Jump to content

Archived

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

Guest

Cycles for C4D

Recommended Posts

Very interested in this but a little concerned over comments about not being able to handle parametric objects.  Did I read that right?  Not sure if that means it would not be able to support Forester or not...or at least the library of trees/plants that come with Forester.    Someone also mentioned if integration with Substance Designer was possible.  That would be great, but again probably out of Insydium's control unless Alegorithmic was already working with Blender on that.  Not sure.


While this has been talked about since the early summer, I was also wondering if Insydium has been contacted by any of C4D's model or plugin vendors about whether or not they should start working on a port to Cycles 4D.  While I don't expect that discussion to occur with the developers of TFD or Realflow (for obvious reasons), some news that discussions with the C4D Depot team (makers of Infinite Oceans, etc), Laubwerks, The Pixel Lab or 3D Quakers (Forester) have occurred concerning their model libraries being rendered by Cycles 4D would be encouraging news.

Also interested to see a video that just goes deeper into X-Particles integration with Cycles 4D.  What new effects can be created that you currently can't get with C4D's native renderer would be a key area of interest.  

Finally, there was a mention that X-Particles customers would get a discount.  Any more information on that?  Any pre-release pricing specials planned?

Thanks,

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
  • Topic Author
  • 49 minutes ago, 3D-Pangel said:

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

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

    Share this post


    Link to post
    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

    Share this post


    Link to post

    My understanding was that the Substance integration was limited due to the licensing  structure around blender and cycles, for some reason it prevented it from happening.

    Share this post


    Link to post

    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 ? 

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Guest
  • Topic Author
  • 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.

     

    Share this post


    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

    Share this post


    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

    Share this post


    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.

    Share this post


    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.

    Share this post


    Link to post

    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...