3D-Pangel

Good question that requires Jawset to answer. Jawset should allow you to link to a new machine within an existing license. People do upgrade their hardware and hard drives do fail (I would assume that the MAC address of your hard drive is how your machine is identified to Jawset). So they have to allow changes. Question is though....how often. Usually there is a set number of times you are allowed to link an existing license to a different machine or a set period of time between when you can change that hardware link within an existing license. Usually, the limit is on the number of times you can change your hardware within an existing license as that is easier to control. Whatever the control is, Jawset needs to protect themselves against users using a volume license like a floating license...and protect themselves from all the annoying user requests to make those changes. If you do get an answer, please let us know. Dave

You are welcome. Now...let me confuse you some more. Do not be intimidated by X-Particles. I can understand your reluctance to get X-Particles because it is just a massively huge program only because it does so much: particles, fluids, smoke, cloth, volume breaking, volume rendering, grains, dynamics and multi-physics where one physical simulation affects another simulation (like a stream of water hitting a blanket and the cloth simulation on the blanket reacts to the fluid simulation and the fluid simulation in turn reacts to the cloth simulation). On the plus side, XP is very modular. You don't need to learn EVERY part of the program and can easily get amazing smoke effects with just as much ease as you could get from TFD. The only advantage of TFD is that it has its own build in renderer whereas XP really works best with Cycles 4D if you are looking for volumetric rendering. BUT....you have Redshift which is a much better and faster render engine than Cycles 4D and it can do volume rendering as well. Now, XP is almost twice the cost of TFD ($769 USD vs $469 USD) but that additional $300 gets you about 5 more simulation packages (fluids, grains, cloth, volume breaking, and particles) which all work together! Now, you do have to pay an annual maintenance, but XP just keeps growing! I would be hard pressed to find any current XP user who does not feel that they are getting their money's worth from their maintenance plan. Now let's talk about XP training. Bob Walmsley is a tremendous teacher. He is the Hrvoje of Insydium. Clear, concise and he takes you through all the traps and pitfalls that you may encounter when using the program ("So why did nothing happen?") and then explains how to get the program to do what you wanted it to do, why it didn't work the first time and the logic behind it all (which is the most important part). His teaching just sticks. Hear it once and you get it immediately. In fact, I do most of my learning watching one of his tutorials while on the exercise bike. I don't have C4D open...I just listen and it all sticks! He's that good! I have and love TFD....but I got it long before XP ever came out. I am glad I have both as TFD is great to use if you need to add something quick without too much fuss. Now if you want to do something truly amazing, you need to get XP. Almost as powerful as Houdini and infinitely easier and more fun to use. Dave

TFD is a great program but in all the years that I have been using that program (since 2012) I have never seen a sale. BUT..... That program is faithfully supported with a constant set of updates all free of charge. In short, you pay once and then never pay again for maintenance contracts or new licenses for future C4D versions. To me, that is a deal. Here is a quick snapshot of all there updates over the years (not sure why I save them...it must be the process engineer in me - we tend to be pack rats and document everything): So in the long run, TFD is a pretty good deal. Pay for it once and never pay again. Not sure how Jawset stays in business over all these years unless their user base just keeps growing, but with that model you can clearly understand why they never have a sale. With that said, there is a rumor that a MAJOR release is coming from Jawset. Not sure what, but it sounds like a stand alone simulation program (which most likely still supports C4D). No idea of dates but it does make sense as TFD has been at Version 1 status as long as I have used it with no significantly NEW features (like liquids, flow field visualizations, built in particle systems, etc) other than refinements, speed increases and the ability to work with other plugins as they get updated (eg. X-Particles). I mention that ONLY because I have no idea how Jawset will handle the release of that new program/version with their existing customer base -- especially considering (as you noticed) they never offer a sale. But then again, no guidance either on whether you should wait or not. Hey, it has been over 8 years after all. Final point being....better to know now than not know. Dave

Absolutely agree! Very hard to walk away from all the fluid/VFX awesomeness. Yes. TFD is also easier to use but it really slows down when it has to work with XP...which is a big pain point for me. But then again, shading XP fire simulations is not as straight forward as TFD and you only get really good results with Cycles 4D.....again another pain point. Probably the best path for both speed and quality is to cache the VDB file from XP and use Redshift. But I agree...they should really improve their fire shading such that there is NO reliance on more plugins. Dave

Okay....is this from the XP 2021 release program? Seriously....there is just so much packed into this update it is amazing. Personally, I felt that the original FLIP solver was a little clunky (slow, poor collisions, particles leaking out all over the place). Putting it side by side with the APIC solver in the speed test at 4:47 really drives home the point. I am thinking that the redone fluid solver is also what is behind all the other advancements like flowfields and the ocean solver. I would love to see how this works with grains (more speed improvements?). My excitement level is growing. After each video I need a cigarette (wink...wink...nod...nod...you know what I mean). 😄 Again, just amazed at Insydium. With each new release I keep thinking "Wow...look at all they have added! There is no way they can top this release". But they do...every time. As they keep topping themselves, maybe I need to raise my expectations. So here goes: Is large scale fluid simulations finally within reach? Do we dare hope for something similar to this in our future? Dave

Plus I just completed working 20 years at Cisco on June 19th. Normally they give you something you really don't want as an anniversary gift (monogrammed serving tray, liquor decanter, luggage). This year they did something new....Visa gift cards. That surprise hit me yesterday! Again, perfect timing. Dave

Just refreshed and it works now. Phew. Pretty good deal...on a perpetual license of course. And the timing is great as I was looking for a reward after having successfully putting my youngest daughter through college!!! Dave

Hmmm....went to MAXON link in the first post and got the coupon code (SUMMER30). Then I went to the Redshift web-site and entered the code. This was the result: ...so did anyone tell Redshift about this sale? Today is the 23rd isn't it? ...maybe it really is all fake news and malarkey again! That's it, I am going to Verizon and demanding my Corona beer!!! Dave

So all the beer that Verizon was promising me for switching to 5G is just fake news and a bunch of malarkey! Do you mean to say that I can't trust the internet!!! What is this world coming to. ...in short...speak to a human as suggested. As for me, I also try to get to a confirmation email just to insure that there was no misunderstanding from the conversation. MAXON USA has always been pretty accommodating about that. Dave

Well...that just made Realflow look....inadequate. Dave

A really fun tool. Amazing that it is now free and stand alone. That just goes to show how far we've come with 3D particle/fluid simulation systems as why would anyone want to use a 2D sprite based program when the results are so much better with current tools. But I remember playing with the Particle Illusion demo back in 2007 and was completely amazed at its ease of use and power. It was just fun to use. I actually recommended its interface to an old trueSpace developer (Primitive Itch --- anyone remember him) to change his UI for his 3D particle system (PPFX) to follow Particle Illusions UI. He reached out to PI's developer and got permission to change it. The old PI also has a built in masking tool (called blockers) to integrate particles into live action backgrounds. That no longer exists in the stand alone version (as best as I can tell) probably because there was no need for it in on-going development when it started to get integrated into compositing tools like AE. Here is an example image from the old 2007 version that I made (it took forever to do the masking): Lots of fun. Quick results...easy to use. Definitely worth the time to check-out....if only to learn from the UI design. Still no replacement for the ever amazing X-Particles, but it could be useful if you need a quick particle fix and don't want to go through all the steps in a normal 3D based system. Dave

This is huge! Ever since Vue decided to stop supporting their Carbon Scatter plugin for C4D I have missed this capability (not wanting to invest in Surface Spread). Insydium.....they just keep going! All they need to do is develop a modeling programs and then all their plugins will walk off and form their own DCC app. Dave

This video here (from 0:27 onward) is what I am talking about. Maybe I am mis-interpreting what PolyDup can do more so than Polygnome but I use Polygnome for duplicating "closed" or "solid" objects onto other objects by aligning faces to faces (put a 2x3 object onto set of selected 2x3 array of polygons). What I interpret from that video link is that PolyDup can use "open" objects and re-arrange them on their open edges. That is, the edges (not the faces) can be selected to add another level of PolyDup polygons. This is best illustrated here: Note that in the re-arranged object on the right, the middle and bottom "open" sections were swapped but you did that by selecting their edges rather (they were open so that there were no faces to select). Here is the file where I have things better labeled. PolyDup.c4d Dave

Polygnome and PolyDup are really complimentary modeling tools and meant to go together (IMHO). Any thought to making PolyDup in two versions: standalone (essentially what you have now) and integrated into Polygnome as Ver 2.0. In the integrated version (Polygnome 2.0), the open ended geometry of PolyDup can be stored and accessed similar to what Polygnome can do. What I love about both programs is the ability to quickly build geometry. But what I really love about PolyDup is the ability to merge the open ended selections in various combinations of new "closed" geometry which could then be saved in Polygnome. If you integrate PolyDup into Polygnome, you could really create modeling libraries of infinite variety very quickly. Plus, you go from having two products to three: Polygnome 1.0, PolyDup, Polygnome 2.0 (or call it something completely different: PolyFactory, PolySupreme, Polywannacrakcer, whatever). Dave

Daniel, I would agree that this looks to be a fantastic plugin. I am surprised at the large number of downloads without any feedback and agree with your action to take it off-line for now. But please do NOT stop developing it....you are on to something here. Couple of questions: Does the geometry to be copied have to come from the same object that they are being copied to? Can they come from another object? Once the geometry is stored, is that storage permanent or can it be saved to a library (....you can probably guess where I am going with this...can this be a follow on to Polygnome). What I love about PolyDup is that the polygon's stored can be both open and closed selections and therefore a small library of what is essentially loop selections can be used to build and large variety of finished structures. Therefore, far more versatile! You need to consider increase the library feature beyond 5. As selections are now modular, any thought to a "replace" replace function? For example, you are building a column mesh of 2 x 3 polygonal loops - each loop being 2 polygon's high. Think of each loop mesh as the "floor" of a building. You have 5 different patterns (or floor designs) and you have created a structure that is 10 floors high. Upon looking at the 6th floor, you want to change it. Therefore rather than deleting floors 6 to 10 and rebuilding, as each floor follows the same 2 x 3 polygonal footprint, you just replace the 6th floor with something else from the library. There needs to be some error feedback if you are not selecting a set of base polygons that match the same footprint as those in the library. A couple of things to consider: Allow the library feature to contain multiple tabs of base meshes all based on footprint. For example, one tab is 1x3, another is 2x2, another is 2x3, etc. You make a tab of base meshes active prior to making the selection on where you want the new geometry to be copied to. When making the "copy-to" selection, should the user select the wrong base area that corresponds to the active tab, the program lets you now. For example, say you are working with 2x2 bases. Should the user accidentally select a 3x2 base area or a floor outline that is 3x2, the program highlights the 3x2 selection in red and/or a message pops up that says "wrong base area selected". What would be really cool (but extremely hard to figure out) would be auto-fill. Once you select enough polygons, the program automatically fills in the rest of the selection and highlights ONLY those objects it has stored that would work with that auto-filled selection. I have no idea how you program this, but it certainly would speed up the workflow. Just a thought. Again, I see some great potential to this plugin....so please keep working on it. Dave

No...you are correct (though that would be wonderful). My point is that while I love Embergen's interface and quick viewport feedback, the fact that it exists as a standalone application outside of native C4D is not a better solution to using X-Particles within C4D. Just look at the two workflows: Because X-Particles works within C4D, you have a lot more control in how you can sculpt the fluid simulation and have it interact with the objects. Quick iteration is possible all within C4D. With Embergen, I am not sure how much particle control there is but any changes made to the C4D objects or their animation requires that you have to re-export/import back and forth between Embergen and C4D. Given that the last steps of both workflows are the same (VDB creation and shading --- though I do think caching is "slightly" better than export/import), then what is the advantage of Embergen over X-Particles at the start of the process? X-Particles provides some incredible control, works with fields, allows mutli-physics (gaseous simulations on top of fluid simulations on top of dynamic simulations as well as volume breaking, grains, etc) - and all within C4D so that you can iterate quickly. At some point, Embergen will be able to export particle velocity data which will be able to be read by Octane---but only for rendering of sparks (as that was all they talked about in their live stream). With X-Particles, you can create a fluid simulation and use the particle velocity data to drive a cloth simulation with tearing. So you could create a gas tank explosion that rips apart the body of the gas tank realistically as they are all driven by the same fluid dynamics creating the fireball. And, as everything exists in C4D, you can tweak and fine tune all those dynamics real time before rendering. With Embergen, you would have to cache the physical dynamics first, export/import into Embergen, add the fluid sim and hope you don't have to make any tweaks to the dynamic simulation. Sounds painful to me. And lets not even talk about X-Particles ability to use UV maps, infectious growth algorithms and fields for managing what happens as the fire spreads across a surface. As Embergen matures (and it will mature), the level of interactivity to create this type of X-Particles simulation (seen here) will be possible but just so much more painful in Embergen. So....for me.....while Embergen has advantages it really is NOT a better overall solution than X-Particles. Now...if it becomes a fully integrated C4D plugin or is bought out by MAXON or Insydium, then things change but that is a long way off and more than likely will not happen. Dave

Embergen had a live stream yesterday on their v0.5.3 release. What I love about Embergen is the ease of use for shading fire and smoke in Embergen. It is written for artists whereas most fluid simulation programs are written for mechanical engineers with a sub-discipline in thermal engineering (and as a mechanical engineer, I prefer the artist version....go figure). Very impressive but they did announce a partnership with Otoy to make it work with Octane. Sadly, there are no plans to make it work with Redshift simply because "Octane approached them first" (their words). So in the future, the easy to use shading settings in Embergen will just translate exactly to Octane. How easy!....and what a missed opportunity for the Redshift community. Given the current situation what is the value of using Embergen then? The lack of integration with Redshift or C4D limits the value of using Embergen to just creating the VDB cache which you then have to render using any render engine that can work with openVDB data sets (Cycles, Redshift, Octane, etc). So looking at this way, wouldn't using X-particles and Redshift or X-Particles and Cycles 4D be a better solution? X-Particles gives you tremendous control on creating the VDB data set using particles and integrates better with C4D (no importing or exporting of anything). When coupled with Redshift, I would imagine it probably renders as fast (or faster) then Embergen. So how is Embergen better than X-Particles when it comes to working with C4D? Am I missing something? Now if Redshift approached Embergen (or MAXON purchased Embergen to fill the hole of not having a fluid simulation solution), I would be high heaven. But right now, as I love what Embergen does, I am not seeing any value it brings to the C4D user over other options. Dave

There is a huge body of work in dynamics. Some of it is extremely relevant to the future of dynamic simulations (like the CD-MPM method in the first video) while others are interesting but have a more narrow range of applications (like the thermo-mechanical MPM solution for baking and cooking). There are even some that I am struggling to see why it is relevant: in particular the SPH method for snow simulation. Honestly, the MPM methods developed back in 2013 produce more realistic results and the video makes no effort to explain why SPH is a better method (faster to compute? Less memory?...no idea). Nevertheless, do NOT expect to see any of this in C4D any time soon. I would imagine that their first offering will be in liquids as there are already elements of the program that can handle fluids (dynamic fields and the mesh solver). What may be a limitation is C4D's ability to handle millions of particles in the view port. Should they want to move into gaseous liquids, then they need to improve their native rendering capabilities. Where you will most likely see some of these latest developments will be from Insydium. Honestly, X-Particles already has cloth, liquids, fire, volume breaking, hard body dynamics, soft body dynamics and the ability for one simulation to drive another (or n-systems). That is huge. Their architecture (it all starts with points and particles) enables all these systems to influence each other. Fine tuning everything with material point methods (MPM) would (in my humble and completely non-expert opinion) fit right into the trajectory of their development timeline. I would also imagine that the developers at Insydium have probably already absorbed each and every technical paper they can get their hands on. They are so far down the road on this, I would imagine it is a bit of discouragement to MAXON to develop anything on their own ("why bother....XP is moving at light speed"). Smarter to work a licensing deal with Insydium to get better dynamics into C4D when you are this far behind. This would be similar to what MAXON did with Ministry of Flats on UV mapping. Of course, that creates all sorts of problems for existing XP owners like myself (similar to when MAXON made Studio available for everyone), but it could happen. Dave

Honestly, Topcoat has created more instability issues with C4D than any of my other plugins. Learning the shader system is a far better way to go. I purchaed Topcoat right after R16 just to get me around the new reflectance channel but that was a mistake. Another mistake I made was to add it to my layout so it was active with each new release up until R19. Every C4D crash I experienced was always root caused by MAXON to Topcoat. It is no longer part of my layout nor do I load it into my plugin directory. If anyone has any contrary opinion about its stability after R19, I would be interested to hear it (I did pay for it after all). Dave

Forester is a great plugin but bear in mind it is a one-person shop (as best as I can tell). Their web-site has no customer portal where you can manage your licenses and therefore everything is handled via email. But...they do respond. As you only ordered today, I would give them at least 24 hours to get back to you. I know new license requests for different versions of C4D (that is going from an R20 to R21 licensed version of Forester) only took 24 hour turnaround but that is AFTER I sent them the message that Forester gives you when you try to activate the plugin. Nothing will happen unless you send them that information (containing user name, License and Hardware ID and Machine MAC address) via the "Contact US" section of their web-site (found here) Dave

You seem to have forgotten the new dynamics field forces added in R21. A really good getting started tutorial comes from Chris Schmidt (Rocket Lasso) found here: Unfortunately, you are at R20 so it is no surprise that you missed this but Field Forces is probably the best thing about R21. This addition gives some hints that MAXON may finally give C4D its own native fluid simulation solution...and if they do that then they also need to upgrade AR as well. IMHO....AR needs more love than dynamics (yeah...they added a denoiser in R21 and better instancing in R20 but there is soo much more that can be done with lights, VDB rendering, GI speed improvements, GPU acceleration, etc). My hope is that MAXON did not abandon AR after they purchased Redshift ---- well, they can abandon AR as long as they don't charge extra for Redshift. Field forces also works with XP so it just makes what is already an amazing plugin just that much more powerful. Dave

Very nicely done and I just love the Stan Lee cameo. Also went to your website and played the VFX shorts! The family just loved the baby blast off...they weren't expecting it. Hysterical. My favorite was the Star Wars fan film - excellent lighting, sets and animation but the best part was the look on your son. Not sure how you got your son to look so serious but it definitely created a chill (don't show that film to any future babysitters). Overall, just a tremendous display of talent .... and a family that knows how to have some fun! Dave

I found this site in my travels. Very well organized site of US road signs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_of_the_United_States All signs are capable of being downloaded in .svg file formats...some up to 1K resolutions. What I love the most about it is the organization which makes this site better than just a standard Google search. Need a cross walk sign, truck route sign, blasting signs, etc. They are all there to choose from. The Wikimedia Commons site is also pretty interesting as well. Dave

My hope is that Epic licenses this technology to the DCC community. Imagine real time Global GI on billions of polygons with 8K textures...all with the resources found in the Playstation 5 (16 Gb memory, 8 core 3.5GHz processor, 825 Gb SSD). Now a Playstation is designed for one thing so performance on a multi-purpose computing platform like a PC may be something completely different - but give me 40% of what that demo showed on some future version of C4D and I would have thought I had died and gone to heaven. Epic is behind the breakthrough real time virtual environments created by ILM found on "The Mandalorian". Interesting point, but the concept of a high-def emmisive LED screen backgrounds casting perfect light onto the foreground is not a new concept at ILM. This is something they have thought about for 10 years because no matter how good their green screen composites are, it is matching the lighting that really makes the shot feel real. The barrier was being able to computer generate a realistic background image in real time with enough definition on a LED screen to hold up in a live action shoot and interact with the position of the camera during shooting to create the proper background parallax shift. The technology in that video is how Epic solved that problem for ILM. Any surprise the Epic's Chief Technology Office (CTO) is Kim Libreri....a former visual effects supervisor at ILM? Coincidence? I think not. Dave