Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/06/2020 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    Hi guys! My 2 cents on the topic: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EMfgEuGXkAIr0tj?format=jpg&name=900x900 Besides the jokes, I think Cinema 4D is one of the greatest software that I have used and now is affordable even for my location. When I open Blender, all the navigation and stuff make me feel I got into LADA car (it is old soviet cars)it can drive you in every place but in the most uncomfortable way, when I use Maya, I feel like I am driving Alpha Romeo - beautiful but it breaks every 10 km., when I use 3Ds Max (my first 3d app) I am feeling I am in a tank - I have 2 handles for everything, when I use Houdini...well like I am in CERN, I am accelerating particles to make a cube, and I accidentally make a hypertorus packed with monkeys, which are consumed by the black hole that also accidentally appeared...I end up making the cube with real paper from the garbage in the post apocalypse world that I have created. when I use Nuke - I am using BMW, cool but too expensive and in the winter you don't go out with it... and when I use Cinema 4D - I am in a AUDI! Feels good and takes you where you want to go! The grass is not always greener on the other side!
  2. 6 points
    For the hobbyist who has never made a dime off of the software, annual maintenance costs do add up but the beauty of maintenance over subscription is that you are actually "owning" something at the end. With subscriptions, what I was once paying for maintenance now just gets me a right-to-use for a limited time (1 year). As you don't own it, once you stop paying it goes away. I would imagine that most digital enthusiasts like myself probably have X-Particles or some other 3rd party renderer or any other plugin that has maintenance programs (DEM earth, etc). So when C4D was pre-subscription, you were paying $720 for C4D, around $300 for the Insydium maintenance programs, probably another $300 for your favorite 3rd Party Renderer, and you could easily set aside another $100 to $200 to support any new releases or updates from your favorite plugin developers. Plus, you probably are going to want to keep your hardware up-to-date and plunk down close to $3000 every 5 to 6 years for a new computer/monitor, etc. Therefore, for a hobbyist your annual costs to keep your software and hardware current come to easily ($720+300+300+200+$600) to over $2000. Do that for 10 years and it is like owning another car (we do keep our cars for 10 years). But with software under maintenance, every year it gets up-dated. Under a maintenance program, should you want to stop paying for maintenance, you leave the program with the latest and greatest of everything because everything still works. If you did 10 years on subscriptions and decided to leave, you have to go back and hope your last perpetual license from 10 years ago still works on your current OS or GPU. For any new plugins purchased over that 10 year period, there is no guarantee that they will work with your last perpetual license. In short, you are still paying the same amount as with maintenance plans, but should you leave a subscription program after an extended period of time you may not even have an old car to go back to...you could have nothing. So going on subscriptions in year 1 does not bother me....but I think long term. What if 10 years from now and thousands of dollars later I decide I can no longer afford this hobby. I then have nothing. That is what really scares me and that is what makes me think about leaving it all now and going to Blender. Yeah I lose all that time with training, etc. but why invest long term in something I feel financially locked in to. "Stop paying and it all goes away" - that's not a good feeling to have with something that is supposed to give you enjoyment. This is a hobby to me after all. I do love C4D. It is an awesome program in more ways than one and it is on a good trajectory. But so isn't Blender and Blender does not make me feel trapped. If there is any plan in the works that says "stay on subscriptions long enough and you won't leave empty handed", I would be all in as that is a win-win situation. But I don't think MAXON is thinking as long term as I am. Dave
  3. 5 points
    just uploaded a compilation of all the toon FX setups i've done to vimeo
  4. 4 points
    Hi all, Some of you may know the aaOcean plugin - for ocean / sea surface creation. It's been available for a while, but broke with the R21 update. I'm pleased to say that, due to the voluntary work of Kent Barber, it's been updated for R21 / S22 on both Windows and MacOS. I've also expanded the minimal documentation that was available. Sorry for the slightly convoluted links - but if you visit: http://vantagegraphics.co.uk/aaocean you'll find links to the plugin itself - and for the updated documentation file. Hope you enjoy it.
  5. 4 points
    Cinema 4d has good tools for rigging. Besides 3ds max and a bit of maya i dont know much about other packages but i feel very confortable rigging in this one. Obvisously i would like some improvements in the skinning system, maybe a multi layer system for the weight painting and a better constraint system that wasn't much of a drag with priorities. Unfortunately i'm mainly a generalist and i only rig occasionally, so there are a lot of skills (including learning python) that i miss. However it's good to work in a system that have such potencial and it helps a lot professionals like me that are not fully dedicated to rigging. For example i watched some rigging maya tuts and i find that if your are not a python user, you don't go very far... Perhaphs blender is better, but like i said it before, don't know it very well. Another thing that i really like is that we can mix mograph tools with rigging tools and provide some cool effects, and i dont see this kind of interaction in other packages. Here's a an example of some of those rigs i've worked, and to show that c4d is a good tool to use. A lot of xpresso but no python at all. enjoy:
  6. 4 points
    I feel the need to explain my Avatar then -- "Blender Gives us Options". I am not a Blender evangelist but changed my previous Avatar (I think it was a picture of me and John Knoll) when MAXON announced their subscription plan and hiked prices again. I have nothing but admiration for the developers, project managers and the software quality team (the unsung heroes of the MAXON corporation). But as a hobbyist, I fear that MAXON's subscription program and higher cost of perpetual licenses over the previous MSA program is hurting the hobbyist. This did not sit well with me as a loyal Studio user for the past 10 years. The hobbyist wants to own the software whereas the commercial user wants to lease it and their pricing programs favor the commercial user. Therefore, MAXON has forgotten us and/or taken us for granted. So the point of the Avatar is to serve a reminder that MAXON should NOT take any customer for granted because Blender is becoming a force in the industry. For me, C4D is on a tremendous trajectory and I am excited about its future. I just hope I can afford to be part of it. Dave
  7. 4 points
    i‘m using complex facial rigs in production, it works perfectly, also for rendering on farms. a lot of xpresso involved. i‘m not experiencing that mess you‘re talking about at all. xpresso is a good thing, it allows you to create complex dependencies you just can‘t get with constraints alone.
  8. 4 points
    We don't have a price for an upgrade that doesn't exist yet. We will make the price list for the next release as we get closer to that release. However, I have posted multiple times and place that it will be inline with this years non MSA price point which is 850 Euros (different price in different currencies). There really honestly is no confusion here. A reseller can't offer you a price for a product that isn't for sale. Cheers Dave
  9. 4 points
    *headdesk* I swear, threads about justified criticism always get derailed and mutilated and twisted until the original complaint is no longer even recognizeable. Marxism, now? Really?
  10. 3 points
    Excellent - thank you. Good news - this is a surprisingly well constructed mesh, so will be easy to put bullet holes in. However, as this bullet travels all the way through the sign and you don't want to have to model the same thing on each side independently, so first step is to lose the thickness on that object, which we can then add back later once the bullet hole is done... You didn't say you wanted metal tearing so I will assume you need a relatively clean hole... So, use phong break selection or any other method to select just the flat front polys then do U,I to invert selection and press delete. Now you should have single flat plane to work with. Next, find 4 polygons roughly in the position where you want your hole, select those and inner extrude them once (Extrude inner tool). Then use slide to move the points to circular. (I used points to circle script for this, which you can find online, but can easily done by manual sliding as well). That will give you something like below... Next inner extrude once more to get a nice edge flow around the hole, and then delete the polys at the centre to get your bullet hole, like so... I also tweaked the surrounding points to better meet the hole section (also slide tool). Now you can select all polys, and extrude them back (with caps) to restore your thickness, although you will have to do the edge bevels again, either via the bevel deformer or the command... At distance this will look round, but obviously won't stand up to any close ups where we see the edges. But that is what subdivision surfaces are for, you you could fix that by dropping this mesh under L2 subdivision. Hope that helps CBR
  11. 3 points
    Not sure if someone is into games here, but I've been working on a fan art for Last of Us, Joel. Specially now that the second part will be released in a few weeks! I'm struggling a bit with the rigging, specially wrist area, etc.. but getting there. Did box modelling, and painted in substance painter. Im thinking of doing some details and fixing somethings in Zbrush, not sure yet. Rendering in Redshift.
  12. 3 points
    Yea to be honest I wouldn't use either of the techniques you provided examples of above flat surface or not, mainly because they're ugly:) one would prefer a nice quad patch like the example @Cerbera provided:D
  13. 3 points
    Hey! Actually my technical references are pretty basic. i've watched some tutorials for maya, mostly about multiple joint chains in character limbs and such. From there i learned to replicate that in c4d but those were technical concepts since i've no intereset to work with maya. i've also checked some tutorials from cineversity but i found those a bit superficial. Cinema 4d has some interesting rigged human models you can find in the content browser, plus they added some cartoon models from Ace5 Studios that have a different type of rig, much simpler, and also a facial rig that is very cool to learn. I usually break that into components and do some revearse engineering. That's my way to work. For the bird i used this video from The Mill just for inspiration. It's just a breakdown so they cut out all tech parts. i also found something about the mechanics of wing feathers, but never related to rigging and absolutly nothing in c4d. The guys at the Mill made an incredible work and we tried to do our best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkagLUbs95Q In the end our bird was like this: http://glimpsevfx.com/portfolio/leroy-merlin-robin/
  14. 3 points
    you mean those glitches?
  15. 3 points
    Hello, For a modular terrain generation plugin I work on in my spare time, need a couple of beta testers. In short, the deal would be: You test the plugin, report bugs, create example scenes & renderings, request features. I develop the plugin, fix bugs, and give you the latest builds. Of course, everything that is shown or discussed during the beta test, is totally confidential. When the beta test ends, you get perpetual licenses for the plugin The plugin is actually still in Alpha stage, but I wanted to get some feedback as early as possible. Since I have a job, a relationship, a child, and other interests, too, don't expect this beta test to get stressful If you're interested, please drop me a private message. Best greetings, Frank
  16. 3 points
    I used to come to this site all the time back in the day. The people here helped me a lot and I have in turn hoped to have helped lots of people. I guess it is that, plus nostalgia that brings me back, and hope that the next version of C4D will finally be the big one. With every release though still no big one. The reason I'm pushing it here is to help others find the wealth down a different path. One day they will realize they were starving for scraps when they could have been feasting like kings. All the road blocks that C4D put up for me are gone with Blender. I'm having more fun with 3D now than I've probably ever had in my life. I wish others can also find their 3D joy no matter what programs they use.
  17. 3 points
    I start off with a hexahedron sphere with 8 segments, I then cut it in half so you're left with a hemisphere shape. You could also use a cylinder for this. I then extrude it to the desired length. I then duplicate that 4 times, Rotating them slightly until they're in the desired position, Then change the length, Thickness etc accordingly. I then drop in an 8 sided disk, Make it all quads by removing the 4 diagonal cuts, Do an inner extrude and delete the centre then extrude 2 edges ether side of the disk around to make the outside of the hand. You now have the basic hand shape. Just a matter of connecting all the pieces together and filling in the top and bottom with polys, And extending the disk into a wrist. If you align everything carefully you should have the correct amount of segments to connect most of it without having to create loads of additional cuts, Although you will have to make a few. Then just add some additional cuts for the joints and the finished product should look something like this, Although i'm sure you can do a better job than my rushed attempt.
  18. 3 points
    Hey there, there is a bunch of questions! Not sure I can answer them all but I will do my best according to my personal experience. What's a good rule of thumb for when to model the clothing into the character and when to simulate cloth dynamics? This depends a lot on what are you going to use your character for. I avoid as much as I can cloth dynamics since you cant predict exactly where things are going to go, how it will bend, etc... requires so many tests and interations, and the result, can vary. For me personally, if it is not a long dress, that needs to 100% behave like a cloth around the legs, etc... I keep it as normal polygons, under the influence of the main rig. if there are specific folds or parts of the cloth that needs a bit of bouncing, like a cape, etc.. I solve it with extra bones and make their IK dynamic, so you can predict a lot better how it will behave. In the case of cloth dynamics, are any of you using Marvelous Designer? It's pretty expensive for me at the moment. Can Cinema 4D's Dress-O-Matic & Cloth Dynamics get similar results? I'm not experience with marveleous designer to be honest But it is one of the top industry choices for cloth designing for a reason. But I am a firmly believer, that even though the process might take longer, it can be done inside C4D too, with more experience, etc. If you want to create folds in a surface, like a piece of cloth shrinked together, it can be done smoothing modifier and magnet tool with some specific settings, given you have lots of polygons to work on the cloth surface. In the case of modeling the clothing into the character, how do you typically handle the body geometry? i.e. if the body is covered by clothing do you keep the underlying geometry and weight both the body & clothing or delete the covered geometry? If it will be used in animation, and you want to be free with any movement, for sure, hide the geometry that will be covered by the cloth, so you avoid the geometry underneath to pop out when you bend the elbow for example. If you use the hide polygons command in C4D, it will hide it on your viewport, but will still render it out. The trick I use is to create a transparent material, with zero refraction, and create polygon selections of the parts of the model you wish to hide... and apply these materials for those parts. Never delete geometry from a character since you want to have freedom to do whatever with it afterwards (maybe one day he/she decides to skinny diving one evening ) In the case of modeling the clothing into the character, How would you mimic the bunching of the fabric in the elbows and knees? Pose Morphs? Displacement maps? Pose morphs can for sure help to define how it will behave, once you bend the knee or elbos, etc... This wlll depend a lot on the effect you want to achieve. For a lot of things I do, I paint the folds and wrinkles on my clothes inside the texture painting software, and export a normal map from those, so I can still keep my low poly flexibility inside C4D, but when I render it out, it has nicer details. If you want physical changes, folds, etc.. you will need to increase the number of polygons, and use a trick I saw the other day, with the smoothing deformer and paint the folds, by pushing polygons using the magnet tool brush. I will try to find the tutorial and post it here (I only discovered this 2 weeks ago!) How do you typically handle ornamental geometry like buttons, patches, badges? So far I have tried Skin Deformers (copying the weights tags with VAMP), the Surface Deformer, and Constraints. I would like to hear others' approaches to this. This can vary a lot, and it depends on a series of factors: how big is the object you want to attach, how it will behave, etc. For me, generally, I always try to skin things together, so I dont have to worry about forgetting one thing, etc... if it is a patch that will go alongside of a shoulder, it needs to be under the same influence of the rig. You want it to fold it following the arm movement and the distance it has to the elbow, etc.. so the skin deformer is usually the best solution. If it is something that the character has on its hair, but it is sticking out.. or the chracter is holding, like a gun or a lollypop, the constraints is your best friend. Just make sure to place it properly on the hierarchy, and give it the right priority for calculations, so you dont get weird delays, when the character moves its hand, the gun will need to calculate some extra time... So yeah, in summary, when I rig my characters, I like to think I am working more like a game developer. I want to have control of thing things my character will do and where it will interact, so I can easily loop and pick appart animations. Dynamic bones for me all the way Hope that helped!
  19. 3 points
    I played around a bit Moneythrower.mp4 Moneythrower.c4d
  20. 3 points
    Another adventurous Blender user here! Been playing with it for a few weeks now. And now I'm even using it for a paid project, using Eevee to render an animation that would otherwise take ages even with Octane... You know, it's really really tough to learn a new 3D sofware after 25(!) years with Cinema 4D! But for some strange reason I actually enjoy it... It's so different from Cinema that it's like starting from scratch (all the background knowledge helps of course, I learn much faster than a true beginner). Brings me back to how it all started for me. The noob fase! Constantly hitting brick walls but not giving up and googling and youtubing (well not back in those days haha, I actually had to read the manual) until you find the solution (or a workaround) and you just keep going. I kinda stagnated as an artist for years but now I'm forced to learn how to use nodes properly and make nice materials, it's about time. I relied on Cinema's "easy mode" for too long. And making pretty stuff with Eevee effortlessly is tons of fun. Well I hope I'll still be able to afford Cinema in the future when I need it but since I don't want to be that dependent on whatever silly pricing MAXON comes up with next I'll put my bets on something that'll always be free, including 2 awesome free render engines, fluid sim, particles, smoke etc etc (and don't forget the very active community)... For me it's worth it.
  21. 3 points
    Blender is a good software but we have 2 blender users in the team and we will likely all swap to cinema mostly. blender is still free and you can always do something you cant do in cinema if you need. The biggest drawback in cinema for us is the lack of Multi UV editing and relying on a script for face weighted normals and such things (and bad booleans) Working with a modeller on Blender who has always used it, I noticed that it also has a lot of downsides like cinema or any software. Some things you think are given in cinema seem like a godsend in blender. If you want to use a cylinder in blender, then change the amount of sides - you do that once, then its editable when you move it once. You cant stay with primitives and just change their size later without making them editable. Things like arrays are not easily done. These are things where I think "***" - but it also has a lot of upsides clearly. It does feel as if some things are just not possible to do in cinema, but in the last years the gap has closed noticeably and cinema has really gained its own big advantages. So is the other side of the grass greener? Id say definitely no. Its up and downs. Volume builder and fields are a game changer on cinema for us. Cinema has a great hierarchy and makes it easy to change things down the road. Non destructive workflows are really second only to Houdini I would say. Also the cinema UI is the best, making it very easy for me to make a easy to use workspace for the team getting everyone on track fast, while Blender has the worst usability of all 3D apps still, which is the mayor drawback of it. If only cinema had a little more care for realtime. Realtime clearly is the future, and game dev is a big market. If anyone from C4D is reading this, give us multi UV, split phong by UV islands, face weighted normals workflow options and cinema could be amazing for gamedev and any realtime art.
  22. 2 points
    If you save out the noisy image with a normal and albedo those can be used in the Compositor in Blender to denoise using Intel denoiser. In the blender compositor the image nodes should be hooked to the Denoise node which is hooked to the File Output node. Pick a place to save it then hit render. Samples don't matter because nothing is being rendered and the denoise happens after the render and saves to the output. For that reason I'd say keep it on Eevee or 1 sample with nothing in the scene.
  23. 2 points
    You can then use a bump map or displacement to break the edges up. I arranged both sides the same should you have thickness. then bridged between. Edit: Beat me to it Cerbera . . The extra loop you added enforces the edges that you added. Leave this with you Jay
  24. 2 points
    This is the ultimate question. Answer: set all your values to 42. : )
  25. 2 points
    I think it's pretty easy to do this yourself without any plug-ins, although you get a pattern different from the one Cerbera showed. I use a technique that works when the number of Rotation Segments of the cylinder is a power of 2 (i.e., 8, 16, 64, 128, etc...): 1) Create a cylinder making sure that the number of Rotation segments is a power of 2 and Caps turned on with 1 segment. Convert it to an editable object and Optimize if you have an old C4D version to make sure that the caps are attached to the rest of the cylinder (!). For a 16 segment cylinder, you now have something that looks like this from the top, which by now you are quite used to seeing (I selected all of the points in point mode for better visibility): 2) Now, we want to get rid of all but four of the radial edges but keep that central point, as illustrated in the following image: The quick way I go about doing this, which is especially helpful for cylinders with very many Rotation Segments is to go into Edges Mode and simply use Live Selection with a reasonably sized brush to select all of the edges stemming from the center, by clicking on the point at the center of the cap. You can also just select any radial edge and do a ring select (U~B) on any other radial edge, to select them all, if this way is easier for you. Then, I just Ctrl-Click the four segments, in Live Select, that form the cross shape I don't want selected (the edges going in the up, down, left, and right directions from the center) which are always constant in number (i.e., exactly four). Finally, the the edges that remain highlighted (as shown in the above image) should now be dissolved (i.e., M~N, Ctrl-BS/Del, Right-Click menu, or however you like to do dissolves). 2b) OK, if your cylinder only had 8 Rotation Segments, you're done (congrats!) and you can skip the rest of the steps. 3) For cylinders with Power-of-two Rotational Segment counts >=16, we're left with a cap Full-O-NGons at this point, as indicated by the reddish NGon lines in the image below. I've gone ahead and selected the central point in Point Mode for the following step which does most of the remaining work of creating the quad topology: 4) In Points Mode, with the central point (and only the central point!) selected we want to do a Bevel operation (M~S) with the settings shown below: Tool Option Offset Mode: Proportional Offset: 100 % Subdivision: 3 {See Note} Note: Type a value that is the following function of N, the number of Rotation Segments you started with: Subdivision=N/4-1. Since I used 16 segments for this example, 16/4-1=3 for the Subdivision count. (For 32 starting segments, it would be 7, for 64, 15, and for 128, 31) - just divide the starting number by four and subtract one. Depth: -100 % Limit: Unchecked (but doesn't matter, int his case) Shaping Shape: Round Tension: 100% Topology You can leave all of the Topology options unchecked... 5) We now have the following almost complete topology and I've gone ahead and once again selected all of the points to improve their visibility in the demo image below: 6) Unfortunately, NGon lines remain. This is because the Bevel tool slightly "missed" the existing points by a tiny offset, so we are left with doubled points along the cap's circumference that are very close to the points they should be right on top of. It is important to note for the next step that the bad, misaligned points, are the ones that have at least one edge stemming from them and going into the cap and connecting with another point in the interior of the cap. The good original points, are the ones along the circumference of the cap with both edges coming off of them forming said circumference. 7) To fix things up, you can go one of several ways here. These include the fast, easy, but not very accurate optimize operation to help merge all of the duplicate points, all the way to welding each pair of points by hand using the Weld Tool, Stich-n-sew, the Polygon Pen tool, or whatever floats your boat. Personally, I prefer the "by-hand" methods for smaller numbers of rotational segments in order to make sure that the Bevel created points get repositioned and merged to the correctly positioned pre-existing points. For larger Rotation Segment counts, Optimize is you more prudent and pragmatic pal. Going the Optimize route will tend to merge points at the midpoint between the original, correctly positioned circumference points and their Bevel Tool created pairings. This will slightly shift the original points in the process. On the positive side, the result of this is that the NGons will be gone in a single broad stroke, but the points in the top cap may not line up perfectly with the points in the bottom cap, which may or may not be OK, depending on how this object is used/modeled going forward. I will describe more specifically my welding approach when precise point positioning is desired, which is often the case for low Rotational Segment counts and/or scenes that require very accurate placement. I start by switching to Polygons Mode, select all of the polygons in the cap being worked on and then do a "Hide Unselected" command to hide all other polygon geometry of the cylinder and to in effect solo just the polygons of the cap whose points I will be manually optimizing. Then, in Points Mode, I weld all of the misplaced duplicate points using the Polygon Pen tool (don't forget to check Auto Weld from the Poly Pen options in the Attributes Manager!) to their properly positioned points along the cap's circumference. As previously mentioned, the misplaced points are the ones with edges going into the cap, either towards the center or towards a point int the cap's interior. It would be a good idea to zoom in for precision. Whichever of the above methods you choose for cleanup, the result is a relatively nice Quad based cap topology, as shown in the image below: I will now include additional images that demonstrate the resulting topology for 32 and 64 Rotational segments, just to give you an idea of what you will get: 32: 64: It is important to bear in mind that the above images represent flat cap surfaces (and not spherical ones). If there are any negatives to this topological quad-based layout it is the fact that the resulting quads tend to get slightly larger towards the center and smaller towards the original points that made up the initial "cross shaped" edges (i.e., the quads get progressively smaller towards the top, right, bottom, and left edges along the circumference of the cap). You can resize from the center with soft selection turned on to equalize things a bit, but I won't go into that here, since it is a process that would require an article of its own. I hope the above steps help you out, at least until MAXON adds some quality Quad Cap options to cylinders.
  26. 2 points
    Hi. Here is one way to do it. 1: Make plane primitive then place it to top of bottle cap. 2-3-4: Select and Extrude the edges twice down to fit close to bottle. 5: Use Loop Path Cut to add polygons for even distribution (square polygons. 6: Make a selection set at ends to use with shrink wrap. 7: Add shrink Wrap deformer and drag n drop selection set into falloff. This will only then effect polygon selection area. 8: Add cloth surface tag (if you cant find it press shift + c to bring up command and type in cloth) Add thickness and turn on bulge if required. bottle with safety lid tab.c4d
  27. 2 points
    that meme made me spit out my beer
  28. 2 points
    i've been recently experimenting a lot with cartoon sfx setups like water, fire, smoke, explosions and so on purely with mograph, fields and volumes. no particles, no plugins. most fun i've had in a while, also i'm quite impressed what can be done with just the on-board tools. just wanted so share those here too, since people seem to like them a lot on twitter, hope you'll like them as well. https://twitter.com/everfreshdesign
  29. 2 points
    Shoutouts to people who do character work in Cinema 4D, especially to Kangddan. Check out this rig!
  30. 2 points
    i agree 100% with this statement and i want to add a litte more. Even if the tools in c4d seem outdated (and in many aspects they are) try to check some making ofs from big anmation studios. Most of the time they are using old versions of maya , some of them are like maya 2012 or similar. Of course they have TD's in their pipeline to solve and implement custom tools but the the core is always something that they rely on instead of the newest release. C4d sometimes behaves like houdini. We can try and mix diferent modules to enhance certain capabilities. That means that we have to create most of our solutions and there are no presets for this kind of stuff. I love to mix mograph in rigging. It's just amazing . But there are even more things that are really good: Pose Morph tools are super powerfull in the rigging process and really worth it to explore.
  31. 2 points
    I... am... speechless, at such awesome work! Big congrats JBatista! I gotta say, seeing how much talent is displayed within this forum, it kinda gives this extra injection of inspiration about C4D, and it proves that someone, that knows what they are doing, can really push the capabilities of the software really far! I love the idea of reverse engineering. I've done a very long time ago.. with Flabo, our good friend Flabo from C4D. And by some weird distraction, I havent downloaded the presets on C4D on this last version, and you are right, there are amazing rigs over there There is even a t-rex!! Thanks for sharing this with me JBatista, I appreciate it! Obrigado
  32. 2 points
    Unlimited geometry and global illumination in real time. This is so impressive I had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1st. Unreal Engine 5 is a game changer. Link to full article Cheers John
  33. 2 points
    first off, i was not involved in this animation. regarding rendering: what are you talking about? this was rendered in a 3rd party engine like redshift, arnold or octane, none of which are available in blender, and are faster than cycles afaik... and while eevee is certainly great, i highly doubt you can get that exact look with it. how many different cuts? probably a lot, that is how you do things in production, not because of any render time related topics, but workflow wise it just makes more sense to split things up in quite a lot of different shots. if you're trying to render out several minutes of character animation in one shot, then that tells me you have no clue about real production workflows. regarding rigging: my own rig preset can do pretty much the same as the one in that short does, i didn't measure the time it took me to get to that level, but we are not talking about how long it takes to develop a complex rig on your own, seems like you're more talking about how long it takes to be able to utilize an auto rig solution. i'm sure the developers of autorig pro or the rigify addon worked months or years on it to get the systems to the current stage. you can learn how to rig a character with the rig presets available in the character object efficiently within a day. if you already know about things like weight painting and stuff you can learn how to use it in a couple of hours. i guess it takes about the same amount of time to get the hang of the process of any auto rigging tool in any app. i can rig a body with usable autoweights in c4d with my preset in 5 minutes. i do prefer manual weight painting though (and btw, while blenders autoweights are good, i would still also weight paint manually in there, since they are also not perfect), weight painting takes me about 20min to an hour for the body, depending on the specifics. when it comes to a face rig, i haven't seen any blender demo or tutorial where the autoweights for a face rig did work out of the box, and the face usually takes a little more time to get the weighting right. i can setup the rig for the face again in a couple of minutes, and spend like 1-2 hours of weight painting, another hour or two predefining some common poses for lipsync and stuff (same goes for blender). maybe autorig pro is a bit more easy to handle than the character object, maybe retargeting works better (which i have no need for, i usually don't work with motion capture data), but i have watched some demos and tuts about auto rig pro, as well as about rigify, and i can't see a huge difference to the character object. the process is the very same, you bring the components in, you place the handles, you bind your mesh, you correct weights, you set up some custom stuff, like backpacks, antennas and stuff if needed. about scale: if setup correctly for the task, you can scale rigs in c4d to any proportion you wish, make your character have giant feet or hands, scale up the torso, any controller in the rig. in blender also things have to be setup right. just because you can scale your auto-rigged characters doesn't mean the developers of the addon didn't have to take care about things so this is possible. again, it's totally fine that you like blender better, if it clicks more with you that's great. just don't spread false information because of your lack of knowledge what can be done and how things should be done. there's enough people and projects out there to prove you wrong.
  34. 2 points
  35. 2 points
    I found this site in my travels. Very well organized site of US road signs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_of_the_United_States All signs are capable of being downloaded in .svg file formats...some up to 1K resolutions. What I love the most about it is the organization which makes this site better than just a standard Google search. Need a cross walk sign, truck route sign, blasting signs, etc. They are all there to choose from. The Wikimedia Commons site is also pretty interesting as well. Dave
  36. 2 points
    I think this is definitely a good take, and I can feel by your excitement that you are indeed enjoying it a lot The existence of Blender, by itself, is already a great thing for all of us. Having a complete free software, offering pro level solutions, that competes in a lot of things with paid softwares! I started with 3DS Max 15 years ago, and switched to C4D thanks to a friend, who helped me achieve the results I wanted, and explained to me a bit of Xpresso and etc. The speed C4D offered things and how amazing I could organize my scene, it was something I could have never imagined before. With all this worldwide unfortunate changes, we dont know how will it be for all of us. Maybe I wont be able to afford C4D's subscription anymore (I am already struggling with it...) and the idea that all my files will be locked and I wont have freedom to access them until I pay the again, it is really, really horrible. I understand that this is business, and as a company, they need to survive///but with all this crisis that we are about to experience, maybe it will be a forced change on how companies think, and see us, long time users. Blender doesnt offer me yet great reasons to switch. For me, animation is still a bad experience And no light linking, etc... the armature/pose switch, feels like a weird and unnecessary step in between.. but I love that there is at least an option, for all of us, in the worst case scenario... to continue to work and produce awesome results. A lot of us integrates different softwares to our workflows with C4D. (Zbrush, Painter, Marvelous Designer, etc) And Blender, for me, is already helping with some of the things, together with C4D (modelling for instance) So thanks for posting your videos and blender info/tips.
  37. 2 points
    While I can in a way sympathize with the aversion to non-C4D software promotion, after all this is a C4D hub, creating a C4D-only bubble seems a bad idea to me. Knowledge about new trends and techniques in 3d opens up new possibilities, stimulates growth. Important ingredients if you run a company, big or small. And demand for a certain solution promotes the development in C4D. You could argue I should visit other dedicated sites for that. But I would like C4Dcafe to be an inspiring open place. So a post about the awesome poly crunching and ligthing capabilities of the Unreal Engine 5 by Epic should be possible. And yes post about the ubiquitous Blender too. As suggested a new subject heading would be a good compromise. Something like Third party or Industry news. Philip
  38. 2 points
    When it comes to taking things up a level from here, to something more realistic this guy's workflow is excellent... CBR
  39. 2 points
    Nice to see you around, Sir @VECTOR CBR
  40. 2 points
    Blender is interesting, and the discussion how blender might help c4d users is too, but this is no Blender forum and therefor we dont have to open a new thread for every blender news that is around. best regards Jops
  41. 2 points
    Hi. With FLima rather comprehensive excellent reply Il try not to repeat the same points if possible. I mainly produce content for animation for others to use, or stills, and hardly for games. I use my own made content for animations within C4D, but use other software to aid the process. C4D the workhorse, Vray, or Redshift for rendering, Zbrush, sculpting, Marvelous Designer clothes and dynamics, Unfold 4D, UVs, Substance Painter, texturing. Photoshop, Post work. Natron, compositing. What's a good rule of thumb for when to model the clothing into the character and when to simulate cloth dynamics? For games you make the cloths as the body, this avoids intersecting geometry issues, and extra work. for animations such as video game cinematics, film then cloth simulation is used but this is when you would rely more on Marvelous Designer. In the case of cloth dynamics, are any of you using Marvelous Designer? It's pretty expensive for me at the moment. Can Cinema 4D's Dress-O-Matic & Cloth Dynamics get similar results? Iv used Marvelous Designer since V4, although Im not a expert with it, No C4D can't match the same or even similar results, but that's not to say you can't get usable results. MD simulation is much more accurate, its way faster, but the huge factor is that its an actual clothing designer not just a simulator. It has buttons, zips, and allows for real time interaction while it simulates. To be fair they are not to be compared, and while it may seem expensive its not for what it does so well. Not such for simulation but it gets used to make the clothes that then get retopologized for in game models too. In the case of modeling the clothing into the character, how do you typically handle the body geometry? i.e. if the body is covered by clothing do you keep the underlying geometry and weight both the body & clothing or delete the covered geometry? Typically you would do one or the other clothes as the body or simulation on the body. If you have both yes you can do like DAZ3D figures have clothes conform to body but its way more work as mentioned already. In the case of modeling the clothing into the character, How would you mimic the bunching of the fabric in the elbows and knees? One of the thing about having tools such as MD is that it can make some complacent in thinking they dont need to understand cloth folds and dont home their sculpting skills in. I would sculpt the folds in and add normal map with good topology to hold the forms putting animation topology as a priority. I attended Zack Petroc Master  Class class when his classes where interactive and live for understanding drapery, its a must, and now as its not live and interactive like when I did it, its now crazy cheap but dose not contain everything I had on the course but the main parts, I paid alot at the time but it was worth it. Zack Petroc works for Dysney, he knows his stuff. Pose Morphs? Displacement maps? Normal maps for games, Displacement maps for stills and some animations sequences. Pose morphs for animations or JCM Joint controlled morphs or as in C4D PSD morphs. How do you typically handle ornamental geometry like buttons, patches, badges? So far I have tried Skin Deformers (copying the weights tags with VAMP), the Surface Deformer, and Constraints. I would like to hear others' approaches to this. Surface deformer is good for objects that must conform, Collision deformer is good for somethings, and constraints. Of course simply weighting 100% hard objects . You use the one thats right for the job. Dan
  42. 2 points
    You sure that this is GI flicker? I would say this could also be just overlapping polygons. As far as I can tell the ENTIRE surface flickers, doesn't look like GI blotches.
  43. 2 points
    Yeah so far I've only animated simple stuff, and I'm not a character animator so I hope it won't be quite as painful for me. Indeed I think competition is good for innovation, I also think it's great that so many new people are picking up 3d, no matter what software. I like teaching so that's good for me. I hope people at MAXON are watching closely, there's a lot of opportunities currently for companies to show they care, throw your customers a bone... I'm a fan of paying it forward, that's something that MAXON should really think about instead of screwing over their most loyal customers... It'll pay off in the end. I know there's good people working there, I'm sure they do care. They're just not allowed to post their true opinions on the forum.
  44. 2 points
    I wouldn't use cloth for this because cloth doesn't move like paper does, and because it doesn't feature any aerodynamic properties, unlike soft bodies, which do... CBR
  45. 2 points
  46. 2 points
    Yes, that’s the price we should expect to pay for a perpetual license upgrade. No breaking news here, several MAXON employees posted here and on other forums about this topic on multiple occasions. And yes again, perpetual licenses will die at some point. This is where this industry is heading. Just read the Autodesk earnings report and analysts Q&A to understand how powerful this business model is for software companies. This model works as long as the company has a competitive edge with unique features that other programs cannot compete with. C4D has mograph. That's their captive market. Houdini is just overkill for the average motion designer who integrates a bit of 3D in his/her workflow. As long as they stay ahead in this field, they can charge whatever they want. I’m still ok to pay for now because I can afford it but this program has become highly fragmented and lost a lot in terms of perceived value compared to 10 years ago. Back then I used to have a great render engine and an acceptable particle system with BP, the leading UV/texturing tool in the industry. These modules are now outdated and require external solutions (substance, x particles, TFD, octane/redshift etc), while the price of the program kept increasing. when I read that AD might offer an indie license of Maya for 250$/year (already the case for 3ds max), I cannot help but think that MAXON will have to revise its prices down if they want to keep their indie users, who actually made C4d the successful program it is today.
  47. 2 points
    Has anyone checked on the Dolphins ?
  48. 2 points
  49. 2 points
    I honestly want to believe Srek....I seriously hope that MAXON is trying to repair the trust that was lost in their confusing roll-out of subscriptions. Unfortunately, after 8 months with nothing done to rectify the situation, you can only conclude the following: MAXON's goal is subscriptions for all. MAXON only wants to discourage perpetual licenses. Withholding Cineversity from perpetual license holders is one indication. Calling S22 a "different" piece of software to get around the agreements in everyone's R21 MSA agreement is another. Sorry...it is the license server that makes S22 different than a perpetual upgrade from R21 to R22 - not the software itself. How far MAXON wants to discourage perpetual licenses remains to be seen. That can be the only reason why there is so little communication on perpetual upgrade pricing. I don't buy that they are working through the complexities of licenses management....it has been 8 months after all. If they can release a new version of the software in that time, they can work through a license issue. Now, if you agree with these conclusions then you also have to ask how many perpetual license holders will this impact? What makes up a perpetual license holder? Would multi-seat DCC firms continue with the higher costs of maintaining a perpetual license or switch to the lower cost subscription model? Probably not. I think tax laws also favor subscriptions as they can be expensed in the current year whereas perpetual licenses, as a fixed asset to the company, need to be depreciated. Not sure but the point is that DCC companies are probably in favor of subscriptions. We have already heard the sentiments of single user perpetual license holders who use C4D to make money. Hey....to them it is just a higher expense that they can pass off to the client and that higher cost is NOT that significant. So who gets hurt? The hobbyist. Especially the hobbyist who has invested a lot in the C4D ecosystem of plugins, tutorials, texture sets and models over the years. We don't like subscriptions because we have paid dearly over the years (especially Studio owners) and should we fall on hard times, we don't want to lose everything that took us years of our time and our hard earned money to accumulate if we can't make a subscription payment. And honestly, I think MAXON knows this. But I also think that we are not that significant a portion of their user-base for MAXON to worry about. Our business does not mean that much to them. We are probably the last barrier to their long term goal of subscriptions for all anyway. If they can't get us to subscriptions, then no tears would be shed in the MAXON offices should we move to Blender. Is this all "supposition"? Absolutely! But it is based on evidence and actions taken to date. If anyone has any other rational to explain MAXON's actions, then please speak up -- provided that you have hard evidence to counter my conclusions that there are hard times ahead for the C4D hobbyist. But all is not lost for the C4D hobbyist. There is Blender. The Blender development group moves at light speed. While the UI is a bit quirky, they do have a budding object manager that is starting look very C4D-ish in its design. For me, what keeps my from deep diving into Blender is the UI. What keeps me using C4D is Insydium. I believe that over time Blender's UI will only continue to improve and probably faster than we anticipate now that the ground work has been laid down with R2.8. Now, as Insydium already has one foot in the Blender world with Cycles-4D, my deepest wish is that they are looking at the huge ground swell of support for Blender in the DCC marketplace and thinking about moving X-Particles to that platform as well. That would be a huge market for them and free's them from tying their future to the actions of MAXON. As Nigel is fond of saying: "fun times ahead". Dave
  50. 2 points
    I think the biggest issue is that many long time customers just feel betrayed and undervalued. Some people spent thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years on their software (which is fair enough). Then subscriptions come around, just as suspected, and everybody that has been a long time customers gets a measly 20% off their subscription for two years, and they lose their R21 perpetual in the process. Doesn't matter if you've been customer for ten years or two. You have R21? You get 20% off for two years. It does not affect me personally since all I ever use are licenses that are provided by my workplace but I can see how people are disappointed by that. While I ultimately think having the choice (important) between subscriptions and perpetuals is a good thing, the way the transition was done was just not great at all. To add to that, apart from being a student you have no way to get cheap access to C4D. As much as I'd like to say yeah, subscriptions make it easier to get into the software, it is still ~700€ a year (if you take the yearly subscription upfront that is). Otherwise, if you take the real monthly subscription, you end up with 1200€. That is almost double of what they ask for if you pay "monthly". For a hobbyist that is a lot of money. I think many companies, like MAXON, severely underestimate the threat that is Blender. They might make more money in the short term, but many many up and coming 3D artists will just grow up with Blender and never switch to anything else unless they absolutely have to due to company requirements or something similiar. MAXON is gimping themselves hard by not offering a more affordable option for people to learn and bind themselves to C4D. I'm not a businessman, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how this is supposed to be worth it.
×
×
  • Create New...