Jump to content

R16


adamfilip

Recommended Posts

Kept out of this discussion as it's more fun to come back each week and see where the rumours and conjecture are taking us. ;)

 

For me R15 is much maligned as changes to the render engine (Light Cache/Mapping, Embree & optimised Physical engine) were worth the cost of entry alone.  And much as it was unwise to remove NetRender altogether Team Render is a wonderful piece of technology.

 

My wishes for R16 and beyond fall into 3 core areas (and are biased by design/architectural visualization workflows).

 

Materials - Chris Montesano has shown some of the possibilities of a Nodal materials engine with his wonderful (and free) cmNode plugin, it's time this type of technology was native to C4D. The current materials engine was built for the standard render engine and materials react very differently with GI. Max may get a lot of stick but working with the Slate nodal engine is a real delight. The C4D Physical Render engine is a match for V-Ray and much quicker too but is hampered by a materials system developed when nasty fake specular highlights ruled the roost. C4D really needs to up it's game here and provide a materials system based on physically accurate attributes. I'd add an upgrade to Bodypaint to this same general area. No need to discuss BodyPaint further as it's been much discussed already. The smoothing system could do with an upgrade tool, proper smoothing groups would be much prefered to that blunt instrument 'the phong tag' (ably assisted by break phong shading).

 

Team Render - Build on what's great, fix the glaring NetRender omissions and make it easier for third party renderers to work via Team Render.

 

Workflow - There are some places where the C4D way of doing things makes total sense but others where it just plain sucks. A simple example. The much maligned Boole tool (happens to produce the cleanest results around if you know what you're doing with it and obviously don't use it for SubD work). The drag object a&b inside the Boole object modifier workflow is tedious and tiresome especially if you're doing archviz work and have a 100 plus walls to boolean union into a single object! A modo style tool pipe would be great too. In many cases C4D has better mesh modifying tools that the mighty Modo but it's the way you can build a 'tool pipe' with falloffs & action centres that makes Modo such a delight to use for SubD modeling workflows. And whilst on the subject of Modo, C4D's create polygon tool is no match for Modo's pen tool. Finally, and this is my biggest bugbear - OpenGL viewport performance. Yet again much discussed already so no need to labour the point; but it's heartening to see the MAXON have recently been recruiting for an OpenGL specialist.

 

As I said at the beginning my views are biased by design & archviz workflows but with Nemetschek (MAXON's parent company) spending so much time building C4D rendering technology into its CAD/BIM tools such as Archicad, Allplan & Vectorworks, roundtrip workflows with these tools really needs more consideration. Autodesk may suck with their pricing structures and business policies but they know how to make Autocad, Revit & 3ds Max sync together from a workflow perspective and this is one of the reasons that 3ds Max rules the roost when it come the the archviz market (that and V-Ray which is a far superior product in Max than it currently is in C4D via VrayForC4d).

 

Archicad 18 is a game changer in the world of BIM modelling. It's the only product out there that produces clean geometry for us downstream folk tasked with the lowly task of visualising those rather splendid architectural visions. Archicad has the full R14 rendering engine included so the export it generates is nicely set up for further enhancement in C4D. Unfortunately C4D isn't currently putting it's best foot forward to create those shiny enhancements that our architectural clients are so desperately looking for.

 

Link to post
  • Replies 267
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Honestly, I think MAXON should just bench Bodypaint and their material system...and create a partnership with Allegorithmic.  I would really like to be able to use Substance Designer and Substance Painter within C4D.  The world of texture creation and painting is growing too fast for MAXON to keep up so whatever they provide now in terms of an update will probably be out-dated in less than a year anyway....so best to go with a partnership with a company that not only can keep with the latest advancements up but be disruptive in that market as well.  That is why I think a partnership with Allegorithmic is better for everyone.

 

That and a new symmetry and Boolean tools would make my day.

 

Dave

Link to post

Honestly, I think MAXON should just bench Bodypaint and their material system...and create a partnership with Allegorithmic.  I would really like to be able to use Substance Designer and Substance Painter within C4D.  The world of texture creation and painting is growing too fast for MAXON to keep up so whatever they provide now in terms of an update will probably be out-dated in less than a year anyway....so best to go with a partnership with a company that not only can keep with the latest advancements up but be disruptive in that market as well.  That is why I think a partnership with Allegorithmic is better for everyone.

 

That and a new symmetry and Boolean tools would make my day.

 

Dave

 

Radical approach and as long as it didn't increase the cost of entry for C4D I think I agree - in part.

 

My main concern is that Substance Designer is optimised for the needs of game engines. Sure it can do more, but for design/archviz visualisation workflows a native materials system that works in a manner more akin to the Maxwell & V-ray materials systems (makes you consider real physical attributes of the materials you're creating) would be more than enough. The nodal aspect is more about usability and efficiency.

Link to post

@jonmoore

 

Good points you make there, VRayforC4D is sadly much slower and clunky than the versions for 3DSMax and Maya, the VRayC4D team seem to be having a hard time making it feel stable and finished, it has been talked about since the 1.8 version that it was like they released a beta to the public and it never seems to end.       They point fingers at Chaos Group and C4D's SDK but before they released version 1.8 they had been teasing with the "new" version for several years, probably up to 3 years and when they finally did it was a complete mess so I don't think the main VRay team at Chaos Group is at fault or MAXON's crew either.

 

:(

Link to post

@jonmoore

 

Good points you make there, VRayforC4D is sadly much slower and clunky than the versions for 3DSMax and Maya, the VRayC4D team seem to be having a hard time making it feel stable and finished, it has been talked about since the 1.8 version that it was like they released a beta to the public and it never seems to end.       They point fingers at Chaos Group and C4D's SDK but before they released version 1.8 they had been teasing with the "new" version for several years, probably up to 3 years and when they finally did it was a complete mess so I don't think the main VRay team at Chaos Group is at fault or MAXON's crew either.

 

:(

 

From what I read v1.9 had a very large number of feature enhancements and bug fixes. Is that version also getting negative reviews now that it's been out for several weeks? Kind of surprising as V-Ray seems to be very popular / many people's default renderer for a while now. Have been patiently waiting for 2.0 (3.0 core) and the idea that it will be OpenCL friendly, but if they're having that hard a time stabilizing things each release doesn't make much sense to buy right away, assuming it comes out this fall. Sounds more like "better wait 6 months or you'll be sorry". 

 

Too bad Octane is CUDA only or I would've already tried that. As all the big renderers seem to be in a state of flux the last several months though, when I decided on the new Mac Pro I also decided to just wait on a renderer / use C4D's Physical renderer until there was a clearly better (OpenCL) solution available with some new tech built into it. Something i could treat as a real investment and not a shot in the dark.

Link to post

Sure specific task softwares or plugins will be always better for a specific task but it doesn't mean that a simpler but sufficient alternative for 90% of us shouldn't be developed in-house. Especially in Motion Design where users are use to play with a large variety of skills.

Link to post

From what I read v1.9 had a very large number of feature enhancements and bug fixes. Is that version also getting negative reviews now that it's been out for several weeks? Kind of surprising as V-Ray seems to be very popular / many people's default renderer for a while now. Have been patiently waiting for 2.0 (3.0 core) and the idea that it will be OpenCL friendly, but if they're having that hard a time stabilizing things each release doesn't make much sense to buy right away, assuming it comes out this fall. Sounds more like "better wait 6 months or you'll be sorry". 

 

Too bad Octane is CUDA only or I would've already tried that. As all the big renderers seem to be in a state of flux the last several months though, when I decided on the new Mac Pro I also decided to just wait on a renderer / use C4D's Physical renderer until there was a clearly better (OpenCL) solution available with some new tech built into it. Something i could treat as a real investment and not a shot in the dark.

 

OpenCL doesn't work properly in in V-ray 3.0 in Max so I doubt it will be in better with VrayForC4d 2.0

 

In fact it appears ChaosGroup have formed closer ties with Nvidia as their press release for this years Siggraph included this nugget:

 

"On Sunday, August 10, NVIDIA will join Margo and Nichols to discuss “How V-Ray RT and GPU rendering are Defining a New Filmmaking Paradigm†in room 223-224 in the Convention Centre at 10:15 — 11:15 a.m. Chaos Group will join NVIDIA again for their Limelight event to showcase the most recent advancements in V-Ray RT GPU rendering on Tuesday, August 12, from 6:00 — 9:00 p.m. at the Fairmont Waterfront Hotel."

 

Not sure this is the fault of ChaosGroup but rather the lack of developments from the AMD OpenCL team. Sad news for those of us with spankingly powerful AMD cards in our spankingly new Mac Pro's...  :(

Link to post

The dominance of Nvidia/CUDA over OpenCL has been apparent for years. After Effects and Turbulence featured CUDA acceleration (but no OpenCL) so this shouldn't come as a surprise. Octane is a CUDA solution. Stefan from vrayC4D also recommends CUDA.

 

I waited for years for the new MacPro but once it was announced that the machines wouldn't support Nvidia cards...I knew the nMP wasn't a viable option.

 

The problem is the lack of choice in GPUs on the new Mac Pro.

Link to post

VrayC4D is very solid with v1.9. Not sure what makes anyone say otherwise.

 

Yes, 1.8 was delayed for maybe 2 years...and it was a mess when it arrived. But they have finally cleaned it up and it's a great solution now. It should have feature parity with Max/Maya soon as they rebuilt it with the VRAY core.

Link to post

My prediction is that R16 will not be released during August. I have reason to be confident of this but I'm not going to say what that reason is.

Time will tell.

Link to post

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

ABOUT US

We are dedicated Cinema 4D Community of friendly and passionate artists, hobbyists and developers. Feel free to join us and share your knowledge, your art and anything that might help Community to grow. We are providing guidance, free plugins and files, feedback, sponsorships and various discounts for our Contributors. :cowboypistol:

SUPPORT

Tickets

Purchases

×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright C4D Cafe © 2020 Powered by Invision Community