Arte

Hi! I think it's not about the rendering quality in Cycle but about the production aspects of the renderer. We use a few renderers in our studio, also a very nice Corona renderer. Corona is very nice and quick to set up a scene, but is mostly full of animation errors and has limited composing options. We have tried many times to implement it in our animation work and very often there are various bugs in it. The Corona render looks great, the preparation of scenes and materials is very easy. Just ... but it doesn't compare to the Redshift renderer when it comes to quality in animation and compositional possibilities. In Corona renderer you can do nice animations, but only really simple. With more complicated ones, it is a source of frustration. In the Redshift renderer, it is more difficult to prepare an equally attractive scene, but its great advantage is the lack of many problems in animation and having unlimited possibilities in the composition. I think that's why we distinguish between production renderers (Arnold, Redshift, Octane) and other renderers.

At the same time, it should be noted that we have the release every six months since the R21. Therefore, you should count them twice. Considering @imashination rating, it would look like this: R20 = 9/10 R21 = 3/10 R22 + R23 = 7/10 R24 + R25 = 4/10 So there is some dependence that better releases come every other year. Of course, probably it is by accident, but this is how it is currently presented according to the announcement of what will be in the R26. 🙂

You look at the prices from the punky sight of one person. I have a studio, I employ 5 graphic designers, our annual revenue exceeds $ 100,000. I am not eligible for the Indie version of Hudini. The price for Hudini FX for me is $ 4,495 and annual maintenance is $ 2,495 or $ 4,995 for an annual subscription. Compared to the Cinema: 4D $ 858 a year + X-Particle $ 972 and annual maintenance $ 257. To sum up: 1 workplace - initial payment: - Hudini: $ 4,495 - C4D + X-Paricle: 858 + 972 = $ 1,830 ($ 2,665 savings) 1 workplace - payment in each subsequent year: - Hudini: $ 2,495 - C4D + X-Paricle: 858 + 257 = $ 1,115 ($ 1,380 savings) I do not count the options with Redshift, because it will be even more profitable in the case of C4D. Considering that several workstations must be equipped, the savings amount to many thousands of dollars a year. Therefore, in such discussions it is often forgotten that the prices for the Indie version are reserved for a specific group of artists and do not apply to teamwork, even in small studios like ours. We do a lot of scientific, medical, biological and chemical simulations. Unfortunately, I cannot show them, because they are often reserved contracts.

The tutorial still works on the old fluid solver, in the new X-Particle it has been significantly improved, which is shown in this video - announcements of new features. I don't know which version of the X-Particle you're working with, but there's been some improvement in this regard.

Here you have a very similar simulation in X-Particles (at the beginning of this video). I think this water looks very fine.

Hi! It's a pity I only saw your ad today. Our team is experienced in sketch and toon in C4D. If you ever need help, write to our e-mail address: kontakt@dualcolor.pl Regards.

I can see that it is available. The Maxon App also made me updates from version 25.115 to 25.117 without any problems.

Yes, the R23 version had stability problems. They improved it a lot in S24 and I have no problems with this version. I have worked too little with the R25 to judge its stability, but so far I have not seen any problems. For the full transition to the R25, I am waiting for the repair of the missing icons. Help from Maxon said they are working on a solution to this problem. If the missing icons appear, we will switch to the R25 in our studio.

Hello, I wrote you a private message.

Hi! I sent you a private message. 🙂

How and where watermark? The security with Houdini Indie is to use a custom file format that cannot be opened in the Studio version. This ensures that no one will use this version for larger projects. In the case of Cinema, a different file format would deprive one of the important advantages of C4D, which is the best cooperation with AE or the Illustrator. C4D is mainly used in advertising where such functions are desired. Now, together with the Red Giant, they create the desired combination. Sure, maybe MAXON might come up with some attractive way to control the Indie version, but it's not that trivial at all. That's why I showed how others do it, where they introduce version control India (Houdini - another, incompatible file format, Autodesk - external companies looking for abuses with licenses).

But Houdini doesn't have native file support in AE or Unreal or Unity. There is no solution like Cineware. Therefore, it can afford a different, non-standard file format

In the case of C4D files it is not that simple, because one of the advantages of C4D is Cineware and cooperation with AE. Changing the file would require rewriting the AE plugin or losing this functionality. Also native support for C4D files in Unreal and Unity would stop working. Changing the file format would have a lot of consequences.

It is not true that Houdini Indie is only limited to $ 100,000 in revenue per year. The main limitation is the file saving format. Files saved in the Indie version cannot be opened in the Artist or Studio versions. Additionally, one company can only have 3 licenses in the Indie version. Limitations in the file format mean that a large studio cannot even work with a freelancer who works on the Indie version. Therefore, it is an effective safeguard. On the other hand, Maya and 3D Max in the Indie versions are limited to projects in which you can participate, in addition to revenues. The projects cannot exceed this amount (even if you do only a part of the work yourself). Therefore, it is impossible to work in these versions, e.g. on assets for a game development studio. Autodesk does not implement physical safeguards, but does hire third parties to investigate license abuse. MAXON has never acted like Autodesk, never hired companies looking for piracy and misuse of licenses. That's why it's hard for them to follow the Autodesk path.

Yes, that's a great announcement. This offers amazing possibilities in simulating interesting surfaces.

From what I noticed, the website automatically recognizes the country from which you open it and adds the local VAT. Therefore, it depends on which country you open the price page. And I don't completely understand these complaints that subscription is too expensive compared to the perpetual version. After all, with the perpetual you have to add an upgrade. The old model had to be supplemented with annual maintenance. The subscription price is about 5 times cheaper on an annual basis to the perpetual version price. If you add the upgrade (as a minimum of two for five years), the perpetual price equals the subscription only after 8 years! It's an eternity in CGI development. In the case of the old model with annual maintenance, the compensation period is even longer.

I have several subscriptions and I don't feel cheated. Great tools for placing objects in the scene, also taking into account physics. For us, it is a great acceleration of work. Plus great tweaks to the animation keys. And a ready-made rig for the car, right now when we need it! 🙂

Great job! I like it very much. And my favorite movie and tv series. I watched all seasons with my girlfriend! She is also a fan of Stargate. 🙂

Hi! @Nicensteiner Thanks for the correction, but it is still incomplete. 3D Max and Maya in the Indie version are not only limited to a revenue of $ 100,000 a year, but also limited to one man! If you have a micro studio with two people you can't use the Indie version anymore. As for the gaming industry, many Indie games have budgets in excess of $ 100,000. With 3D Max Indie or Maya Indie, you are not allowed to participate in projects that exceed this amount. This is not really a high amount. The lower one applies only to really amateur productions. So if anyone thinks they will be able to work on models for the Indie game, and wants to do it with 3D Max Indie, they will be breaking the license very often. That is why I wrote about the danger of unfair competition. It is better with Houdini Indie, because here you have the option of up to 3 licenses and you are not limited to participation in the project below $ 100,000, only revenue is counted.

There is a fundamental error in your question and survey. You only refer to a one-man creator. It is enough to have a small studio and four employees, and you need a floating license and the situation becomes completely different. Then the comparison becomes completely different: Maya: € 2,231.77 per year 3Ds Max: € 2,231.77 per year Houdini Core: € 1,685.00 per year Houdini FX: € 4,218.00 per year Cinema 4D: € 724.79 per year (compared to Maya and Max: - 67.5%, compared to Houdini Core: - 57%, compared to Houdini FX: - 82.8%!) Therefore, the price of Cinema for studios is very competitive. Even if you need to buy an X-Particle or other renderer. But of course, maybe for individual artists the price should be special with some limitations. The only thing I fear is that many people do not follow these restrictions. For example, 3D Max Indie allows you to participate only in projects up to $ 100,000, but freelancers with such licenses, although they do not earn such a qut, do 3D work for large large project clients and cause unfair competition.

Hi! Rodrigo Rodrigues stated on Twitter that he runs a private rig lesson. @FLimamaybe you will be interested in it? Yes, with the face rig tutorials for the C4D, it's hard to find a good one. If I'm not mistaken @kangddan did a great face rig course, but the whole thing is unfortunately in Chinese. Buy link below: https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a2oq0.12575281.0.0.25911debrMo441&ft=t&id=601444001712 However, as @everfresh wrote, many elements are identical to other programs. I switched to C4D 5 years ago from Softimage XSI and I am very pleased with this change. Cinema 4D is fun to work with, many things are made very nice and simple. My friend, who deals with character animation, also switched from Softimage 5 years ago, but to Blender (he was looking for a cheaper alternative than Maya and Cinema had no subscription then). And while it's not bad overall, but says Blender has a lot of shortcomings, especially when it comes to joint construction, it's still worse than the Softimage XSI (These are his words, not mine. I don't know Blender and it's hard for me to compare.). So he is checking C4D rig now because he likes some of the things Cinema 4D offers. And thanks to the subscription, he can now afford C4D. In my long experience, there is no perfect 3D program. One program has something better, then another one has something cool. Changing only because there is something better in the competition at a given moment is a mistake, because in some time something better may be in another place. Besides, it often feels like a foreign tool tastes better, meanwhile there are many problems too. In my studio, we found Cinema 4D to be the most versatile and at the same time easy to learn, which is essential for us when we expand our team. It's hard to find good specialists in 3D and animation in my city, so we train them ourselves.

Hi! I bought this course and I have to say it's uneven. In the first part there is a lot stuff for beginners, in the second part you are thrown into deep water. The course covers many things only in general terms, although fortunately you can ask questions to the teacher. My opinion is that the first part is ok for a beginner only. For a more advanced one, the initial part is unnecessary. While the second part is okay, only sometimes many things are discussed too briefly in relation to the first part. A lot of knowledge in a nutshell. Sometimes you have to guess what the instructor did. Facial animation is only represented by morphs on the example of the FACS system and no other techniques are discussed at all, e.g. such as on joints. But so far it is one of the best C4D courses I have seen, although it does not cover many aspects that are also important in my opinion, e.g. correct mesh topology, gimbal problems, hair etc. So the course is decent, but I would like it to cover more aspects of rigging. However it is not over yet, subsequent lessons appear approximately every 1-2 weeks. The course is to be supplemented with new elements over time. At the moment it is based on Cinema R20 and does not cover features from the latest versions. Full review should be made after the course is finished. I hope this course will be updated with new elements, because for what I have seen the instructor has a lot of experience.

My first contact with Cinema 4D was from the time of the Amiga computer in the first half of the 90s. At that time I was working in the editorial office of the monthly Amigowiec, a Polish magazine about Amiga computers. The magazine did not write anything about games but about graphic and professional use of this computer. People from this magazine were the creators of one of the first computer titles for Polish TV stations. I joined the C4D Caffe community when I switched from Softimage to Cienema 5 years ago.

I suggest that you report this issue to MAXON through their ticketing system. https://support.MAXON.net/open.php They usually reply quickly, and also ask for a scene to recreate the bug. When they succeed, the error lands on their correction list. Therefore, I encourage you to submit such a bug report.

Happy New Year to everyone! I wish you health, end the nightmare of the pandemic, better and better Cinema 4D and many creative ideas. 🙂