3D-Pangel

Sooo....let me see if I got this right. What is new in R25 (top items): New interface (not sure if that is a plus as sometimes a new interfaces have a learning curve_) Spline import Capsules. ???? Am I missing something? This is where my prediction that subscriptions invite lack of updates due to a captured financial base come true. Judging that their launch show today immediately glossed over C4D's new features with a pretty cool presentation on a Red Giant plugin (Bang) may reinforce my fear that this release is in fact very lean. Today is a good day for....Blender. Dave

That is correct. My maintenance plan was extended prior to the 8/30/21 deadline until 6/2023. All releases of Redshift prior to that date will be permanent licenses and available for all apps -- not just C4D. So I am pretty confident that prior to 6/2023, Redshift RT for Blender should be available -- thereby knocking down (IHMO) a significant barrier to Blender and that being that the Cycles render engine is not known for its speed. Cycles is a good render engine, but Redshift is just so much better. Learn more about Redshift for Blender with this tutorial Dave

Redshift RT is very exciting. So glad I updated my maintenance to 2023 last August as by then, pretty sure that Redshift RT for Blender will be available as well (that will be a nice permanent license to have). Okay....now I need to look into getting a more worthy GPU. Dave

Igor, Apart from tag changes, did anything else change? I ask because I am not sure how I became a newbie overnight: Now, can you change my age too? I want to be 18 again. 😆 Dave

If anyone has trouble finding eportfolio.net like I did (did not show via Help window on R19 or searching Maxon.net) the link is: eportfolio.maxon.net Now, when I tried to login, it would not accept my password and then it would not recognize my email address when I tried to reset my password. So what is going on? I can't believe accept a EULA on R21 would impact this. I have the installers for R19, but they are not the full installers but rather access the installers on-line. A capability which I fear will go away. R19 is critical as it is the bridge between older files and current versions. This is all becoming very ominous for perpetual license holders --- Is Maxon slowly shutting down access to ALL perpetual licenses, even those prior to R21? Dave

Neuro-plasticity is a real thing. The more you continue to learn, the easier it will be to keep learning. I used to watch tutorials with C4D open in front of me and and constantly hitting the pause button to try new things. What I found though is that nothing was really "sinking in". I try what I learned, figured I had it down and then hit play again and go onto the next thing. Well, in order to fit training into my daily routine I made a change only possible due to the pandemic. When the gyms shut down, I canceled my gym membership. When the world shut down, I canceled all vacations for two years. As my wife, daughter and I exercise regularly, I put all that money into a gym in the basement -- including a 50 inch 4K TV with an ethernet hard line connection to my router (using ethernet over powerline). That TV sits right in front of the Echelon bike and you can see quite clearly the UI interface on the TV while on the bike. Also, having purchased the Udemy Blender Encyclopedia at a deal (48 hours of training for $12), they do allow you to download the courses (about 48 Gb worth). That has been downloaded to a USB drive that the TV can play from. What I have found while cycling, is that just listening and watching, without stopping to follow along in the DCC app, does get things to "sink in" better...particularly if I decide to re-watch the same tutorials as you do need to pay attention to the bike's exercise routine as well. Then, once that is done, you go to the PC and you try what you have learned. This is where you may struggle a bit, but it is in that straggle where things "sink" in and then permanently "set" in. You couldn't do that at the gym so now that they are open, I am not going back.

One other comment....the robots eyes. He is looking right at the wall before he breaks through it. Shouldn't he be looking to the left (his right) and at the opening rather than looking at what he is going to run into? When he scraped the wall earlier, he was not looking at where he was going to scrape the wall but rather was looking to where he needed to go. So he should again be looking at where he needed to go before he breaks through the wall and that would be the opening to the left of the impact point. Dave

For the quickness of the shot after the impact, I think less is more and right now it works for me. ...but with that said, if you want to add a bit more realism and "punch" to that shot, I think you need to increase the level of dust being created. Right now, it seems to be a 2D element added in AE (and very faint for that matter) when it should be generated by the concrete particles themselves and follow their same dynamic trajectory. Are you using X-Particles? XP can handle mutli-physic simulations (volume breaking generating particles that can drive a smoke simulation). There is no native fluid system in C4D so purchasing a plugin to add a few frames of additional realism may not be cost effective...though XP is such an amazing plugin, you will never regret owning it. But if money is tight, as I said before, right now it works for me given how quickly the shot lasts. Dave

There was a certain innocence to those 1980 backyard adventures. It was at the time when VFX techniques were being developed and everything was new. You look at the final shot of Explorers back then and go "How did they do that?" Well...it was pure craft (fiber fill clouds glued to large crystal clear lexan sheets placed over over backlite graphics and shot from above). Today you just go "It was done in the computer". I also think that lack of knowledge of the old techniques hampers the younger generation using CGI. 100% of the challenge with the old techniques was "how do I make it look real?" which soon led to the adage that "you need to add detail that you would only notice if it was NOT there". So I submit that lighting miniatures with real lights better prepares you for accurate light set-ups for models in the computer. Real world experience automatically tells you what color the shadows should be on snow (they should have an element of blue in them) or how bright should the rim light be on a ship in space (you set the exposure for what is in the shadows of that rim light). Today, you just shove everything under and HDRI dome and move on. It is one thing to understand what is needed -- that is half the battle. But another thing to understand how to achieve those missing elements in the computer. That is where the knowledge of the old methods provide the best training. Why did fiber fill clouds work so well (they allowed self shadowing and depth and you can feather the edges differently between each motion control pass to get that natural wispy effect). Simple craft that really allowed innovation through experimentation rather quickly. I miss the old days. Don't forget Cocoon, Gremlins, Enemy Mine (great matte paintings), or Krull. All the Lucasfilm movies -- the Spielberg movies and the James Cameron movies. Dave

(3) VFXcool: Flight of the Navigator - YouTube This was very informative...and a good case that ever technique can and should be used. This movie used everything --- even stop motion animation --- and was not a pure CGI film. Dave

EVERYONE STOP POSTING TO THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU HAVE SEEN THIS: (3) A Boy and His UFO teaser Trailer early test - YouTube OMG! And here we are looking at his wireframes and going "Gee...would have been great if not for the lack of quads in some areas". Was this all done by you or did you have any help (other than Gene Wilder 🙂 who is the only other name in the credits)? We will of course will want to know ALL the details: Shot 1: 1) Was the drone footage in the forest from a stock reel or did you shoot it yourself? 2) What software was used for the rotoscoping? Motion tracking? Shot 2: The bird that flies in front of the robot in the second shot when he is on the road has to be animated. I thought the road was just a background still until the bird flew by. That gave the shot some much needed life. Very well done. Who did the robot sound effects? Also very well done. Shot 3: Was fluid sim's used for the clouds or was that again stock footage? If stock footage, the masking must have been painful. Shot 4: Who is the little boy? Was he lifted from another movie? Shot 5: Masterful. I love the lightening. Matching the lightning to the lighting on the robot is very well done. Shot 6: More stock footage or did you go out and rent a truck? Match moving the robot to the truck is well done but yet believable because you added a slight rock to the whole rig. Not sure if the truck is CG as well....it looks too real. Modeling the chains over the robot must have been fun. Who did the overall sound mixing? Again, great balance, mood and very well done. In the face of this quality, we can forgive a few triangles in the modeling. Dave P.S. And there is more at his YouTube Channel: (3) the CRAFTINATOR - YouTube

Speaking of 80's....anyone else catch the robot from Short Circuit on the base holding the clay sculpture? Not sure if that is a toy, a 3D printed object and/or if it has any articulation to it, but I would love to have it on my desk as well. Funny that when he said he sculpted it in clay first before he did the modeling, I did not think that he "actually" sculpted it in clay! Nice! Old school! The old methods are just as valid (and sometimes better) than the new! Dave

Welcome to the Core (I originally typed "Cafe"...some habits are hard to break). Great introductory image. For someone who struggles with texturing, I thought you did a great job. Also, I love the lighting. You really matched the background image quite well. Is the road element textured as well or did you use projection mapping? I ask because the highlight on the road from the street lamp on the left does not line up with the street lamp itself. Draw a straight line from the lamp to the camera and that is where the highlight should be. Sorry for the small nit on an introductory post....I am impressed by that image nonetheless. Also.....Cerbera is NOT the quad police. That implies he is running around forcing people to use quads ("quad enforcer"??). Nope. But you will learn a great deal from his comments and suggestions (maybe "quad enabler" is a better title). In any case, with talent like yours, we are eager to see more of your work in the future. Dave

I pretty much agree with all the comments here. Let the tag system and the search capability do all the work rather than the moderators trying to organize things. Maybe we should have a more discussion on requiring tags and tag categories when creating a new topic. Right now, when you create a new topic, you just select through two forum levels (eg. Modeling --> Organic) but I am thinking it might be a better to start with NOT having any pre-defined sub-forum directories...initially Rather, start with only one forum category for each DCC app as proposed, but should you want to create a new topic in that forum (eg. Blender, modo, Houdini, etc), you are "required" to select a number of tags to help define that post. So when you want to create a post in the Houdini forum, there are no sub-forums but there are requirements on the selecting main "task" subject area tags (modeling, texturing, rigging, etc) and then another tag for workflow categories (viewport manipulation, object handling, UI, import/export), and then a third tag on tools and techniques (splines, topology, instances, xrefs). Finally, you are asked if this topic involves cross-platform navigation and if yes, it then asks for a target app. Again, these are just examples of tag categories and not a complete list but I think Task, Workflow, and Tools are pretty logical tag major categories to get the discussion going. If you don't work through these tag selections, the member is warned that their post will go to general category under each DCC forum and therefore runs the risk of NOT being seen or addressed as all moderators have different skills but limited time and therefore need guidance as to which questions they can answer quickly. Whether this is true or not, the user should realize that some effort is required on their part if they want to get the help they need. Not sure if this can be done or not, but I think as these other DCC forums get rolling, it is hard to define what the structure will be or which structure works best as the content will be pretty low. So focus more on the classification piece first before you focus on the forum structure and then let the tags guide you at a later date on what structure to follow once things get busy. Not sure if you have tools for moving and grouping entire threads based on tag groupings or not, but if you do then that should make creating a structure at a later date much easier. There is another reason for this suggestion.....I think coming across a number of empty forum categories is a bit off-putting to new posters particularly if they are looking for help. You look at an empty forum and you may come to the wrong conclusion that this is a dead site and not worth your time. At least the "general" section will have some posts if all the forum members fail to use the tag system. And of course, once a subject is marked "solved" by the moderator, they can add the missing tags. Just a thought. Dave

There are some flaws to Lumen and Nanite based on some videos I have seen. The first is that the Lumen engine has a hard time consistently converging all GI light rays in real time. There is this shifting blotchiness which you would notice should the scene contain smooth surfaces. I would imagine to get the performance you need, the error threshold is set higher than you would use in a standard render engine. That is why all demo scenes use rocks and rough surfaces where the subtle shifting of brightness and color is not as noticeable. If smooth surfaces are used, they will probably not be a brightly lit. Another problem is with thin objects, especially leaves. If the camera is up close, all looks good but at a distance the leaves just disappear. That one I cannot explain nor could the demo operator in the video I was watching. Nevertheless, Unreal 5 still remains hugely impressive. It is just not the be-all and end-all yet of real time, hyper-realistic rendering. But they are close. I also have to admire that all demos are run on a PS5. I mean, that alone is impressive. Now, I hear two things when it comes to real time 3D being used in Stagecraft for The Mandalorian. I hear it is based on Unreal Engine but it also uses ILM's Helios render engine. Pretty certain they are not running the 70 foot diameter of LED "volumes" of Stagecraft using PS5 so the partnership between ILM and Unreal probably has developed the be-all and end-all of real time rendering. It probably requires a render farm of 1000 nVidia RTX-A8000's to make it all work - especially if they want to use for more than TV and make large format movies to be shown in IMAX theaters. If anyone has the specs on Stagecraft 2.0, please share. Interesting fact: The partnership between ILM and Unreal probably was very easy to create given that Unreal's CTO is Kim Libreri, a past ILM VFX supervisor who left in 2015 for Epic. I met Kim during Siggraph 2009 and we actually had a nice chat about fluid simulations. Quiet guy with a searing intelligence. Dave

Well...given the current state of C4D today, unless there is some relief for perpetual license owners, I wish I had never learned C4D at all and chosen Blender back in 2005. Now early Blender was a bit of a hot mess but I would be a much better position than I am now when I think of all the money I have spent on C4D over the last 16 years (easily over $15,000 in maintenance and license fees), plus X-Particles, tutorials, etc. Now, relative to C4D, I have stayed away from Bodypaint and UV mapping simply because at the time I was ready to take that on, the general "perception" was that there would be a new version of Bodypaint released. Ultimately, that was a false perception I kept holding on to...year...after year....after year. With that said, the "Ministry of Flats" does make UV much more enjoyable today than it would have been back then. Finally, nodal materials. The big barrier to nodal materials is that they are render engine dependent. The work flows are the same (metalness, specular, linear) but there are always subtle differences on blending, setting gamma values, etc..etc...etc.. between each. So I am probably way behind in working with nodal materials. Every time, I need to pull out a tutorial of past example to overcome some memory stumbling block. I wish for the day when I can work nodal materials where it is second nature and just comes out of my "stream of conscience" thinking whereby I am creating as I am thinking about what I want to do. Dave

So I think it is safe to say that hyperbole is lost upon you and you definitely went out of bounds with your conclusions. Hopefully that rant made you feel better and work out some of your frustrations. But if not, may I suggest you take a breath and calm down while I try to explain EXACTLY what I meant. And to do that, I will start with some of the background motivation behind that post. To me C4D is a place of joy and has been that way for me for 16 years. I love the interface, the stability and the ease of use. I also admire the craft, brilliance and dedication of those who develop it. I do not love renting it. I want to own it. I think we are all wired to prefer ownership rather than renting. Owning puts you in control of how and when you use the software. When you think long term, I want that control to use the software without the burden of paying a subscription. I want that control because I also believe that the locked in revenue provided by subscriptions reduce the pressure to compete on features. We are also wired to think that "subscriptions" mean "maintenance" and under that belief is the assumption that bugs get fixed and feature requests get fulfilled. Well, that is not always the case (just look at Adobe and Autodesk). It won't be until you have a couple of lack-luster releases in a row that you realize "Hey....subscriptions really mean "renting" because I have been paying over and over again but getting no real improvements to the software that are meaningful to me. It is just the same old thing year after year!". Well, it is when that inevitable day arrives that I also want a perpetual license so I have the freedom to say goodbye but not lose access to my work. History has shown that these are not incorrect conclusions or invalid concerns. Subscriptions are the product of management teams that are under pressure from their parent corporations to grow revenue and profit year over year and subscriptions have shown that they can do that. They were not created with the user in mind but rather the corporation. They just sacrifice the individual user and hobbyist in the process. Hey, everyone is doing it so we are stuck. We have no voice to change anything. So forgive me if I just don't enjoy listening to someone telling me that subscriptions are for my own good. I would much rather spend my time in the company of people who care more about the software and the needs of the user than the revenue it can create....and that would be Blender. Now, I am studying and using Blender. While not C4D, I now realize why it is growing in popularity. It has some seriously powerful tools and capabilities. I mean, there are whole Netflix series made using Blender. Not sure I have seen more than a TV station ID, short film or a FUI done with C4D in the popular media. I have never seen a whole series. C4D is one tool in an arsenal but it appears Blender wants to be the whole arsenal. Blender is working its way into production pipelines. It is proving itself in the marketplace and the users are loving it for good reason. If Blender was just a tool for users to "virtue signal" (how you came to that conclusion is a bit of a stretch but we will go with it), then why is Maxon porting Redshift to Blender? They are doing that because it is a growing market that they need to address. It is good business. Now, if you still want to rant at me please do it via private PM and let's spare the forum your vitriol. Now, I will not respond if you do as this post is all the effort your type of response deserves but please feel free to PM me if there is still some more frustration you wish to work out. Who knows, I may (or may not) actually read it but I do believe you need the therapeutic benefits that type of rant provides. Have a nice day, Dave

That would follow. My suspicions are that we will be getting another gut punch similar to what happened with R21. In short, no more perpetual licenses will be offered starting with R25. This is purely based on the following: The surprise email that Redshift is now subscription only. The warning that all licenses will be consolidated under the MyMaxon account system with that email The statement in that email that Maxon is moving to subscriptions because it is better for us. The move to 3 months of support only for C4D perpetual licenses. Maxon has been moving to get everyone on subscription relentlessly since R21 and have been growing their account server capability to support that goal. Honestly, I think server development is probably a higher priority to Maxon than C4D development simply because there is more revenue tied to their server capability to control all licenses. I also find it interesting that they announced Redshift subscription only in an email and not via their monthly Motion Show format (well...maybe they did as I don't attend them). Why did they do it before the R25 announcement? Why did they then offer at the same time the ability to re-up your perpetual licenses while still under maintenance? Well, to test user adoption and reaction from those who have perpetual licenses. They also wanted to try out their sales pitch that Redshift subscriptions are actually better for us: the poor dumb perpetual license user who can't figure out if we need the latest and greatest version or not. That whole reasoning was probably part of their plan to cut perpetual license support for C4D to 3 months as well. Well, if you are only going to support bug fixes for 3 months then, yeah...you are right - subscriptions are better for me. This is all groundwork for the big announcement that perpetual license model will be discontinued --- and remember everyone: Maxon is doing this for our own good so you best shut-up and OBEY! The server is ready. The trial balloon with Redshift moving to subscription only has been released. The time is now. Finally, McGavran is probably the worst presenter of C4D features I have ever seen. He shows more passion for product licenses than he does for the product features. Whenever he gets up to announce a new release, I flip to this site. What a pleasure it is to see people who actually have real passion for what they are developing. Dave

If I may.....please note that in my post, I discussed the general impact of subscriptions to software developers and their users in general. I did not specifically mention Cinema 4D nor Maxon and its practices. But, considering that you are discussing Maxon and subscriptions, then I will also focus my comments on Maxon. You state that subscriptions "leveled out the field even more, increasing competitive pressure". Now I find this a "curious statement" simply because if that was the case, why is Maxon doing everything in its power to discourage perpetual license holders and promote subscriptions? Why are services like Cineversity and access to modeling libraries no longer offered to perpetual license holders and only subscription license holders? Why is the cost of staying current with C4D 32% higher for perpetual license holders than subscription holders? If business is tougher in a subscription world, Maxon would not be selling it so hard. Why are perpetual licenses for Redshift being completely phased out? Sorry, but while your arguments that subscriptions give your corporate customers more flexibility are true, the fact remains that subscriptions are in-fact a "re-occurring revenue model" (an industry term...not mine) for Maxon and that means a higher percentage of "guaranteed" revenue as well. Stock prices go up for companies with "re-occurring revenue models". They go down if there is increased competition --- so your arguments do not hold up. Case in point is Cisco (the company I work for). They used to sell the IOS software with the hardware and our stock barely got above $30/share. 4 or 5 years ago, we switched to a subscription model and our software revenues are now a huge part of our quarterly earnings and our stock just broke $60/share. Also, our software revenue makes us one of the largest software companies in the world. We are right up there with Adobe! Go figure. The point I am making is that all companies in all industries love re-occurring revenue models. Maxon does to. And this brings me back to my original argument. All the "guaranteed" cash means less pressure on capturing revenue by growing market share through innovation. You just don't need to compete as hard if a certain amount of your annual revenue is a lock. Trust me, in a few years the next phase will be that revenue (though higher than before) will be flat year-over-year. Everyone is locked into a subscription, inertia sets-in, and there is less market growth. What happens next is that in the face of flat revenue, there will be a move to start cutting expenses because there will always be a constant drive to increase earnings back to Nemetshek. That's what CEO's get judged on and how they earn their bonus. And in the software world people are the biggest expense. Might as well cut headcount if your are not competing on new features as much as you did in the past. Why do you think Adobe products are not improving that fast? When that point hits and there is downsizing going on (hey...after all those acquisitions, there will be some downsizing) or fewer pay raises or both, please feel free to tell me just how much you love subscriptions. Dave

Regardless of what action developers do or do not take to improve their software, the point that really needs to be made here is that subscriptions reduce the competitive pressure to improve the software. This is my biggest concern over subscriptions because before "maintenance" meant "improved" whereas "subscriptions" now just mean "rent". And with all rentals, you can have good landlords and bad landlords. Adobe and Autodesk have shown that for some of their subscription products, they are not the best landlords. The updates are light, bugs remain unfixed and long standing user requests are ignored. So in this discussion, we also need to rethink the term "mature". Here the software is definitely NOT mature.....but the user base is very mature. Mature user bases have grown comfortable with the software. The software is embedded in their pipelines. There has been a lot of investment of both time and money in that software. The customer base can be mature with the software but the software itself could be very far from being fully matured. Mature customer bases are inclined to stay with a software that is not improving as fast as they desire simply because of the effort required to move to something else. With perpetual licenses, you just decide not to upgrade....but that meant no revenue to the developer. Subscriptions simply remove the financial penalty for not improving the software. Prior to subscriptions, developers worked to earn your upgrade dollars. Now they don't have to because if you stop paying the rent you get locked out. The user now get's penalized -- not the developer. Plus, in those early perpetual licensed years, new and innovative features grew the customer base. But at some point in a product's lifecycle, the market share will stop growing or the cost to generate new features far outweighs the additional sales they generate. It is at that point that a company switches to subscriptions because it is the best way to preserve revenue without additional development expenses. Innovation is no longer a priority in a subscription world. Honestly, where I want to see innovation is in the seamless import of scenes from one software to another. Imagine if a competitor developed a program that converted all ALL of your C4D assets to their platform without error or any lost information (sorry but there are always errors or lost data with the file transfer formats currently being used). Shader trees are perfect. All geometry comes in exactly how it was modeled -- no triangulation and all quads intact. All rigs, UV's, weight maps, bones, and animations come in perfect and ready for continued editing -- just as you left them in C4D. And it could do it in batch mode. Just point it to a directory and off it goes. Break down that barrier to move your assets and you re-introduce the need for the host application to stay competitive on features regardless of their licensing model. In this world, when you stop paying the rent, you don't get locked out from using your work. You just take it with you. Dave

I believe you are right and I was wrong:

But all purchases for maintenance extensions need to be made by August 30th, 2021 (eg. next Monday). What bothers me is that the GPU "recommended" requirements for Redshift keep rising. The "minimum" CUDA compute requirement for pre-R3.04 was 3.0 but is now 5.0 for R3.04. Likewise, the "recommended" compute capability is now 7 and the recommended GPU memory is now 10Gb. This puts you squarely in the RTX family of products only (and maybe a Titan V) with 12Gb of memory which start around $2K. I am sure there are a few exceptions but this is where the majority of GPU's land pricewise that meet those requirements. We all may squawk over the cost of Redshift, but if you need cutting edge GPU's to get acceptable performance with each new release, then you have to ask yourself: Do I really want my maintenance agreements to last that long because Redshift pushes hardware obsolescence faster than I can afford. The max CUDA compute capability available from Nvidia is 8.6 and Redshift recommends 7.....the difference between 8.6 and 7 does not provide a lot of headroom between what Redshift needs and the very best (and most expensive) that nVidia has to offer. This is not a good trend...especially if you want to keep all your hardware for as long as possible. Dave

While it is pretty evident to wonder if AMD GPU's will work with Redshift or not, I have always wondered why the Ryzen family of CPU processors are not part of the recommended hardware at the Redshift site? Per my understanding, the two biggest things to worry about with your PC/workstation hardware outside of the GPU is the clock speed of the CPU and the number of PCIe lanes running to the GPU (with....I think...16 being the max). Well, the Ryzen processors are a very affordable way to got to 4 GHz clock speeds. Is there something about their architecture the impacts or limits the PCIe lanes to the GPU? Just not sure why the Redshift recommended hardware list only contains Intel based chips. Dave

So when R25 gets announced in September, I have one question: Will it be a good day for Maxon or a good day for Blender? Maybe we should set-up a poll? Dave

Oh...I never assumed it would be easy or be done quickly. Just the whole concept of multi-threading physical based simulations blows my mind. How do you parse a physical simulation to a number of different calculation threads simultaneously when each event has to be based on each previous event (or deterministic)? It took a Stanford PhD in level set theory and computational physics, Rod Fedkiw, to figure that one out for ILM when they were making Poseidon. But with that said, what we don't know is when Insydium started on this effort. The technical papers have been out for some time (as I said it was cracked in 2006) so Insydium could have been working on it all this time. Yeah...straight particle simulations are probably the easiest to convert to GPU (they are driven by straight algorithms) with the hardest being fluid simulations for the reasons I outlined above. I am just (navier-) stoked that they are working on it (geeky fluid math pun intended). Dave