3D-Pangel

No....not a weird mathematical equation but a legitimate question. In the past 12 weeks, I have spent 9 of them traveling for work: 8 of those 9 weeks have been out of the country. So this left very little time for C4D. Plus TV was a not a great option given some of the countries I was visiting. So all I can say is Thank God for YouTube! So I started watching the Insydium tutorials on X-Particles, in particular those that highlight the features of their November, 2018 release. Based on a brief search through the forums I am really surprised that no one at the Café has posted on this release because I am just gob struck by the improvements made by Insydium. Just watch Bob Walmsley's IBC presentation here and tell me if you don't start the see the potential for XP4-2018 as part of major VFX pipepline. The multi-physics capabilities and grain solvers really blow my mind. Add to that the general speed increase (around 3X faster fluid solver), the capability to cache various fluid channels as OpenVDB output, and mix all that with R20 fields and you begin to wonder if the complexity of the Houdini interface is really buying you that much. You may think that Houdini has the edge on handling massive particles and therefore is the only way to go for serious VFX work. But if you watch other YouTube videos where they were running speed comparison tests with over 1.5 million particles on a Core i9 processor you may also question that assumption as well. Now, I have absolute respect for the work done with Houdini and for the artists who use it, but I think it is a mistake for people to think that C4D users can't play in the high-end VFX world. X-Particles allows C4D users to step out of the motion graphics box that many non-C4D users like to keep us in. Bravo! Dave

Interesting......thanks for sharing. I did not listen to the audio as I am in an airport (killing time until my next flight) and probably couldn't hear it anyway. The spreadsheet looks like a numerical representation of the animation curves for each object. If you notice, you can scroll left or right within each cell and the object's position updates accordingly. Not too much different than what you have today. The spreadsheet is just an early version of the animation tracks showing the keyframes and you right click on each keyframe to get their numerical values. Also, at that time, Pixar's animation software was home grown. I say "at that time" as I am not sure if their animation software (I think it is called "Marionette") has been replaced by something commercially available. Dave

To get the bluish glow, place a volumetric omni light at the center of the planet. Turn off shadows, illumination, etc. Color it blue and grow it get the atmospheric glow you are looking for. I used that method for this image below. You are also going to want a Fresnel shader on the planets surface as well, tinted brown probably, to get the effect of atmospheric haze towards the horizon. Dave

Well this is a first. Anyone having trouble with their temporary serial numbers? I keep getting a message that the SN provided in the same email with the link for digital delivery is invalid. Straight copy and paste and even passing it through a text file to insure there are no hidden and/or embedded characters at the beginning or end of the serial number from the email does not help. Running Start.exe as a system administrator does not help either Other than filing a case with MAXON support and reaching out to MAXON-USA (who are just phenomenally fast), what else can I do? ...and here I was just thinking that C4D is the application I want to grow old with....and it rejects me. ...how sad. Dave

I am using the Physical render. Render times are pretty long (around 30 minutes on a 4 core 3.7GHz Xeon E3-1245 V6 processor). For all but close ups the port hole luminance maps do not need to be GI enabled which they are right now. Turning that off could speed things up a bit. I am not really worried about polygon count. I used to be, but computers are so powerful these days it is not that much of a limitation. The whole project has been slowed down a bit due to work (traveling to Juarez, San Jose, back to Juarez and then to the Czech republic on business) and family (lots of great weekends spent with pretty much everyone). Also, a very good comment was made Vizn about the paneling that has got me going back a bit to redo. It is more work than expected, but he was spot on. Put all that together and progress has been slow. I hope to get to spend a bit of time on it this weekend before my next trip. My perfect retirement job (hopefully 7 years away) would be to do something (anything actually) with C4D as I find myself really looking forward to being able to spend some serious time on it....but time for my hobbies is so limited right now. Dave

I do see relationships in how the core is being implemented. For example, with OpenVDB implementation and the complete lack of any improvements to C4D's native particle system, I would not be surprised that a fluid simulation capability is somewhere on the roadmap with a new particle system capable of supporting it. But all that WON'T happen until the core is turned lose and C4D can handle massive quantities of objects. But fields had to come first....and just imagine what would be possible with fluid simulation being governed by fields. I would say it would give Realflow's daemons a run for their money. Unfortunately, August 20XX is such a long way away....so please MAXON, give us some insights!!! Dave

Okay....I have been watching a few more videos on R20 and it is beginning to sink in that this is a pretty significant release. Also, you need to look at R20 as follows: the sum of the parts is so much greater than the whole. If we only think about fields, material nodes, volume modeling in the traditional sense, then you are understating what those features mean to R20 because their implementation by MAXON throughout the entire architecture of the program just seems pretty brilliant and well thought out. If this is what the new core gets us in the future for other features, then I need to learn a greater level of patience - which will be hard but I am confident it will be worth the wait. I have also been thinking about the delays in Bodypaint. UV management is at the core of the program as it touches modeling, texturing and rendering. As such, I honestly think that it will be last on the release pipeline not because it is low priority by MAXON but because it has to be with respect to all the other features they need to implement. If new features are going to have the same level of integration that we are seeing in R20 due to the new core, then it just makes sense for Bodypaint to be close to the last thing to be implemented because UV editing touches so many other areas. Think of it this way: do you put up the curtains in a home while the building is still being framed? Same idea. There is a logical order to how things need to get done and MAXON is definitely logical. It is a no win situation for MAXON given their current culture because they can't explain why the most anticipated feature update is going to be at the tail end of their implementation pipeline unless they divulge what is coming before it. They also can't say it is a high priority --- because even though it may be a high priority in their development workload it will still need to be implemented after most everything else they have planned. So statements about priority will seem pretty hollow as we are kept waiting. That is just the way it is. Thus the eternal tap dance on the part of the MAXON employees. They want to scream out that it will be worth the wait but even statements like those beg more questions on when? and why? and how come not now? because to answer any of those questions gets into the order in which features and capabilities need to be released and that is an area MAXON will not go. So they stay quiet. Maybe that will change with the new CEO and we can only hope. Dave

So the annual deal offered prior to a release that if you upgrade from R18 to R19 you get R20 now includes 1 year of MSA? That is a good deal. If there was a guarantee that was offered every year, I would seriously think about skipping MSA's every other year. Dave.

Cool. I would imagine the good folks at GSG are busily looking at their Signal plugin right now!

Okay....I am beginning to see the light. Spline based modifications has many interesting applications and possibilities. Not sure how much better control time field modifications provides for simple field applications than keyframing, but I would imagine that for complex field set-ups, they provide a huge value. Can you drive them with a midi soundtrack as well? That capability might drive 3D-Kiwi back into C4D. ; -) Can time fields also apply to the settings in lights as well? For example could they control intensity such that you can now create animated chaser lights without the need for Xpresso or tedious key-framing. A bit of a stretch as I would imagine it was designed around polygonal objects, but it would be pretty cool if that was possible . Dave

Did you mean that MAXON waivered the cost increase to MSA's for this year (and only to MAXON USA customers) or did I seriously miss something?

Thank you....if it is selection tag based, then I would imagine that it won't work with primitives. No biggee, just wondering. I would love to see a video on how fields can be used in a polygonal modeling workflow.....not that you probably don't already have a "few" requests for tutorials. But this could help change the perception that "modeling" improvements were not fully addressed in this release. Dave

I have been watching a few of the fields videos. After one example, there was a post that said that they would work with OpenVDB meshes. If true, then would they also work with standard meshes (that is, take action on the individual polygons in that mesh)? Will they work with primitives such that you now have a completely non-destructive workflow? Just wondering if fields will give you more control and options than with the current set of deformation brushes in C4D. Dave

Thanks for the clarification as I just assumed it was just breathing hard

Pull out the 2009 Star Trek reboot and watch the opening scene where there is this amazing close up of the hull of the Kelvin spaceship. Just look at the multiple levels of metal reflections off of the hull. Just gorgeous. Please try to duplicate that! You can find it here: Also check out the work done on the Enterprise's hull at 1:02 mark. Dave I met Roger Guyette (Star Trek ILM VFX supervisor) before he worked on Star Trek. We talked about the work he did on Mission Impossible 3 and the lighting of the Hong Kong that he had to recreate in the scene where Tom Cruise jumps off a building. He has a tremendous eye for lighting and texturing in all his work.

Any tutorials on material nodes? Now, using a node is pretty straight forward, What I want to understand is a deeper understanding of how to break down a desired effect into a design approach with the nodal system. A lot of times, the tutorials go as follows: Connect A to B to C,D, and E and then back to D with a side connect to G and back to F and viola you have aged copper with rusty edges. Okay.....so how do you know to start with A? How did you even know that nodes B to G were required? That is the type of training I am looking for - how to build that logic and a few design approaches. Thanks, Dave

Unfortunately, when I load the OpenCL drivers that ProRender recommends on my Xeon/Quadro P4000 machine, C4D becomes unstable. I issued a crash report and the tech response on what to do, while complete and thorough, was rather involved and not implemented for the simple reason that ProRender is so slow. It just wasn't worth implementing a work around that may (or may not) compromise other features of the program. Better to uninstall the drivers and leave ProRender unused. Dave

Much appreciated. As for me, my commitment to C4D remains just because the program is so much fun to use, stable and works as intended. But I think MAXON is missing an opportunity with their non-mogrpah customers if they remain silent. I know as a MAXON employee you see the entire plan of getting from point A to point B with the new core, but we can only see Point A with each release and (to use a graphical analogy) you can draw a lot of lines though a single point. Therefore, if MAXON opens up a bit on the future of the program it will help us draw a line in the right direction. In short, you have to give us a reason to continue to be patient as you fully roll out the new core because in our minds, we were thinking that rolling out the new core was only a 3 year journey that started in with R17 and end with R20. Obviously that is not the case as you just said that more time is needed to make fallow ground fertile. I just think it is in everyone's best interests if MAXON starts to give us indications of what you are planting! Dave

Okay....while I am still trying to absorb exactly what R20 means to me, a quick overview of this thread shows that response shows more disappointment than excitement. Maybe we set our expectations too high with R20. It is clear that MAXON has signaled a focus on motion graphics with this release...which is fine as that is the jewel in the crown for C4D. But I think we need some response from MAXON on exactly what the future holds for those features of the program that continue to be ignored. Does MAXON still have a commitment to improving BP? To particles? To modeling? To Character animation? Where do these feature reside in MAXON's overall market strategy? What is their priority? Please be honest with us. If they are no longer part of your business model or a low priority than it is best to be upfront with that information now. That level of honesty will create more good will with you user base than to let us figure it out after years of inactivity and silence. Worse yet, is to lead us on that you are still working on it, but then not definitely address the missing features with each release. And while there are "performance" improvements with the new core, then please explain how those improvements are better than desired features in our overall workflow? I am not asking for release dates. I am not asking on a specific set of features planned for R21. I just want to know if there is a commitment within MAXON to address long standing user concerns on areas of the program that are not core to your key markets such as motion graphics. What are your priorities when it comes to BP, particles, character animation, modeling, etc. Dave

Same here Dan. I also wish you a full and speedy recovery. Dave

Another way I look at is that the time you have with an unsupported app (that is, no longer being upgraded), is as limited as your OS. So roughly about 7 years given Microsofts current support structure. Ultimately, your going to upgrade to a new PC with a new OS and graphics cards that no longer work with your old version of C4D. Nothing lasts forever so the though that you will always be able to use C4D even though you have moved to a new application is not entirely true. But by that time (7 years with the new app), you probably don't care. Nevertheless, no matter where you end up, you will eventually be walking away from everything you have invested in that program. Dave

WARNING: Long winded post. Do not read on your cell phone while driving --- this means you Hrvoje! Honestly....while no one likes to be held hostage to pretty much anything, I have to ask if statements such as "this will be my last update unless the next release has XZY feature" are realistic. Now I am a hobbyist. My income is thankfully not tied to my skills with C4D (if it was, we would starve). But regardless of being a hobbyist or professional, DCC programs do require a bit of commitment. Other than Blender, they aren't cheap and do require a significant investment in money and time until you feel comfortable with it. So for those who have reached their breaking point, what do you thoughtfully consider when you think about switching programs? I've been with C4D for 10 years now, so here is what I take into account every time I consider if I should drop the program: How much time have I invested in learning the program. How much cash have I invested in program upgrades How much cash have I invested in plugins/libraries/shaders/models tailored to C4D? How much time would it take for me to convert my scene files to another platform? How successful would I be in converting those scenes? How much would need to be redone? How steep is the learning curve for that other program? Could I be as proficient using that other program as I am using C4D? Is the other program as logically laid out as C4D? Would I be fighting that programs interface and if so, for how long? Does the other program have plugins or features equivalent in function to the ones I have for C4D? Also, what is the core reason why I want to leave C4D? Have my skills outgrown its capabilities? Is there some feature that I must have for which there is no work-around other than purchasing a whole new application? Are they continuing to add meaningful features to the program with each release that I would be interested in? Can I afford the upgrade costs for that other program? How do they compare to C4D's? What is the future for the other program? Is its parent company stable and investing in the development of the program? ...and as a hobbyist, this question definitely applies: Is the other program as fun to use as C4D? Do things works as expected ALL THE TIME? Is the UI design pretty consistent so that the learning curve is shallow when I wish to try new things? I could easily go on....but the point is that time spent with any DCC program does create a bit of inertia against switching. These are not easy decisions and when you think about it, they should not be made emotionally There is a lot to consider. Maybe its different for people who make a living with the program as every issue has a greater impact, but remember that time spent learning that other application is time NOT spent making money (or with family, friends, etc). So I would imagine the considerations professionals make may slightly parallel the list above. Yes...I have seriously considered switching over the last 10 years -- more than once too! It has not been a blissful relationship every single year. There have been some great releases and some that do make me mad. But then I sit down, put aside the emotion, go through the list above and ultimately decide to stay. Even without know what is in R20 and with no expectation for what new features are in R20, I think I have made the right decision every time. Dave

Srek, Welcome back....you have been missed. I know that defending the software in the face of some pretty unfair criticism at the Café is what led to your 3+ year hiatus, so I mark your return as yet another good sign of brighter days ahead. Dave

So couple of things: If all 3 of them signed a common contract then that contract would still have provisions on the process for any of them to independently separate themselves from that contract. I can't imagine any of them would sign a contract that said "If one of you decide to separate yourself from this agreement, all 3 of you go!!!" Honestly, would you sign onto something like that? Probably not. Therefore, all 3 would still need to come to some agreement that now is the time to retire. Retiring is a big decision and everyone has different financial considerations as well as plans for the retirement years. Even if money or health care was not a factor, you still have to have to ask "Well, now what do I do to fill my day?". I am 57 and have been thinking quite hard about retirement particularly as my day job becomes more demanding and the kids are moving out of the house. These are not easy decisions to make as there are a huge number of things to consider. So again, for the 3 of them to make that decision to do it together is interesting. Again, I ask why? The reason for all 3 to go at the same time must be damn compelling. Dave

Wow...very insightful comment and spot on. No worries about offering it as that is the type of criticism I am looking for. I want to keep the paneling as it does help sell the scale and adds visual interest more than what a simple texture would do. Flat straight walls just make it look small and uninteresting but the first rule of believable detail is that they look like they belong there as well. Your comments correctly point out that some of those panels do not look like they belong. Shame on me as I am an engineer and a design that looks like it would exist in the real world is what I look for in other models so I need to hold myself up to better standards as well. Dave