3D-Pangel

Ditto....

I agree. My discontent is not with the software or the development community. It never has been and I have gone out of my way to make that distinction. My discontent is how perpetual license holders are treated. And the response has been quite clear: Subscription license holders will ALWAYS get more benefits than perpetual license holders. That is the penalty for wanting to be able to use your software without having to pay for it over and over again. Now, I have been drawing heavily on the Adobe and Autodesk model in my arguments. I have even said that this is evidence of what could happen to subscription holders. No direct statements such as "This is what Maxon will do to you in the future --- so watch out!" were made but rather just showing what could happen based on the evidence to date from other companies. In fact, in all those discussions, I never mention Maxon. So as careful as those statements have been made, some assume it is bias against Maxon. Now what I find is interesting is this: Those who are making those comments about bias prove, by their own statements or license numbers (eg. R24), that they are NOT perpetual license holders. So of course they can sit back and claim bias because they are not feeling the pinch that perpetual license holders feel. Finally those who assume those are biased arguments against Maxon have failed in one area: providing evidence in their arguments that Maxon would NEVER behave like Adobe. I would love to hear those assurances because how perpetual license holders have been treated does not support that claim. So please, put my mind at rest: convince me that there will be no more lackluster releases. Convince me that perpetual license holders will no longer have services taken away from them (actually --- what more can we lose?). Convince me that Maxon wants the perpetual license holder to also have a rich and rewarding experience with C4D by considering rent-to-own models or other options that have been discussed. Convince me that Maxon wishes to pursue and grow a positive and long term relationship with the perpetual license holder. Show me that evidence by ACTION (as actions speak louder than words) and I will be the first to shout out that I was wrong about everything. In the absence of that evidence, simply saying we are biased is word salad and miss-direction (hmm....interesting cultural parallels going on here). So be honest. Put in the real work to make a positive argument based on data to make your case. Dave

My brother has his PhD in tax law and developed the first Master's in Taxation degree program in the US. When Harvard wanted a similar program, he was the one who audited their curriculum as part of their accreditation program. Needless to say, he is a good guy to have in the family (master carpenter too!). We do talk often and pretty much about everything. Just a great source of knowledge. Funny story: He wrote a research paper on how much the US government would save on granting tax amnesty (pay what you owe without penalty or prosecution). The commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service met with him to discuss his findings as the savings were significant. Afterwards, he was audited --- probably as a test for bias to insure that his research was truthful and accurate. Well, they sent in a young auditor who was quite arrogant (as most tax auditors can be). According to my brother, he then proceeded to school her for 40 minutes on tax law. In telling the story, he stopped at this point and put his head down. I asked what was wrong. He said "I guess I schooled her too much". "Why?" I responded. "I made her cry", he said. He made the tax auditor cry!!! The man is my hero! Dave

Apart from the C4D's development roadmap (and - to be fair to Rick and the developers - an argument could be made for the value of workflow as being equal to the value of tool development), what I would love to hear is a frank and honest discussion regarding whether or not the perpetual license holder factors into Maxon's long term revenue strategy. To be brutally frank, I believe it does not. Our business just does not matter to Maxon -- in fact, we are a bit of an annoyance. I would also say that belief is shared by a majority of its users. I come to that conclusion based upon how often that opinion is communicated, supported, and echoed in this forum's posts. So, as a company that listens, is it safe to say that Maxon is also aware of that perception? I would think so. So the big question then is this: Does Maxon care about the damaged relationship that exists with perpetual license owners? Again, I submit it does not. Proof of this is in Ricks last post: "we're in a position of wanting to give you consistent value as part of your subscription and an ever-growing asset library is one great thing we can give subscribers in addition to frequent feature upgrades." I guess concerns over giving consistent value to perpetual license holders does not exist. Every action by Maxon over the past two years to the perpetual license holders is moving in the opposite direction to the favoritism they are giving subscription customers. Honestly, it feels like coercion and that is what creates the friction. So, if Maxon is listening and does care about the perpetual license holder, then we can get into a good conversation about how to win back our good graces. To start the conversation going, I propose two ways: the most desired being a rent-to-own model. The second choice is listed below for those that are interested. Now, as stated before, I don't think Maxon does care so I do NOT expect an answer or a conversation. I only expect silence. But please understand that silence also provides its own answer as well. Dave One other option for Maxon if they do care about perpetual license owners: A reason for treating perpetual license holders differently than subscription license holders was blamed on Enron. In essence saying that SOX compliance rules (or Sarbanes-Oxley legislation passed in the US in 2002) and similar global licensing rules prevent Maxon from doing more for perpetual license holders. Well, all that is needed to support SOX compliance (as well as similar global laws) is to establish financial accounting records that are readily verifiable with traceable source data. So relative to giving back perpetual license holders their lost benefits, all that is needed is to create a new subscription product that just includes, technical support, Cineversity and Library Access and charge a deeply discounted price to get around those nasty accounting rules. Or you could discount the perpetual license cost by the amount you want to charge for extending technical support, Cineversity and library access for the perpetual license holder. Now both perpetual and subscription holders are treated almost equally -- the difference that subscription customers get mid year upgrades. Perpetual license holders also can forego all those goodies (Cineversity, libraries, tech support) if they so desire and thereby reduce the sting of paying 32% more than everybody else --- a great option in years where they feel the newest version does not warrant the full $950 USD upgrade price but they still want to stay current. And please do NOT throw the other argument about "the work to upgrade the license server for this new product is cost prohibitive". Please! It feels like Maxon has been putting more development effort into the license server than C4D over the past two years. Now, that is a cheap shot but you get my point -- the resources to upgrade the server are in place and I would imagine with all the work put into Maxon One, the ability to add new products just got a lot easier (I mean, that should be the whole point of Maxon One? Shouldn't it?).

Is now a good time to bring up Rent to Own? Honestly, if there was a program that said "after X consecutive years of subscription, you will be entitled to get the next release as a perpetual license for a nominal additional fee over the subscription price" I would say that is a win-win for everyone and all my arguments go away. Dave

Rick, If you will notice, I rarely make specific conclusions regarding what the development community is doing -- especially at Maxon. I instead focus on the business and market forces which subscriptions create and the decisions those forces drive other companies like Adobe, Autodesk, etc to make. Remember that you yourself said that rather than wait for more to be added to R25 before it was released, the decision was made to get the tools already developed into users hands. Well, that logic really benefits subscribers more so than perpetual license holders. So you can see how subscriptions change and/or modify the decision making process and that is what I am calling out. Subscriptions change how decisions are made -- decisions that may even be out of your control -- which are not always advantageous to perpetual license holders. I know you work hard at Maxon along with the entire development community. I mean if that were not the case, we would not care what Maxon did with C4D -- but C4D is awesome based on your hard work and that is why we care. But please factor in the perpetual license holder into your day to day planning. We are slowly being squeezed out by Maxon from having any relevance at all. We don't get libraries, we don't get Cineversity, we don't get more than 3 months of technical support and now we are losing access to our executables. And we pay 32% more then everyone else for this type of treatment! These are not your decisions but they all add up to being pretty hard to take. I have empathy for your position and respect the contributions you and the rest of the developers make on a daily basis in growing C4D. All I ask is that you have the same empathy for the perpetual license holder and respect for our concerns with the direction of C4D given what we have seen subscriptions are doing to other platforms. The actions taken by Maxon against perpetual license holders do nothing to alleviate any of these concerns and you need to understand and respect that. With all due respect, Dave

Apologies to everyone for beating an old drum, but let me explain again why hobbyists hate subscriptions more than professionals. And it all boils down to 2 points so it should not be that hard for anyone to grasp. Point 1) The biggest downside of subscriptions is that it provides a source of locked in revenue for the software company. You stop subscribing, you lose access to your work -- so you keep subscribing to keep working. That is why you are locked in revenue. Point 2) As a hobbyist I have a strong desire to continue to have access to my work. That connection is not as strong for professionals because their connection to their work ends as soon as they get paid. Should the client want to change it in the future, they get paid again. So it is easy for them to jump in and out of a subscription model because they loose nothing. But hobbyists want to revisit what they have done in the past in case they learn something new that will make that scene better. Personally speaking...everything I do is a WIP as I am always reworking it. That is part of the fun and learning process. So here is why those two points make hobbyists unwilling to accept subscriptions. Point 1) If companies have a big percentage of their revenue locked in, there is less pressure to compete. Software companies compete on updating features, fixing bugs, providing new features, staying relevant in the marketplace. History has shown (especially with Adobe, 3DS Max and now R25) that companies are less concerned about what negative reactions they could receive from lackluster releases. Now, this behavior will NOT increase market share but for mature programs in a mature industry, there really is not that much NEW market to grab - or certainly not enough to warrant the investments required to improve the program to capture that market. But every company CEO still needs to increase profit year-over-year (his/her bonus depends on it) and therefore the best way to do that is to cut back on expenses. Unfortunately, in the software world their biggest expense is people. This all adds up to the conclusion that NOT only does subscriptions remove companies from the need to compete on features, it supports the means by which companies can layoff developers and increase profits. Major point being: Do not be surprised by lackluster updates once a company adopts a subscription model. Point 2) So eventually, based on the reasoning in Point 1, there is a good chance that each new release within a subscription model will fail to meet the user's needs in one way or another. Bugs persist and desired features get ignored. Pretty soon all users realize that they are just renting the software to use it -- paying over and over again with no noticeable improvements. They are not even renting to own. For professionals, that may not be a big deal because their connection to the software is job based. But remember that hobbyists have a connection to their work so if they are fed up with just renting and exit the subscription model, they loose everything or have to go through the additional work of exporting and importing in the painful switch to a new platform. That is why we like perpetual licenses -- if the update is not worth our money, we don't buy it and keep going. Nothing is lost. Unfortunately, Maxon is even making holding onto perpetual licenses harder given that they are removing access to the executables for past versions so now our life with C4D is restricted to our hardware. Is it just me, or do others feel that the old pre-subscription and pre license server model offered us more freedoms with our purchased software? And are those freedoms slowing being removed each year? Dave Oh....and if you love freedom the way I do, then I cannot say enough good things about the Blender training in this course --- now on SALE again:

As DaveW pointed out, maybe you missed this paragraph in the CGChannle article: So CGChannel got their reporting correct as their statement aligns to the new release announcements and how the perpetual license page at the Maxon site only points to the previous versions. The only explanation could be that the perpetual license page is out-of-date - which can happen during new product releases. Therefore, to be fair, I yield the floor to you for an accurate explanation as to whether or not perpetual licensing for the "current" versions of these products are still available. Dave

The comment "No plans to drop perpetual licenses of Cinema 4D ‘while there is enough demand’ is extremely ominous given the poor reception of R25. Essentially it is a dog whistle threat to all perpetual license holders: "Purchase this weak release or we will take away all perpetual licenses forever. As your Maxon overlords you must take what we give you to continue to earn our good graces." Now is it bonkers for me to read an "Obey or else" motive behind these comments? That is an honest question as I am concerned. But if I am NOT going bonkers, then it is another example of what I have said time and time again: Subscriptions capture a revenue base (continue to subscribe or lose all access) and as such there is a reduced need to compete on features. R25, whether more was planned or not, showed that their reasoning behind its release in its lean state did not for one moment take into account any competitive reaction. They simply did not care whether or not users viewed this release as relevant and/or worthy of their dollars because they felt immune to any negative reactions. Well...it seems that the universal disdain for what is in R25 shows that they are in fact not immune to the impact of a poor release. But rather than up their game to do better, as any company behaving in a normal competitive market would do, they have instead decided to threaten us: Buy what we give you or it goes all away. Honestly, if Maxon is playing these types of games now, should we be confident about future releases should there ONLY be subscriptions? I for one will be looking at Blender 3.0 release a lot more closely Dave

OMG! I love a good analogy that perfectly highlights a person's position on an argument...and that was it! Dave

I think Octane still offers a perpetual license. Is that one of the slim choices? True, it is unbiased and may not be a fast as Redshift simply because it is unbiased, but based on what I hear, users are very happy with it. Now, I was able to take advantage of the pre August 30th Redshift promotion to extend my maintenance to 6/2023 which means I still get perpetual licenses for each release until that date. By then, the whole world could be subscription (you never know). I just hope for a perpetual Redshift-RT for Blender by that time as that will be a powerful combination and provide me many options - just in case the whole world does go subscription. Dave

If I may...and this is all based on giving every courtesy to Maxon that they are NOT out to milk us dry like those bloodsucking leeches at Adobe. Not all development cycles are 1 year or 6 months. Major feature development can take longer than that. R26 development did NOT start on 9/16 once R25 was announced. So there is an overall roadmap and I would imagine it spans a maximum of 5 years as most corporations are not willing to invest further out than that (any more is risky because markets change). So, I really don't think Rick or anyone else at Maxon said "Yes. Let's make the UI the big change in R25 along with three other features" and made a conscious choice way back in the planning phase that was all there was going to be in R25. Pretty confident that more was planned for R25 but something happened. Developers ran into unforeseen issues, things were unstable, quality of those planned features was sub-standard, etc...etc...etc. The decision was therefore made to not include them in this release cycle. That is why I asked Rick "what happened last year". But that does NOT mean they will not appear in the next release. So R26 will be a little fatter to make up for the thinness of R25 as they get back on track with their development schedule....or so I hope. Where I fault Maxon is that they decided to release R25 rather than wait for all the planned features to be ready. Their reasoning for doing so: "We wanted to get these features into your hands as fast as possible". That is reasoning that really only benefit subscribers. It does NOT serve the perpetual license holder. It appeases the subscriber because they do get the new features earlier with no additional cash outlay. The perpetual license holder is left with "I am paying $950 for this?" type of feeling and at the same time placing a HUGE bet that everything will actually catch up by the time R27 is released so that the next time they shell out $950 they are getting a massive update that makes up for everything. Sorry...when you are paying 32% more than a subscriber, you want to see the goods up front. That is why I kept saying "Why did you release R25 as is? This makes no sense" because all they did was play into the Adobe fear that they really don't care about keeping C4D relevant and really are just milking a captive audience while giving very little in return. That is the REAL downside of subscriptions (you are paying just to use rather than paying to get better features) and R25 did nothing to dispel that fear. It was a bad move. Now, someone mentioned that Maxon was in debt. Not surprising given all their acquisitions. Therefore I strongly urge ALL perpetual license holders NOT to upgrade to R25 until you see what is in R26. You have until R27 is announced to make that decision without incurring additional costs because you are not eligible for R26 anyway....therefore wait. Does R26 catch up to where R25 should have been or is Maxon really just milking us dry. The only benefit to perpetual licenses is that (unlike the old maintenance programs), time is on your side AFTER the next release has been announced. If Maxon is hurting for cash, you also send them a signal by waiting: Sorry....you need to do better before you see my cash. Dave

I appreciate it. You are top shelf in my book too. I also looked at your web-site. Mad skills. Really outstanding. Dave

So you had me convinced of your sincerity up until that last sentence. Exactly when did you stop trying to be dismissive? Look, in light of R25 not being the most well received release and hearing about organizational changes and problems with collaboration does point out valid reasons for concern. Per Anders did leave this year too as well...so there are connections that could be made and all of that is alarming to someone who has invested heavily in C4D and sincerely wishes to continue doing so in the future. But when I connect all those dots together, I think there are valid concerns over that future. And to be fair, I did ask if I was reading too much into it....but maybe you missed that part. But it appears by your own comments that you are not that happy with C4D but are content to not say anything about until you are called out. That is fine. We all have different thresholds. But don't criticize others for being "bonkers" or tin-foil hat conspirators when they have concerns but then lecture us about how you like to be constructive while at the same time raising the exact same concerns with C4D that the rest of us have. Nevertheless, you won't hear me calling you bonkers. To hopefully end this thread on a positive note: I would like applaud Rick for setting the score straight...and continuing to do it in a very respectful and polite manner. He is top shelf in my book and I sincerely appreciate his participation in this forum and his patience...especially with me. Just remember that it all comes from a common desire to keep C4D meaningful and relevant for every user as time goes on. Dave

Interesting....that would explain a great many things. But the jewel in the Maxon crown is MoGraph. I know that every organization has to plan that anyone can be replaced, but there are just some key people you need to keep and Per was one of them. I mean, imagine if he went to Blender as I do understand that some motion graphics capability either already exists in the program or is being developed. That would be game over for Maxon because where else can C4D hang its hat as "best in breed" other than MoGraph? Hey, you want to charge top dollar you better be top dog in something (and it can NOT only be in the UI --- comfy seats are nice but ultimately you want your luxury car to have a good engine). Dave

Rick, Care to elaborate? The only organizational change I know of is Per Anders leaving...which was a bit of a shock. That is huge loss to Maxon to lose the person who accepted the Technical Achievement Oscar in 2020 for MoGraph. I mean he put Maxon on the map (IMHO) with MoGraph. When a person is responsible for that type of technical product contribution in my company they make him a "Fellow" which is VP level. You really want to hold onto your "Maxon Fellows". Losing them is like when Apple fired Steve Jobs in 1985 and we all know what happened to Apple between then and when he came back. It was a dark period marked by lack of innovation and dwindling sales (though I wish I had bought the stock for $3/share). So what is going on? Just trying to think what type of organizational changes impact collaboration as you say it is "tricky to replace those in-person conversations". That can only "really" happen when key people leave. Covid has an impact, but you can still call people up and read their body language via a Zoom or Web-Ex call. So Is there any more regrettable attrition going on and/or how is the new organizational structure impacting collaboration? Overall, no matter what the cause, that is not good. Am I reading too much into this? Dave

Overall...I agree with the end result - especially the new features that are not icon or location dependent such as hot corners, tabs, etc. I just think they could have done a few things to make the transition an easier one. For example, you can revert back to the originally layout but you cannot revert back to the original icons. People speak of muscle memory but that is easily solved with the old layouts and ONLY for those commands that are in that old layout. What I would have preferred is the ability to switch back to the old icons just to re-orient yourself to the layout first and then (when you are ready) re-orient yourself to the new icons. Even when muscle memory kicks in, if the icon is completely different you have to pause for a minute, hover over the icon a bit, see the name come up and then once you have confirmed this is the command you want, you proceed. That actually slows you down more than you may think. The fastest way (IMHO) to learn the new UI is to create your own layout. Redo everything and rebuild it how you want it to work. The pedantic action of finding and placing each icon where you want it both teaches you where it will be located and what it looks like. People are saying that it takes about a week of use to become familiar with it but I think re-building your custom layout will get you there much faster (hours not days). Dave

Personally I think it is the person who complains about the complainers complaining about the complainers complaining about the complainers. 😁 Ouch! Look, CG is not a simple thing to get into. It takes time, money, practice, patience, more money, more practice, etc. It also is NOT a skill that is 100% transferrable from one program to another. True, the techniques are transferrable but the execution is 100% dependent on the software and it is learning how to execute with that software where most of the time, money and practice goes. Once you get to a point of proficiency with the software where you are so immersed into the workflow that the interface melts away, then you have "arrived"! It just doesn't get any better than that. You just don't want to give that up like an old pair of shoes simply because it takes so much effort to get to that point. It is not that easy...especially for the hobbyist who has less time to learn simply because they have a different day job. So, with that said, I think it is valid for people to ask simple questions like "why did you change the interface when no one asked you to?" or "why was the interface a higher priority than this new modeling feature that would really improve my proficiency and help my workflow". They may sound like they are complaining, and some may actually be complaining, but from the majority I hear frustration and loss....especially with comments from hobbyists with perpetual licenses regarding how Maxon is making it increasingly difficult to financially continue with the software. Yeah... real sweat, blood and tears get invested into becoming proficient with each and every individual program. That is a cold hard fact for many of us. When that sacrifice gets threatened, then people speak up for themselves. That is natural. To some, the protection of that sacrifice is a complaint. Not me. I see what is behind it because I have made those same sacrifices. I really don't care if some on the forum cannot make that distinction....but I desperately hope that Maxon can. Dave

Does anyone have experience using RenderCrate They offer a range of 3D products from models, textures, music, sound effects, backgrounds, etc...etc...etc. Essentially a full gamut of resources to be used in all sorts of 3D or video content creation. Their pricing is also very reasonable: an annual fee of $79 that grants you 50 downloads/day. I downloaded some of their free (non-pro) models, and they were okay...but there were some that were just completely dodgy too. Their texture collections also look pretty good. For those of us who are perpetual license holders, we've lost the library love that Maxon used to give us so I am wondering if this is a cheap way to get some of those resources (and more) back? Anybody use them and how good is their pro content? Their reviews look good, but you can't always trust those. Dave

Rick, I understand and appreciate the difficult position a release like R25 puts you in as the front pitch man for C4D. Thank you for providing your input to the Core4D crowd. Something to consider though (as I have stated this earlier in the thread) you really should have held off releasing R25 until there was more to it. if Maxon came forward and said "Hey, we got R24 released a little later than anticipated which leaves us less time for R25 to be all that we envisioned should we hold to our traditional September release date. Therefore, to insure that we make each release meaningful, we are delaying the release of R25". Honestly, I don't think anyone would be upset with that announcement...or at least less upset than they are now. One other question: Do you really have a glowing Maxon logo in your office...at least I hope that is your office. If you have that at home...well....errr...I think a St. Pauli Girl beer sign would have been a better choice in your man cave.😆 Dave

Watch what happens when Autodesk tokens takes off...then Maxon will implement it. Trust me, Maxon may even go one better:

I think the biggest problem is the lack of "listening" from McGavran and senior leadership. Pretty confident that the developers know what needs to be done but it is management that makes the call and while they say they are hearing us, it is obvious that they are not listening. How do you look at R25's features and go "yeah --- this is what the users want! Let's make these four features a half-point release!" I am pretty sure warning flags were raised within Maxon about this release - but no one "listened". Not sure what happened last year to get us to this point. Plus, people no longer want to hear that Maxon is still implementing the core. That excuse is wearing thin. Was it scene nodes that sucked up all the resources over the last year? If so, is that the right strategy to put all your eggs in that basket? If that is Maxon's strategy, then they need to assess where they are with scene nodes after more than a year. What is the adoption rate by the users? Even if it is a "tech demo" (a nice term to launch a big effort without setting any expectations for deliverables), who is making scene node tutorials other than Maxon? I only found 11 on YouTube and 5 of those were from Maxon. The other 6 came from EJ, Chris Schmidt and LFO. That's it: 3 people after a whole year. Where are the user posts on all the great things with scene nodes? Are their any great examples of scene nodes on the Maxon web-site? I mean after a year or more, I would have expected more. Scene nodes may not be the big feature draw that Maxon hopes for as parametric modeling is hard no matter how clean the interface is made. Those who want to master it will go to Houdini rather than wait for C4D as Houdini's indie version is cheaper and it vastly more powerful. Yeah...I have no idea where McGavran is driving C4D because it is apparent he is not listening to his customers. Honestly, as an Adobe guy he is probably more at home with Red Giant than he is with Redshift or C4D. You always play to your strengths and people in leadership will always focus first on what they know before they tackle what they don't know. That is human nature. Well, I am getting the sinking feeling that 3D is not one McGavran's strengths. Dave

Introducing a new UI is always risky. An new UI encourages people on the fence about the program to finally commit to leave and learn something else. That will always be the situation no matter the platform or the history. Normally, you would introduce the new UI with some killer must-have features so it encourages users to make the transition. Now, C4D's history since R20 has not been stellar. The way perpetual license holders have been treated just gets worse with each passing year. The focus on scene nodes as a "tech demo" is not garnering enough interest from the users as far as I can tell or Maxon would be splattering scene nodes use cases all over their web-site. Maybe I missed it, but they are not readily apparent. R23 was pretty good with the new UV and animation tools. R24, or the "Beeple release" as I like to refer to it, was great for those who like to grab hunks of stuff from the asset browser and through it all over the scenes like garnish. In view of long standing feature improvements that continue to go unaddressed (particles, fluids, character animation, light linking, updates to AR, a good symmetry tool), not sure where asset browser fit in the priority but my guess is not very high. So the history of new features from a company that is NOT known for keeping up with the industry has not been stellar. What set C4D apart was the UI...and now they changed it. That was a very risky move as it was part of their identity. Again, given their history since R20, you don't want to make a misstep when you change the UI given a declining perception from users regarding whether or not C4D will be able to keep up with other programs. But to introduce the new UI with such lackluster features is just not a smart move. I don't understand the thinking. Were people desperate for a new UI? So the UI could have waited until they had enough new features to warrant sticking with the program through that transition. Honestly, I think Maxon would have been better off to NOT release anything right now. Not sure what is coming, but it has to better than what they included in this release. But hey....their revenue is locked in with subscriptions so maybe they hope they can get away with it. Well my message to Maxon is this: Hope is a bad strategy. Dave

The Maxon R25 web-page is now up. So on this page you can filter what is new by the following categories: Create, Animate, Render and Workflow. Create -- Empty. Nothing to see here. Please move on. Animate -- Another complete goose egg of nothing. Render -- Okay....I think there is a pattern here of nothing and now we have three strikes. Workflow -- Hooray! Something! Five things of something: UI, Capsules, Spline Import, Asset Browser, and Scene Manager. Now the asset browser add on seems like something that missed the R24 bus -- but when you are starving, you'll eat anything. Now the time between R24 and R25 was a bit shorter, but look at what Blender can get done in that same amount of time. So where did all the energy go? Dave