is delayed to next week to fix additional bugs and for more polishing.

I agree mostly. The Blender Foundation's seems to listen better to studios nowadays: the LTS (Long Term Support) initiative is great, allowing studios to work on long-term projects while staying in one stable version that is bug fixed for two years. The current version 2.83 already received 5(!) LTS updates since it was released last June. I noticed a marked improved stability since release 1 (and Blender is on the whole very stable running as it is). And version 2.9 is about to be released (next week) with a quite long list of interesting new features and improved edit mode performance, but also nice little GUI improvements across the board. The usability of the outliner, for example, is improved once again. One thing I have noticed over the past few years is the DELUGE of add-ons for Blender. It is intimidating and impressive at the same time. I see ex-Modo users create addons to bring Modo functionality to Blender. I see ex-Max users create addons to add features they had in Max. The community is hard to beat. Anyway. A c4d to Blender plugin would be nice to have. Are you aware of the copy and paste addon/plugin that allows for copy and pasting of geometry between various apps? https://github.com/heimlich1024/OD_CopyPasteExternal I've used it at work for seamless and quick switching between C4D, Modo, and Blender while working on projects (before Covid, that is). At the risk of repeating myself, in my mind licensing is the major hurdle right now for MAXON. Secondary hurdle is the rather slow development of C4D in the past five up to ten years. It is lagging behind and relying too much on third-party developers to fix the gaps, which rubs more salt in the financial wound, so to speak. Hopefully with R23/S23 development will have picked up.

@ShrikeI realize, after re-reading my previous response, that it sounded a bit passive-aggressive. I apologize for that. Your perspective is interesting, even if I might not completely agree. I have a tip for your Blender colleagues: have them install HardOps and DecalMachine. With Hardops installed hard-surface modeling becomes pure joy, and incredibly fast and efficient. And it has a complete non-destructive workflow (including non-destructive parametric primitives!). It will allow them to work as they work now, but non-destructive (or not) and productivity will shoot through the roof. Also includes a nice easy circular array, and a free version of KitOps for quick kitbashing. Decalmachine is also an incredible useful plugin for hard surface modeling. Both plugins revolutionized my workflow, and they are inexpensive. With some practice modeling speed increases 5 up to 10 fold (I kid you not).

You keep moving the goal posts. In your initial post you asserted Max and Blender do not afford a similar non-destructive modeling workflow as C4D. I then showed that it is possible, and with the help of an inexpensive add-on the non-destructive workflow works just as nicely (actually far more efficient and faster in my experience) as C4D. I also pointed out that instancing is just as simple in other 3d apps, and anyone going about hard-surface modeling in a half-intelligent way would use instancing (and in my experience with colleagues they do, as well as based on what I see on respective forums). Your response is moving the posts once more stating that other apps lack good/simple management/hierarchy tools like the ones in C4D - but they do. My response was that it is on the users themselves if they choose to ignore the built-in tool set. To which you responded that it is due to how those other 3d apps somehow are not specialized enough to accommodate such a non-destructive workflow. To which I countered that plugins and add-ons exist to make the process as painless. Then you write that 95% of users would never use a plugin, because they prefer the path of least resistance. This is very debatable, since in my experience with (3d) users they will stick with their preferred app and look for solutions through add-ons or plugins to fix what is missing. It also explains the popularity of add-ons for Blender or Max. This is also true for many C4D users who rely on alternative render engines to improve their rendering (for the sake of either speed, quality, or both). One could argue that for most users the path of least resistance is sticking with their familiar 3d DCC app, and rather install a plugin instead of leave familiar grounds for a completely new app. Now C4DS mentions they might invest more time improving a plugin that may alleviate your UV issues. You are interested to solve these problems in C4D, and seemingly would jump on the opportunity to install that plugin. And you spent time on trying to find a solution to fix things in C4D (the script). Both of which sort-of are the opposite behaviour of what your were saying how the average user would behave. Which means you are not the average user, but a "senior power user"? Who exactly is this "senior power user"? Your arguments are kinda confusing me at this point. I feel that a lack of knowledge about other apps and your love of C4D (and hate for Max) have informed some of your assertions. Which is completely understandable, because everyone has their own favourite 3d apps and tools. The key point in your original post here and PolyCount post is that Max and Blender do not afford an efficient and quick non-destructive workflow. But they do. It may require a plugin to have a more optimized user experience, but that is beside the original point. Each 3d DCC has its own quirks and approaches in modeling. Yes, I totally agree with that. But I disagree that other 3d apps cannot afford the user an easy and efficient non-destructive hard-surface modeling workflow. Anyway, I am out of the discussion for now. It was interesting, and I do see your points, but let's just agree to disagree.

In my mind it is more important whether any particular 3d application supports the workflow that you as an artist prefer. I myself prefer a non-destructive hard-surface modeling workflow. Blender supports that (makes it a doddle with an inexpensive add-on). C4D supports that. Houdini and Max (see below) too. Blender also supports good instancing, and I have difficulty understanding a modeling mindset which would avoid instancing and rather prefer duplicating the same geometry instead when you know that variations may have to be created later. Max, by the way, also supports parametric primitives, and always has done so: once created, the parameters are editable via the modifier panel. Next, add a modifier or two for arrays, etc.. So Max ALSO supports a similar non-destructive workflow. With some add-ons/plugins this functionality can be extended in either Max or Blender. You ought to try out the Sverchok add-on which adds full nodal parametric non-destructive modeling to Blender - similar to Houdini (well, somewhat 😉 ). Anyway, I just wanted to point out that other apps (which you mentioned) offer a similar non-destructive workflow, even if the apps' specific approach / methodologies varies from one to the next. Agreeing that "this is possible" and implying that only C4D is capable to handle such a wondrous workflow efficiently and easily is untrue, in my opinion and experience (and I have worked with most 3d apps at some point for jobs). I feel as long as the app in question supports the workflow the artist wants to adopt or can be made to adopt that workflow efficiently, it is fine.

That is on them. Personally I use non-destructive modeling techniques everywhere I can in my projects, and I organize things the same way as I do when I work in C4d, or other apps. My projects consist of many pieces, and this is actually also a benefit to keep things responsive in any app. And more importantly, as you state, it just wastes SO much time if assets need to be adjusted later, or different variations must be generated. I guess many Max, Maya, and Blender artists assume working destructively "in one level" saves them a little time in the beginning, but it will surely lose progressively more time in the later stages. I agree that I also have observed Blender users generally use a more direct modeling approach. Everyone has their own modeling approach. Cinema4D does enforce a more "Cad-like" method. And the outliner is hard to beat. In Blender I use collections to organize parts, and instance them. PS the only app I could not work in a non-destructive manner is LightWave. LightWave Modeler's workflow is predominantly destructive.

I agree, this is not a competition which app is the best. I merely want to point out that a similar non-destructive workflow is possible in Blender as well. With the Wondermesh addon a bunch of very useful parametric objects become accessible. Circular arrays are possible in Blender, but a pain to set up. Which is why I use Hardops for this. It's fast and easy to control circular arrays with it. Check this out: Animated gif not working here: open link to watch. gif animation And if you install the free Sverchock node, it allows for fully non-destructive model networks as well.

Your first point "Cinema 4D works very well for a game workflow if you know your Software" rings true for any 3d software, of course. The pipe example that you demonstrated in the linked Polycount articile I recreated non-destructively in Blender within minutes, with the same techniques that you used in C4d. So I do not understand why your team had those issues. Did they not use proper instancing? The thing is that a couple of add-ons will fix what is, in your opinion, missing in Blender. For example, with the addition of the free Wondermesh add-on a nice set of non-destructive parametric objects becomes available to Blender users as well. And by investing in add-ons such as Hardops, decalmachine, boxcutter modeling productivity goes through the roof, while maintaining a non-destructive workflow if needed. The modifier stack in Blender is also more performant than C4D in a lot of cases. I love working non-destructively in Blender, as I do in C4D. I do agree C4D's GUI is among its main attractions, and the outliner is really nice to work with. As for scene organization and management, I find both have their advantages and disadvantages. Eevee is of course an excellent reason to choose Blender, because it will neatly preview your model, while C4D's viewport is in need of an update, in my opinion. Anyway, they complement each other quite nicely. I feel at this point in time one of the major issues for Cinema4D that hampers its adoption in the game industry remains its high financial cost/upkeep. Smaller game studios and indies are cost-minded, and with both Max and Maya being less expensive, and Blender free/low cost with some brilliant add-ons to optimize hard surface modeling, it is hard to justify C4D's price tag for many. And let's face it, many game asset creators start off in their teens looking for an inexpensive (or rather free) 3d app and C4D is out of reach for most beginner/hobby modelers unless they hack the software.

Finally the forum works once more! Thanks - it was nigh on unusable.

More and more users are switching to Blender not because of pricing, but because of what other users are accomplishing with it. In studios it's become quite normal to see Maya and Max users adopt Blender in their workflow. The community is thriving, and this is very attractive to new users as well. The attractive pricing (free) only serves to help adoption, but I think it also has to do with the simple licensing: Blender doesn't even need to be installed to run. Compare with the C4D trial: in a move to make it even more hostile to potential new users, MAXON decided to time-limit the demo/trial and put it behind a registration. Personally, I have way more fun modeling and working in Blender now than I ever had/have in Cinema4d. And I am not alone in this... It's a very robust and quite user friendly 3d app. The tabs I really love: quick switching to sculpting or UV'ing with one click. Tabs were something I also loved in Lightwave. The viewport is an absolute joy to work in. C4D feels very clunky to me compared. Yes, there are rough edges, as there are in any software. C4D is no exception either. The main difference at this point is that Blender is actively being improved making great strides, while C4D seems to move along at a snail's pace. But perhaps with C4D 23 a break-through will finally happen? We can but wait and see. I believe Cinema4d is losing and/or will lose ground because of its abysmal licensing and pricing, unless MAXON changes it. Compare with Max and Maya Indie (even though it can only be used on projects worth less than 100K) for $250 a year, or Houdini, Blender: all have much more attractive pricing schemes. AutoDesk is feeling the heat, and their response to the Blender upheaval in the market is probably too little and too late. Heck, even LightWave seems to attract one or two new users that would have picked Cinema4D instead, but were rebuked by MAXON's licensing/rental plans. Especially in tough economic times like these MAXON's licensing is akin to a kick in the face when you're already down on the ground. And exacerbating the situation is that Cinema4D users, while paying a premium upkeep, need to invest in an external particle plugin, external render engine, and other plugins and apps to keep up with the competition. Something needs to give.

Confirmed. Working with Firefox Developer (latest): the page keeps bugging out with the same error. It is unusable.

Luxcore produces some beautiful results, and is quite fast for what it does. We may count ourselves lucky to have free access to all these renderers. Something for everyone.

The latest ProRender 2.4.11 was released a few days ago. Installation in Blender is very simple now, and no longer requires a separate installation - just point Blender at the add-on package. This version finally works properly with my setup: previous versions refused to work. It actually works quite well so far, and renders nicely on my GTX1080. Notable changes: Installers are now simply zip packages. To install, load the add-on through the Blender add-on preferences menu and point to the zip file. You will need to manually uninstall the old plugin fist here. macOS now supports ML Denoising. Support for Blender 2.83 has been added. Support for reading OpenVDB files via Blender 2.83 “Volume” objects has been added. The RPR 2.0 “experimental” render mode has been added. Currently this is Windows only and only recommended for final rendering. This is a prototype of our next generation renderer. Performance and memory usage should now be improved, especially for complex scenes. Multi-GPU and CPU + GPU performance, particularly when rendering with an AMD CPU + AMD GPU, is dramatically improved. For complex scenes that are larger than video memory size, out-of-core textures and geometry are automatic. Baking nodes. We have added utilities for baking nodes. This is useful with nodes that RPR does not translate natively, such as noise texture nodes. It is also quite useful with complex node networks, as they run faster at render time. There are two options:Select an object and material. In the Shader Editor, select the nodes you wish to bake, and press the “Bake Selected Nodes” button. The nodes will be baked to textures, and texture read nodes will be created;In the render settings, press the “Bake All Unknown Nodes” button. All nodes that RPR does not translate will be baked to textures.Please note that after changing node setups, the nodes will need to be re-baked. There is a new GL_Interop setting under “Viewport Sampling” settings. Users who use external GPUs (eGPUs) for viewport rendering may need to disable this. The speed of export of images for rendering has been increased.

Blender ships with an add-on called "Import Images as Planes", which makes it a doddle to import any number of images in one swoop, map them to planes, tell it to offset the planes at a preset distance and the axis, and have them track the camera. All part of the plugin. Camera (projection) mapping is also fully supported in Blender. And, unlike Cinema4D, Blender features a nodal compositor, so it is easy to composite things directly in Blender as well. Last, but not least, Cycles (Blender's renderer) has really nice GI and overall output quality. It's a modern render engine, and if you have a good GPU it will render your work fast. If you need faster output, e-Cycles is even faster (not free, though).

That statement is incorrect: Blender has gone through two major rewrites so far: from 2.4x to 2.5, and from 2.79 to 2.8x. The viewport was completely rewritten as well in 2.8. The old internal renderer was removed and replaced with Eevee. The difference between how MAXON has approached this is that the Blender developers decided to work concurrently on the older branch and new branch, thereby providing users with a choice to keep working with a stable older version and on the other hand testing the waters in the new rewitten branch. It allowed the user base to keep grounded, while prepare for the new version. MAXON took another path altogether: keep things hidden from public view, release ever more lackluster new releases, while increasing the financial upkeep, while continuously repeat stating that great things are in the works. Keep paying more and more! We will get there by the end! One more difference is that, unlike MAXON, the Blender devs kept communicating about what they were doing while doing it. Really no false expectations there (for the most part, at least). And the most important difference is: MAXON management is abusing the S22 release to proverbially force their long-time loyal user base into rental plans, because at this point I feel it is made quite plainly obvious that they do not like the perpetual licensing or old MSAs, and want all C4d users to go rental. Rather than Maxons's users, it seems to me Nemetschek Group's shareholders are of primary concern. Look, I completely understand how difficult and complex a rewrite is (in particular for a commercial product): Newtek failed abysmally with Core and mismanaging Lightwave in the ground while they were at it; TrueSpace failed altogether when the devs tried to patch on a new shell on top of the old code base; it took the Blender Foundation 5 years to release 2.8, and the new version has still some catching up to do in some areas in terms of performance. (which, coincidentally, also seems to be true for S22 compared to R21 with performance regressions!) Core rewrites are HARD, and take a toll on new and existing features. It takes years and years and years. And MAXON's management made some basic mistakes in terms of presenting and communicating these changes under the hood. Yet. Yet! I congratulate the C4D developer team on persisting and the first fruits of their labour are finally born here. It is just that MAXON's management seems to be in complete denial of what is going on in the rest of the world right now. And MAXON/Nemetschek Group comes across as a bit of a bully (not you, the C4d dev team!). In particular now that the world is dealing with Covid-19 and while many software companies are assisting their user bases, MAXON seems bent on making live only more difficult for their existing loyal user base. Which is absolutely incomprehensible to me and my work peers here (where we work with C4d R20 still). Then I see the friendly faces of the C4D team doing their best to introduce S22 and tell enthusiastically about new features and the great future that lies ahead of all of C4d users. Which I understand and actually love seeing that openess, but which is at great odds with what your higher management is doing. For myself, I perceive an unbelievable friction between what is done on a management and pricing level on the one hand by MAXON/Nemetschek Group, and the C4d's team charming happiness and enthusiasm over this S22 release and the upcoming features. Anyway, MAXON's management will have to deal with all of this at some point. In a few years 3d software prices will have tanked. C4d, currently relying on its user friendliness and MoGraph, will have to compete with cheap rents and a feature-complete easy to use Blender. It has happened to graphic design software, and it is happening to 3d DCC software. MAXON better prepare for this.

Any graph that includes Unity as the top leader in 3d modeling software should not be taken seriously. 😉

I discovered Max Richter via Accuradio a few years ago. Often I will just put up a preferred channel at Accuradio to 'discover' new artists and music. Otherwise I'd be listening to the same music for the rest of my life 😉 (we got rid of our telly many years ago)

Been listening a lot to Max Richter. Relaxes me, and puts everything in perspective. Great way to concentrate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuvZWDsl1I0

PS the Juggler animation is what REALLY got me interested in 3D animation. I was gobsmacked by the quality! The first time I watched it, I kept it on for an hour, or so. That glass ball sound effect still haunts me today! 🙂

Ah, the old Amiga days. Still lamenting the demise of her. I created my first 'professionally printed' DTP work in Pagestream. The first 'proper' 3d app I used was Sculpt 3d (later Sculpt/Animate 4d - Cinema '4d' is not as original as you would think 😜 ). Later Imagine, Lightwave, and Cinema4d on the Amiga. I also recall dabbling in Turbo Silver Pro! But I first started working with 3d wire renders of objects on an Amstrad CPC664. How far we've come... I would love to use Affinity Publisher, but the Affinity range of products do not support 1bit images, which I require for my work.

I noticed your comments: To parent stuff in the outliner, just hold down shift while dragging the object over another object. If you need more speed, E-Cycles is dramatically faster for many scenes. Worth investing in to half your render times, and even more so on the newer Nvidia cards. To improve overall workflows, do a little research in the add-on / plugins ecosystem. Nowadays there are add-ons to solve or improve anything in Blender - it's overwhelming.

I agree. AutoDesk announced 2 days ago that Max Indie is now available world-wide for $250 (per year rent) for any indie with an income lower than $100.000. Allow me to quote the following opinion from https://blenderartists.org/t/3ds-max-gets-a-slap-in-the-face/1154106/177: For MAXON to survive in the long run, just like AutoDesk, they will have to adjust to the changes ahead. The way I see it, is that C4d is in desperate need of a better built-in render solution. Standard/Physical is terribly outdated, slow, and can't match the quality nor the speed of modern competitors. Redshift should be included by default in C4d. This WILL happen in a few years. As far as I can tell, the only reason MAXON hasn't included it yet is because they a) milking the cash cow, and 2) management might not completely realize what is happening in the 3D DCC market. I just checked: renting C4d with Redshift would cost me ~can$ 1300. PER YEAR. While major parts of C4d lag behind the competition, including the free Blender. And C4d development trundles at a glacial pace compared to Blender - not to mention the ever-increasing ecosystem of plugins and support. Heck, I noticed that *.blend files have become one of the standard offered file formats on many 3d model asset sites in the past two years. MAXON will not be able to maintain their current business model for very long. Not with AutoDesk, Houdini, and Blender offering indies a far more viable cost model. And it's going to get worse for 3D DCC companies. With the economy's down-turn, C4d's yearly rental model has become quite repulsive - insulting even, when compared to its competitors. Anyway, back on topic. To survive, C4d ought to: - include Redshift as a replacement for the decrepit Standard/Physical at no extra cost. It is quite telling that many (if not most) C4d users rely on third-party / Redshift renderers. - improve the overall performance. Viewport, dealing with large number of objects. - reduce the rental price to compete with AutoDesk (at the very least). - vastly improve and modernize components such as BodyPaint, Hair, physics, UV tool set, particle system, ... - Focus on improving tools and performance of MoGraph. Know you niche. - overall less reliance on expensive plugins to patch holes in base feature sets All open doors, of course. Some have been open for years and years.

Magic...

Pablo is a one-man A-Team that turns Blender Sculpting into a power tool. He just keeps going and going and going. With 2.82 he already vastly improved the sculpt tools, and things get even better with the upcoming 2.83 version: https://code.blender.org/2020/02/sculpt-mode-features-update/

After Effects supports only a few vector file formats for import: AI, PDF, EPS, vectors in PSDs. These are rasterized in After Effects. PhotoLine has full proper vector layers and vector tools, and PDF export. After Effects will import the first page. Uh, sure? Although PS doesn't include a similar built-in feature, another option is to use Generator in Photoshop for an efficient automated export workflow while you work. PhotoLine has a similar Generator option. And game engines, for example, often have options to automatically refresh any edited assets. Anyway, what works best and most efficient depends on the pipeline and software chain.