Jump to content

Cycles for C4D


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cutman said:

If it didn't work with parametric objects it would be virtually useless. Where did you read that BTW?

Very interested in this but a little concerned over comments about not being able to handle parametric objects.  

 

A very quick mis-read of this post as I was scanning the thread.  Apologies...just returning from a long business trip and quickly catching up on the news so I am into "C4D Forum Triage" mode.  I also posted before I watch the Cycles 3D video from Insydium.....and that concern quickly went away.

After watching the video, I am sold.  The emissive capabilities as a light source alone sold me but when they mentioned that it would also be able to handle material pre-sets made by Blender users was also intriguing as I would imagine that library is quite extensive.  But apart from all that, the node management system seems pretty straight forward and obviously years ahead of where C4D is right now.

I would also like to know more about light types.  When watching the video, I did not see volumetric as an option.  C4D's volumetric lights are not exactly accurate (IMHO) and I would love to have a few more controls around box lights, etc.    It would be great to see in-detail what Cycles 4D lights can do.

Dave

Link to post
  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply
43 minutes ago, maliohammad said:

it is nice to have new render engines for c4d , but I have seen a lot of people complain how slow cycles (for blender is ) , is this right ? 

There's a comparison of Cycles vs 5 other renders and Cycles is slightly slower than Octane and VRay etc, obviously that's GPU not CPU which I'm interested in.

 

Link to post

Not sure why it is difficult having substance integration with plugins. We already know r18 automatically creates and export baked maps of the susbtance assets into a substance_cache directory inside the project, and we can manually point our render of choice to that directory and re-create our material network.

 

So, if we can do this manually, and if we can python a script to make the connections automatically, the developers can.

 

About Octane speed.. its not fair to compare Octane Direct Light, wich as far as I could see is a fast preview without secondary rays calculations or color bleeding, to other render engines who are slower because they take those calculations into the final render.  Redshift on the other hand, Barry Allen would be proud of it :P

Link to post
1 hour ago, Cutman said:

There's a comparison of Cycles vs 5 other renders and Cycles is slightly slower than Octane and VRay etc, obviously that's GPU not CPU which I'm interested in.

 

thanks for reply , I checked the comparison .

P.S. if any one interested , here is the link

Link to post
7 hours ago, Cutman said:

@slouchcorp Insydium

Do you have any CPU benchmarks comparing Cycles with C4D's Physical renderer please?

I'm a Mac user so I understand the OpenCL side is more limited but I intend to Team Render with the office Mac Pros and would be interested in a Cycles4D vs Physical CPU render off comparison.

The link below has what you need. It's a CPU render test of 6 options including V-Ray and Octane, the latter of which they picked an older GPU that has similar performance to the CPU used in the tests. It's an imperfect analogy but still somewhat useful. The other comparisons vs. Cycles are all apples to apples. 

 

13 minutes ago, maliohammad said:

thanks for reply , I checked the comparison .

P.S. if any one interested , here is the link

Thanks for posting. While it appears to be a little slower than the others, the quality of the results was generally higher (hair results looked a little wonky but this was from 2015 — entirely possible the result would be better if the test was run today) and it earns marks for simplicity and good documentation compared to the other contenders. So a lot to be excited about. For my part I see no reason to go with another renderer if you're a heavy X-Particles user and don't already have one of the other renderers.

Also the pace of Cycles development has been mentioned  a number of times on the web as a big selling point. I believe Insydium will build in an updater that allows changes to Cycles core to be integrated into Cycles4D without waiting for a new version. If so that would be pretty slick. In fact areas where the most popular alternative falls short (V-ray — cost, documentation, slow pace of development because of dependencies on Chaos Group), Cycles will excel in those areas. Seems like a winner in the making to me.

Link to post

I honestly think this is a great solution for some studios that are already built with CPU farms. (which is pretty much everyone) I'm curious if cycles GPU renders match 1 to 1 if you switched it to CPU. You could do all your look dev on a powerhouse GPU box and then send your frames to a CPU farm. NOT bad. 

This link here is also pretty amazing imo. http://www.chocofur.com/6-shadersamptextures.html

It's not only good for a quick run down on methodology on building cycles shaders but also in how you can translate that same core methodology to other render engines.

Side note: I hope (assume?) that some of the income from cycles4d goes back to the dev team. It's in their best interest really to keep it moving forward.

Link to post

Vray seems to be comming on quite well now,  and includes ALSurface shader for SSS which is being integrated,  as many know this is Arnold's best skin shader out there only faster in Vray. . The Vray documents are not good,  and that's not because they are not complete yet,  but because they don't help the new user learn. . It's more of a "what is this function "  rather than. "this is how to use it" 

 

I can see cycles being a big hit as it has all the right ingredients being the developer,  sharable materials,  been through the trials in blender,  price,  3 render nodes,  fast cpu,  gpu,  nodal system. 

Dan

Link to post

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

Link to post
15 minutes ago, docphibs said:

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

I'm with you on this.  Vray is an incredible renderer on every other platform.  I wish Chaos group would just handle the integration instead of outsourcing it.  It would be a much better scenario.  

Link to post
44 minutes ago, docphibs said:

... I've had a huge falling out with vrayc4d... is 3.25 ever going to get released? i just can't handle the horrendously slooooow updates simply cause it's not supported directly by chaos group. and yes... documentation is terrible too. it's a shame cause it's an incredibly fast render engine.

Gone past 3.25, on 3.4 now. 

 

Dan

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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