Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kosmikal

What Features You Are Waiting For C4D (Wishlist)

Recommended Posts

For me, I would like to see the modeling tools overhauled. I started using C4D when R9 was released, and the modeling tools still have not seen any major overhaul. The current tool set works, but it sure would be nice to see it upgraded.

Symmetry object is another thing I would like to see overhauled. I model a lot of symmetrical devices, so im always using the symmetry object, and it becomes tedious when I have to continually go back and delete polygons that are created along the mirrored plane. There use to be a plugin (SymmetryClamp) that prevented this, but it only worked in R10. I would love to see that type of symmetry object.

Another thing I would like to see is more commands being echoed in the script log. In Maya, everything is echoed in the script log, but in C4D a lot of things do not show up, which means you have to go dig through the SDK to find the command/code. As nice as this would be, im sure it would require a lot of work on Maon's part to implement something like that.

With the latest release (R13) we've seen character tools, viewport navigation, physical renderer, and motion graphics (mograph) upgrades and overhauls. Theres TFD and DPIT for smoke/fire, and X-Particles for anyone who wants to go beyond Thinking Particles, so im hoping we'll see the modeling aspect addressed next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modo's modeling tools...

I took a model into Cinema from Modo, then decided I needed to add a bit of geometry.

OOPS!! No "maintain curve" when adding a loop in Cinema.

Back to Modo where the added loop is handled without futzing up the established contour on the model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Faster, faster and lastly, faster. ;)

Yes!Yes and yes! :)

Cheers


Free C4D trainings from MAXON professional on our youtube channel

 

https://www.youtube.com/c4dcafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Here's a short video of me using modelling falloffs in modo. Just a taste of how powerful they are.

3DKiwi

As much as I struggled with modo 401, that falloff tool makes me want to give it another try.

.....wait....just did. Struggled with it again. But it is a very neat feature that I would love to see in C4D.

I think it is pretty apparent in this thread that C4D's modeling tools are woefully antiquated and the user community has them as feature #1 in desperate need of some focused attention.

...and we know pause for a short FLAME to MAXON......

C'mon MAXON.....get on with it!!!! After 4 years our patience is running out and Luxology is quickly eating your lunch! When do survival instincts kick in because Luxology is not going to stop developing Modo and the gap is closing between 601 and R13 and their development pace quickens with each release. So if your strategy is to allow customers to use Modo as their "modeling plugin" to C4D, then you might as well just save some money and stop developing C4D now because you're giving your business away with that strategy. Why, you might as well put your nice offices in Germany up for sale now because you probably only have about 3 years left before you go under and it will take you that long to unload the building given the current real estate market.

Can I be any more blunt about it? GGGGEEEZZEEEE!!!! How frustrating!!!!!

....FLAME off....and in case anyone was wondering, I do feel better.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Dave. I think you would find if you put some serious time in working with modo's modelling tools you would find stuff like their actions centres and falloffs a breeze to work with. Initially like many people I found some things very weird but eventually it all made sense.

I'm sure MAXON will be around in 3 years. I think it's good to see some heat coming on from modo. One thing I like about modo is they aren't tied into releasing a new version every 12 months as MAXON appears to be. I reckon the development cycle for C4D is too short. An 18 month time frame between versions would see better upgrades and new things more polished.

Nigel / 3DKiwi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second that. Having new full release every year is quite a challenge...


Free C4D trainings from MAXON professional on our youtube channel

 

https://www.youtube.com/c4dcafe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. I reckon the development cycle for C4D is too short. An 18 month time frame between versions would see better upgrades and new things more polished.

Agreed - they've painted themselves into a corner with this though.

I'd love to see their "war room" strategy for the next 5 years, and what things are scheduled for each release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deepshade

There are just 3 features I'd like to see in future versions of Cinema - Faster, faster and lastly, faster. ;)

All the features in the world don't help if you can't use them effectively and for animation in Cinema the slowdown with a lot of objects in the scene is a real bottleneck.

Cheers,

Brian

+1

Then again - I don't feel its right to pay £400-700 to get that fixed, when it should have been up to spec (especially at the 'Studio' price point) in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dataflow

+1

Then again - I don't feel its right to pay £400-700 to get that fixed, when it should have been up to spec (especially at the 'Studio' price point) in the first place.

when they add/change/make faster its not really a fix its more of an improvement if something has a bug they usually release bug fixes for those unless the bugs are not found until the new release which they still list as bug fixes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Topic Author
  • I don't think that's the case. You get the same system regardless of whether you are using Pixar Sub-D's or not.

    If you're not doing character animation, motion graphics or anything that requires particles then modo is the way to go.

    3DKiwi

    Maybe, but when i did use same object in C4D and in Modo, i got better subdivision shading with Pixar's Subdivision in Modo.

    It was same model (exported with obj format). I tried to use weight control (weight hypernurbs) in C4D for generating same shading than what i got in Modo when i used it's own weight control (weight tool), the result wasn't same at all, so it got matter what subdivison system you are using...

    Modo's subdivision looks more natural than C4D's own system.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    kosmikal - my understanding is that modo's Pixar Sub D's are in fact the same as our Catmull Clarke Sub D's. The difference being how open edges can be creased or rounded. See the image below. Note that they even call Pixar Sub D's Catmull Clarke in the settings.

    modo of course does better edge weighting because you can use falloffs.

    The shading difference could be because you didn't change the Hypernurbs Subdivide UV option to edge or boundary. modo uses one of these as standard.

    3DKiwi

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest deepshade

    when they add/change/make faster its not really a fix its more of an improvement if something has a bug they usually release bug fixes for those unless the bugs are not found until the new release which they still list as bug fixes

    In the strictest sense - agreed. But there's stuff that is way below par in the app for it to be OK for that price point - so its not exactly an improvement - more a catch up.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...