zeden

If I had to start all over again: 1. Sign in to cineversity 2. Sign in to FXPHD to all courses by Tim Clapham. The fxphd stuff looks like has the very important Pipeline with the After Effects in mind which will be central in your everyday work. The only problem is that the course is in r14 and in R16-18 the modeling in C4D has changed considerably.

I am far away from being a specialist in laws but I think I've read that somewhere (cgtalk?). But imagine they give away a .5 update away on one continent and aren't allowed to give it the customers on another. Would cause an uproar right?

Considering how much they talk on cgtalk and show about Prorender it is more of the opposite. They cannot release it as a .5 release due to tax law constraints they said somewhere (Adobe has the same problem, thanks to subscription systems). And no I do not need Prorender because I never render with Physical or Standard etc. . I have VRAY, Cycles and Corona beta on my private machine and work with Octane/Vray on my day job. Like so many. And why are so many using 3rd party engines? We all know why: because they are way better. And that has to change. Because every single one of them has problems. A renderer that has equal quality and in addition is tighly integrated will most likely kill some of the 3rd party engines I fear. From a product management point a new gpu renderer is 100% the way to go for MAXON. This kind of renderer is exactly what all the mograph and product viz people need. A LOT of them are using the inbuild engines. And the now slowly appearing pics show convincing quality. Good move.

Look at this video. It is one of the very few Prorender stuff that can convince besides the Glen Johnson renderings: With that render quality out of the box on the GPU 90% of the C4D users can pay their bills without purchasing 3rd pary engines I am sure. And you can choose Cpu or Gpu. Ok, it will take them untill R20 or so to make it production ready as they say. But it is worth it. But when I have a renderer that gives reliable Viewport Representation, painles material stacking/layering, working multipass and deep integration in genereal etc inside C4D...how on earth can I not want that? Imagine the thing in combination with realtime painting in BP...

Yeah, let's stop developing the internal Renderer! Because the Renderer is so unimportant in a 3D App that clearly aims for the 3D Generalist. And hey, it will never achive the power of a thrid party renderer that is developed by a 10 men team fulltime over years. So Drop it! And if my 3rd Party renderer dies (which of course never happens) then I will start ranting about MAXON about how they ignore their users for YEAARRRSSS! This place is getting ridiculous. A GPU/CPU renderer that runs on multipe techs is exactly what this software needs. It is basically the most important thing in a Generalist 3D software. Maybe MAXON is damn right not to listen to some of its customers

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=47&t=1449143 And some renderings: https://twitter.com/the_glenster

Let's hope they resigned him and bought his tools ;)

I think it makes sense to overhaul the core tech behind the tools first. And BP still after a decade has some stuff the others struggle with. For example in Mari you still cannot paint in multiple channels up to this day, right? BP has that for ten years now. Substance painter has serious limitations regarding texture size. BP is way stronger there. They have to do some serious catch up but the foundation of BP is not sooo bad to build on. But is it really that hard to implement symmetry?

So this BP version is basically a code rewrite without any new features?

I guess they would have shown in the vid

The most powerful renderers feature wise out there for C4D are Arnold and Vray. You just see that they are used in feature film production the way they handle things. They basically let you do everything, they eat it all. But they are slower than all the GPU renderer sadly while I have to say the new Vray in pathtracing mode is really fast for a Cpu renderer. Great engine. I can recommend Octane. It is extremely fast, feature rich and now unlimited in polycount. And gets fast development. Redshift looks nice as well. The Gpu renderers are just made for all that mograph stuff. But wait what MAXON is cooking with their new Pro Render Gpu engine. That for example looks nice: http://pro.radeon.com/en-us/radeon-prorender-available-for-autodesk-maya-coming-soon-for-blender/

I just watched the Making of and I see massive use of C4D in Versus I seriously do not see the point here. They show Rigging, Animation, Sculpting, Procedurals, brilliant Hair use, etc. all done in C4D. Additionally they show that C4D has become a great pipeline tool with lots of ports to other software. Everything a pro 3D wants to see. Falling behind my a**

To answer the question we need to know what you want to do with it and where in th e workflow do you want to use it? Did you try the C4D sculpting?

Great!

Ask freelance animators in LA what they have as a day rate. Take the lower end. Take a professional price to not harm yourself and the market. For friends there always is some kind of discount... is in the nature of those things ;). I guess day rates in LA are between 300-1000 depending on experience and skill (not many will earn more than 700).

It is a MAXON employee: http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=747773

I think this renderer will be very usefull for all the Mograph, ProductViz and Archviz C4D people. So to speak for 90% of the users. Watching the Fire Render and Pro Render examples online it most likely is not so much suited to VFX for example. And just keep in mind: companys like Chaosgroup and Solidangle have Dev teams the size of MAXON's just for a render engine. So if the thing is a very solid engine we can be more than happy. But comparing it to Vray, Arnold and Octane? Hmmm

Lol. Everything else but a main feature in R19 would be a huge suprise. Integrating and developing a new render engine with complete new tech is a huge task. Read the blog post about it. There are enough indicators about the complexity of this.

Yes that is true but it is a destructive workflow that can lead to massive problems when weights, selections, point order etc. are important ( imagine doing uvws on an already rigged mesh for example)

First: Very nice Char! Second: 95% of the tools you describe here are in C4D as well General C4D uvw workflow: 1. Select your seams (with your clean model that takes 5 mins, Loop and Path selection tool. And yes here the lacking symmetry tools suck, on Cineversity there once were mirros selection scripts) 2. Make a frontal projection of all seleceted faces 3. Go to Relax UV tab. ABF or LSCM mode, enable cut selected edges, Auto realign) 4. Go to optimal mapping tab. Enable Realign and Equalize Island Size Here you are done 90% of your uvws in 90% of the cases. The rest is manually align the islands The pin option is there as is the flatten in u or v there. The stretch to uv space is there under uv Commands. To overlay equal islands you can use snappping but you have to do it manually which sucks but can be done. The heat maps are missing as well as UDIM support. But as they announced there are new tools in BP coming up. So we can hope...

That is maybe the most helpful feature they implemented right behind the Vector Alpha Brush. Very slightly before the GIZMO!!!!!!!! Anyone encountered a release date?

Do you only offer for R18 or also lower versions? Cheers

It is technically and production wise maybe the most powerfull renderer out there. It was developed by the VFX industry and you feel and see it when you work with it. It is designed for heavy scenes to render efficient and reliable. You can throw basically everything at it. It's downside is that it can be slow sometimes. It was designed for bigger production VFX pipeline with render power in mind.

Fair enough ;) Have you ever tried Sketch and Toon? It is a software marvel vastly underrated and seldom used by C4D Artists. It is a bit complicated in the beginning and sadly single core but one of the stellar things MAXON produced back in the days.

Really nice look! But .....why on earth do you render a cell shading film with Arnold? You could easily achive the look with the C4D standard render/Physical Sky and save a lot of render times since you have the look in the textures already? Why a VFX renderer like Arnold which is designed from ground up for photorealism? Do you have a big farm?