Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Hrvoje

CINEMA 4D R20 OVERVIEW

Recommended Posts

On 8/1/2018 at 5:40 AM, HSrdelic said:

 

There is a lot of nodes and possibilities are endless. Check out the node pool :)

 

Looking at those I can't find a couple really useful ones, so had a few questions about users' capabilities w.r.t. nodal materials:

 

1.  Can users cast our own rays via nodes as needed, both for locality and boundary-checking as well as render-related pathing?

2.  Can users replicate complex material nodes using node networks (handling complex sampling scenarios, etc.)? 

3.  Could a user build an Rounded Edge shader themselves using nodes?

4.  Can users create node networks that generate "internal scattering" SSS-type effects / volumetric sampling?

 

Thanks!  And my apologies if some of these were already asked, still wading through all the replies in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RBarrett said:

 

Well, first - it's not my decision. If it were up to me I'd trim the portfolio to just 1 or 2 editions. I can say that pricing varies regionally and in some places BodyPaint 3D is a tad more expensive than Prime.

 

Agreed, that's what I am thinking as well. Get rid of Prime, put BodyPaint in all editions (including sculpting), combine Visualize and Broadcast into one edition for $1999, and keep Studio. At this point I think all those editions are hurting sales and confusing customers, similar to the modules situation years ago. Simplify, simplify. 

 

Good to hear that ProRender is available in the Broadcast and Visualize as well. 

 

Very odd that nodal materials aren't available for ProRender (yet). I thought ProRender is supposed to be the new render engine, and now it seems that the old renderer was given nodal materials first? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, because it feels as if ProRender is sort-of second guessed by management. ProRender is the new kid on the block, so I'd have expected it to have nodal materials; instead, the OLD renderer got nodal materials, not the other way around?

 

Which could mean more users will stick to using the older render engine for years to come. Not sure, but the development roadmap sometimes makes little sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, hvanderwegen said:

Very odd that nodal materials aren't available for ProRender (yet).

 

As I said earlier, there were technical reasons for supporting Physical first. This was the best way to get the node editor in your hands as part of R20, so you could start using it and providing us feedback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, jwiede said:

Looking at those I can't find a couple really useful ones, so had a few questions about users' capabilities w.r.t. nodal materials:

1.  Can users cast our own rays via nodes as needed, both for locality and boundary-checking as well as render-related pathing?

2.  Can users replicate complex material nodes using node networks (handling complex sampling scenarios, etc.)? 

3.  Could a user build an Rounded Edge shader themselves using nodes?

4.  Can users create node networks that generate "internal scattering" SSS-type effects / volumetric sampling?

 

I might not be the best to answer, because I'm still getting up to speed myself with a lot of the intricacies of nodal shading. But I'll take a stab anyway.

 

1. There's a Trace Ray node with inputs for origin, direction, max distance and options to ignore the same or other objects. So I think the answer is yes.

 

2. Not sure what you mean by this, but I've talked earlier about the asset system, which allows complex node networks to be packaged as materials which can be edited within the material editor. The Uber Material is the ultimate example, but there's also included assets for car paint, rocks, marble, wood, etc.

 

3. Yes, by mixing the inverse ambient occlusion with the phong normal.

 

4. Of a sort, using the trace ray node with a modified phong normal providing the origin and direction.

 

Full disclosure - I'm providing the last two answers on the basis of example files I've been given, rather than an actual understanding (at this point) of how it works. I hope to provide some tutorials based on these samples once I've fully wrapped my head around them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RBarrett said:

 

As I said earlier, there were technical reasons for supporting Physical first. This was the best way to get the node editor in your hands as part of R20, so you could start using it and providing us feedback.

 

 

I understand that. It's easier to deal with C4D tightly integrated classic renderer and code base first. More convenient, easier. Less scary. I understand all that. Better be conservative in your thinking rather than risking scaring existing classic C4D renderer users away.

 

It's also plain silly and back-ward thinking. It means that ProRender's development and integration is to be regarded as a beta version even in R20. ProRender users are treated as second-class citizens now in R20, just as they were in R19. That is somewhat understandable in R19, and somewhat unacceptable within the scope of this new release, because a PBR based render engine such as ProRender just SCREAMS for a node-based material system!

 

Can't wrap my head around that. I'd have expected the devs to push the modern render technology first, and get up to speed with the competition. Compare Lightwave and Blender: both made a clean break with their older renderers (with LIghtwave throwing away the old one altogether which was, granted, perhaps a step too far), and their users switched quite quickly, even with Cycles not being quite production ready in the first year, and Lightwave's new render engine still rough around the edges.

 

But Cinema4D's approach is kinda like it wants to hold on to the past, and is reluctant to embrace the future. C4D finally, FINALLY introduces nodal materials, yet they don't work with the MODERN render engine that was implemented in the previous version! I just don't understand that line of thinking. It's like holding candy in front of your users, and then snatch it away.

 

In the meantime C4D is left with an aging renderer that just can't produce the same level of quality renders as ProRender and other modern renderers yet STILL gets the candy first, and not having material nodes for ProRender is stifling users from properly transitioning to ProRender. Which only solidifies the general feeling that an external render option is going to be preferable even over ProRender in C4D.

 

So weird. Perhaps I am beginning to understand why Newtek decided to rip out the old render engine: in with the new, out with the old. Look forward, don't look back. Sorry for my rant, but I was really looking forward to see ProRender's potential fulfilled in R20, but look at it now. No node-based materials? Instead, the old render engine got them? How does that make sense?

 

So I suppose ProRender users will have to wait another 14 months for material nodes to be made available to them.

 

Sorry for my rant. I think this is a nice release otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bobc4d said:

Rick, why do you have Prime as an option for product?  I looked at the comparison chart and the only difference I could see between Prime and BodyPaint is that Bodypaint INCLUDES SCULTPTING (which is also missing in Broadcast and Visualize).  they both cost the same, have same cost for upgrades and MSA.

There's another significant difference. You get a discount by moving up the ladder if you start with Prime. So, for instance, if you own Prime and want to upgrade to Broadcast, your price is less than if you were buying Broadcast outright.

BodyPaint isn't in the lineup, it's a stand alone application. If you own BodyPaint and want to upgrade to Broadcast the price is the same as buying Broadcast as a new user.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, everfresh said:

not entirely sure of the scenario this might come in handy yet, but i'm sure i'll find a useful application for this. ;) thanks for the info.

can you tell if there will be a fix for PSDs (they don't work in animation as of now without baking everything)?

if that is true do we have volumetric skinning now in C4D? Meaning skin weights independent from mesh?

Share this post


Link to post

In terms of features this is better than R19. I am glad they added OpenVDB in the way they did. I can see a good workflow from C4D to ZBrush. The fields system looks great and the fact that it can work as a polygon deformer should improve modeling workflows. The material nodes system is nice. I like the fact that added multiple ways to do things in the system and "small" things like create a input node from an output node's port.

 

As far as the UV tools, I know changes are coming and I don't UV via Cinema 4D right now. I look forward when they have better tools in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, hvanderwegen said:

...

In the meantime C4D is left with an aging renderer that just can't produce the same level of quality renders as ProRender and other modern renderers yet STILL gets the candy first, and not having material nodes for ProRender is stifling users from properly transitioning to ProRender. Which only solidifies the general feeling that an external render option is going to be preferable even over ProRender in C4D.

 

So weird. Perhaps I am beginning to understand why Newtek decided to rip out the old render engine: in with the new, out with the old. Look forward, don't look back. Sorry for my rant, but I was really looking forward to see ProRender's potential fulfilled in R20, but look at it now. No node-based materials? Instead, the old render engine got them? How does that make sense?

 

 

With all respect, I wouldn't call the Physical renderer aging. It it's not the fastest one, but the quality is very high. And in R20 it got progressive speed improvements.

 

I like using Physical, it's easy to achieve great results in various lighting situations. It was constantly updated in the past releases (Thin Film shader for example). Having it now extended with Nodes is amazing and the implementation seems rock solid from what was shown so far.

 

Yes, it would have been nice to have it for ProRender already in R20 but look at the other massive work that has been done in a short amount of time.

 

As I also have and (occasionally use) LW 2018 (and previous versions) and Cinema 4D R17-18 Broadcast / R19 Studio with Standard, Physical, Vray 3.6 and Cycles 4D, from my experience I'd say that those render engines are far ahead of LWs "new" render engine which is pretty slow, grainy and has several issues like fireflies in many lighting / material situations. I have to admit that I didn't spend much time with it yet, but the UI / workflow for good render settings is not intuitive.

 

It also broke compatibility with several important 3rd party plugins that were never updated. Dropping the old engine (that allowed much more experimenting and tuning) was a mistake of NewTek in my opinion. Even tough it can render VDB volumes it's quite limited in its use. The shading is not great for conductor surfaces, while Physical and Vray produce outstanding results with few settings. C4D is in a completely different league than LW in every possible aspect.

 

About Pro Render, yes it would have been nice to have Nodes already (and in XPresso) but 1) You can bake them 2) I have no doubt MAXON gets that right soon, 3) I guess most C4D users still use Standard / Physical renderer, 4) It's important to have a solid CPU render engine onboard and 5) There are great GPU engines available for C4D with nodal shading, so I don't see ProRender as a must have right now

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, RBarrett said:

As I said earlier, there were technical reasons for supporting Physical first. This was the best way to get the node editor in your hands as part of R20, so you could start using it and providing us feedback.

I think it may be connected with the fact, that SDK for using new nodes by 3rd party renderers isn't ready yet, and ProRender is 3rd party renderer, no matter how deep it integrated in cinema. 

I agree with @hvanderwegen, it looks wrong and nodes should be in every renderer from beginning. But I will choose good implementation, not the fast and buggy one. Yet, waiting another year for that is sad, hope MAXON can add this in mid cycle update, but don't hold my breath.

I love this update, not because I do fancy mograph stuff, but because I see where is cinema going in transition to new core and what level of features I can expect in the future. 

 

Also I agree with many others that MAXON should be a little bit more open about their plans. I'm sure they watching and listening what people say about new release all over the internet, and, maybe, they will make some statement at siggraph to clarify all questions and doubts of community. We don't ask for complete roadmap with planed features and dates, though it would be nice, but rather acknowledgment of current situation, understanding of community needs and affirmation that it all in the work. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...