3D-Pangel

In NH, the situation is a little different. I live in the 11th most connected town in all of NH and we have 6 providers of home internet service. The biggest one is Xfinity and the second largest in Consolidated Communications (formerly Fairpoint). Pricewise, when you bundle cable (extended cable with 165 channels), phone, international calling and internet, I am paying $150/month using Xfinity. As I work from home, I need pretty fast upload/download so I have 400 Mbs/10 Mbs download/upload. Also, my company subsidizes me $35/month for an internet connection. No issues with service and Xfinity has some pretty good tools for managing your network remotely as well extending wifi connectivity within the home. So while those rates seem competitive (with the subsidy) and that fact that biggest competitor, Fairpoint, had an awful reputation in NH for service (thus causing them to go out of business and be sold to Consolidated Communications), I was pretty happy with Xfinity....at the beginning. Overtime, I began to see a slow overall cost increase. Nothing big, less than a dollar. But in the last year, a more notable increase. When you wake up to it, you realize that it is all the fee's on top of the flat package rate of $150/month. That $150 rate has not changed for years but the fees are constantly going up. Service fees (Broadcast TV fee and Regional Sports Fee) are $36.80/month...and increase of $13/month in the last year alone. Then there is another $12.67/month in state taxes, franchise costs, regulatory cost recovery fees, 911 fees, etc. So that is another $50/month in fees that I can't control. You can shop around for an ISP, which I have done, and all they tell you about is the basic package price. You have to call to fully understand all the taxes and fees that go with it. Plus, when you start to break cable away from internet (honestly, no one uses phone anymore. You add it just to get a bigger "bundle" at a cheaper rate), then you run into the problem that not all providers provide the same services, and the separate "unbundled" costs begin to wipe away any perceived savings. You then have to deal with the change in level of service. You may save some money, but loose big on reliability and/or response to widespread service outages. As this is NH, all our lines are above ground and on telephone poles. We get ice storms, wind storms, snow storms that can bring down lines. Xfinity trucks are always out there trimming back tree branches from the lines, upgrading/servicing their curb-side huts, etc. Again, as I work from home, I need that reliability and the shortest amount of downtime when recovering from a big storm. So, I am going to stick with Xfinity internet. My only opportunity for savings is to pick a cheaper cable plan and go with something like YouTube TV (which is not cheap either at $70/month) or its equivalent. But the cheaper plans don't come with DVR subsidies...so honestly, they have you coming and going. Dave

Just to add a bit to this discussion...imagine (again in 10 years' time -- or less) a world where you have an AI creating photo realism combined with a fast cellular/wi-fi network. From an interview with our CTO of wireless technology: The article then went on to describe other fanciful situations, but you get the picture. So, will there be a future where the CGI enthusiast will no longer be rendering images of their virtual world to show others in a forum but rather invite their friends to experience those worlds within their own augmented reality? Honestly, I hope not. Some of those virtual worlds could be a little strange. Just because you can make it from your imagination, does not always mean you should. Dave

There are a lot of good questions in that chat exchange below the video...and some have been answered by Insydium. I have extracted some of those directly asked in this forum. I am not going to paraphrase, but just post a snap shot of the question and the answer: Also, 4 hours before I posted my question above, someone did ask if this would be sold separately (maybe implying as a subscription only product). Again no answer and it was posted definitely during their workday. Also, someone made this post which I think perfectly sums up most of our concerns: I think we all have STSD (subscription traumatic stress disorder) whenever a company announces that they are following a hybrid licensing model....and for good reason given how Maxon handled it. Dave

Good point. But now it is past Noon on Friday in the UK and my post is still at the top of the stack in the chat section. No reply yet.

I did. Around 1PM EST. Notice how fast they responded to the first post but now....crickets. I don't know. A little nervous. Dave

By "Mash" do you mean Imashination and the 3D Fluff Youtube channel or someone else? I am already subscribed to 3D Fluff (great stuff..highly recommended) but perpetually on the lookout for good trainers. Thanks, Dave

I am confused regarding your need for the discussion. Did you bring it up because ----- You wanted to have a philosophical discussion on the merits of C4D post R20 (your current version). You do feel like you have missed out on something with future versions and want to know what that is. You want to validate if R20 plus all your current plugins provides the same (or more) capability than the latest C4D version. Now, all discussion points are certainly valid and worth asking. So, no issues with the subject being brought up on the forum at all. I guess I am just wondering "why not download a demo and see for yourself"? Until you do that, then it appears that only option 1 applies -- this is a philosophical discussion only. Again, that is perfectly okay so no criticism there. I am just looking for understanding as to the point of the whole thread from the perspective of its author. In short, what do you hope to get out of it? Dave

Either way, I tend to think of Maxon Releases the same way I feel about the Star Trek movies. The even numbered movies were always better than the odd numbered movies. I wonder if that is why they made the even numbered releases for subscribers only? Dave

LOL! Was that the scene with David Prowse (pre Darth Vader)?

So thought I would share a short question I posted on the Insydium YouTube site: Given that Insydium did NOT answer the question is troubling. Was my question in any way ambiguous? Is it just me or does it feel like a dodge? Dave

A little confused by this whole topic and the request for real world examples....which is really a lot to ask. Nothing anyone "says" in this thread is going to be convincing enough as everyone is coming from a different place regarding thier "needs" when they make the decision to upgrade. You need to convince yourself and the only way to do that is to download a demo. As for examples of how some of these new tool's work, may I suggest the "What's new in RXX" series of YouTube video by Chris Schmidt at RocketLasso. Dave

You beat me to it. Also, please note that X-Particles is perpetual right now (everything else is subscription). Now that, like everything else in life, could change. With that said, the first demo shows 173,400 particles playing at 6.5 FPS on the GPU vs. 156,060 particles at 1.7 FPS on the CPU. So that is easily almost a 4 times improvement. Plus the hardware used is solidly in the mid-range. Not as high-end as I would have expected. So, IMHO, really amazing results when you look at the GPU and the speed of the CPU at 3.6GHz (which still has an impact as it drives the rate at which data is sent back and forth to the GPU). I mean both are good pieces of hardware. The RTX 2080Ti has 11Gb of memory and compute capability of 7.5 but there are faster and bigger GPU's out there. So, how does this compare to other GPU driven fluid simulation products out there? Better? Worse? Same? Dave

Very good analogy. Nurbs is a higher order (mathematical) approach and one level down from patch modeling. So I agree it is closer to "heaven" from a creation perspective (to keep that analogy going). Unfortunately, we live on Earth so it is a bit out of place for anything but 3D printing which is quite happy to live with triangles. I would hate to try and UV map textures to those converted models...or rig them. Nevertheless, a great tool for the concept designer looking to create 3D print models in the product development phase of a project. But with all that said, there was some very good UI design in that software such as mirroring which C4D could really benefit from. Dave

Think long term and with the resources of a monster technology company behind it. nVidia is a leader in AI and their GPU's are becoming the AI engine of choice. So don't be limited by what you see today. My post was based on what could happen in the not-so-distant future. Dave

When they start to create 3D scenes out of it (either real 3D or via projection mapping onto simple primitives), that is when a number of landscape DCC companies begin to get nervous. No DCC company can compete with the resources and technology of nVidia (they have a market cap of $662 Billion: 3 times the size of Adobe and 12 times the size of Autodesk) - especially as they are becoming a huge name in AI development. Fast forward 10 years, and you could see this technology being adapted to a number of other areas such as car design, character design, architecture, clothing and shoes, household products, and my dream application: space (planets, moons and nebulas) and science fiction. The only thing left in the DCC landscape would be animation --- but if nVidia goes this far, then imagine what they could do with AI for animation? Just type "make the monkey dance to I Gotta Feeling by Black Eyed Peas". Could it be that easy with AI in a decade's time? Never say never. Honestly, if you could just type a few words, sketch out something quickly and get a 3D model with full textures in seconds and then port that over to another AI application for animation and lighting, then type a few more words and make some doodles to a get a finished high-quality animation...would you still be using C4D? Be afraid DCC companies...be very afraid. For the graphic artists out there --- best start to focus on concept creation and concept design rather than execution as AI could be doing that job for you before you retire from your career. Dave

Thank you HappyPolygon! Ever since Cinefex went out of business last June, I have suffered a sense of loss. 172 issues and 40 years of commitment will do that to you. This definitely helps. Dave

You have keen eyes to catch that. When you consider that all those PC screen images are comped in as a post effect, then you have to wonder which company did that work and why they choose to use C4D to comp into those screens. I wonder if they used R25 instead then would you have noticed? And if you did, you would immediately go "Look that is C4D" or instead have thought "Huh! That is Blender on that monitor".

Honestly, I find the cost of these certificates a bit high given the financial benefits that they provide to the certificate holder. I base this opinion by comparing it to other certificate programs in a completely different field - namely getting a CCNA certificate (Cisco certified network associate). CCNA exams cost on average around $300 but the starting salaries of those with CCNA certificates are between $51,000 to $60,000. I am not sure what the starting salaries are for people with similar Maxon certificates, but even if you assume that they are in the same range, the return is better for a CCNA as the cost to get that certificate is 30% ($300 vs $1000) of a Maxon certificate. Plus, that $1000 only gets you a C4D Basic Comprehension Certificate. Is that enough to get a paying job or do you need to then shell out another $2000 to get the "Cinema 4D Trainer Certification". So that is a total of $3000. Now, getting a CCNA certificate is extremely hard as you need to know pretty much everything there is to know about each of the 7 layers in our telecommunication hierarchy --- and there are many communication standards for each layer. Absolute brute memorization that makes memorizing short-cut keys look like child's play. But that is not the point....the point is that the Maxon certificate programs seem a bit wildly over-priced as I am pretty sure that the salaries they command are not in the 6 figure range (to be on par with the ROI from a CCNA certificate). With that said, I will say that Noseman's training is worth every penny of a 6 figure salary and I sincerely hope he is that well compensated. Dave

Personally, all points being valid, I am just happy to see that slap-stick silly humor is still being made for kids. My fear is that, given the "enlightened" sensibilities of today's modern parent, there will come a time when all kids TV only contains a social message of some sort rather just trying to be funny and entertaining.

Wow. Learning soooo much. "SDS tension" captures the issue perfectly (I just called it bad topology) but you are right as that is exactly what is going on and once you think of the problem that way, then the fixes are really kind of obvious once they are pointed out to you (I only slapped my forehead twice reading Cerbera's solutions --- an improvement as before it would be 4 head slaps). This is a real master class. No software tool, remesher algorithm, plugin is ever going to replace what is in Cerbera's head. Dave

Honestly and with all due respect, are those facts? While it is a safe bet to offer the opinion that large scale simulations as seen in the movies of dam bursts or cities being flooded are the result of Houdini, I am not sure I could look at any of the small-scale simulations that you describe (beer, bottled water, etc) and determine what software was or was not used. A lot of what makes a shot look great is the artist behind it more than the tool that created it. I have seen both amazing Blender fluid simulations and crappy Houdini simulations. Also, overtime as more and more technical white papers get released, the technology does become homogenized across a number of DCC platforms. This homogenization of the technology takes the capability of the tool even more out of the equation and makes the talent of the artist the key differentiator. In short, the only fact I would hold onto in this debate is that it always comes down to the artist to make the difference between adequate, good and amazing fluid simulations regardless of the tool they are using. But, if "where" X-Particles is used carries more weight with your opinion of the tools capabilities than "how" it is used, then I respectfully submit the following link of X-Particle case studies: INSYDIUM LTD | Case Studies Please note that the first case study listed is for Rockfall Spiced Rum.....so I guess it is used for professional liquor simulations after all. Dave

Thank you for the encouragement and the comments. I will admit that the floor shine always bothered me a bit as well but if you look at Return of the Jedi (which this bay is mostly based on), those floors are pretty shiny: But, as I said, they bothered me as well so I completely redid them: Now I need to add little touches of equipment on the floor to break up the image a bit because right now it just a big sea of black. Dave

Now that playoffs have NFL have concluded and this weekend is only the Pro Bowl (which no one really watches anyway) and there were no ice storms or blizzards to contend with, I got back into this WIP. The cargo pit in the floor has been added: The detail on the walls of the cargo pit was modeled....probably could have gotten away with a texture now that I look at it. Dave

That is just too cool for words

I did not mean to be off-putting to you or anyone else. If that is how I came across, then my sincere apologies as I do respect your opinions and experience. So, with that said, let's go grab a glass a Don Julio #70 together ---- for scientific purposes only. To study the ice and the fluid interactions....yeah.....for that only!!!😀 Dave P.S. In case anyone is wondering, while an extremely infrequent drinker, I really do enjoy a glass of good tequila.