Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 01/05/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    It's been ages since I posted any work, mainly due to personal projects getting sidelined by work stuff & ending up half-finished. Anyway, I have a tendancy to just post things when they're done but this time I want to do more of an actual WIP, although I have obviously put quite a bit of work in already. Over christmas, I visited the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford with family & was inspired by a Chinese Coromandel Screen: http://jameelcentre.ashmolean.org/collection/7/10223/10232/all/per_page/25/offset/0/sort_by/seqn./object/17562 The aim will be to produce a lightly-animated picture - I plan to follow the layout of these screens & have a main central picture, with the panels around the edges showing close-ups of different camera angles on parts of the scene. Characteristic of these paintings is the use of perspective where the horizontals & verticals are straight & there is no vanishing point. There is one type of Camera Projection in Cinema 4D that emulates this type of perspective - the 'Gentleman' projection. I quickly discovered that only the Standard & Physical render engines can support this projection. I had hoped to use this project as a test-bed for Cycles 4D but although it can do true Parallel cameras via it's 'Orthographic' option, it doesn't have anything like the 'Gentleman' projection with straight verticals & horizontals. Octane lacks even true parallel projection support, so that was out. It seems even Pro-Render can't support this projection, although I'm far from convinced it's as good as Standard/ Physical anyway. Ultimately the perspective is more important than the render engine - I don't want to just make an isometric compromise. I'm at least using it as a chance to finally explore node materials & the PBR workflow - using reflection as GI. I'm leaning on the excellent 'Chinese Patterns' C4D content browser download from right here on C4D Cafe. For plants I'll be using Forester as always & I've just begun to introduce some. Obviously the composition & landscape is super-WIP right now, although I've put a fair bit of time into modelling the buildings.
  2. 1 point
    Ah ... I actually thought that was what you meant when I first read your question, but then I figured "who would want to know that?". That mouse mat has been a birthday present many many years ago ... custom made, still cherish it to this day. Unfortunately, sunlight has degraded the picture.
  3. 1 point
    Okay, made a bit of an update today - the rocks at the back will eventually be a waterfall. The ground will probably be rendered black in the final thing but leaving it white while I develop it. Got a couple more buidlings to model yet, I think.
  4. 1 point
    How did I missed that ?!?!? Thanks CBR
  5. 1 point
    Thanks ! Hopefully I'll do an update every day or two, but we'll see how it goes.
  6. 1 point
    These are the content libraries which give you the predefined ready-to-use objects, scenes, and materials. There is no "best" one as they all contain different things. You download all of them, naturally.
  7. 1 point
    You have to remember that GI's first priority is to aim for realism, and reflectance-based lighting is very much scale-based, so if the only light in the scene is coming from a few small polys on the base of an object then it is not going to emit much light into the scene, which is what would happen in the real world. If you then increase the 'light power' to that of a small sun, then we can't not expect the reflection of that light to be anything other than white, which is the most blown out it can get. One question to ask would be 'why are you so attached to using indirect illumination for this scene ?' We can get similar, but nicer and infinitely faster results by just using an Area light and a square spline to emit it from... Another would be to ask why you don't just use another luminant sphere, an HDRI sky or other geometry to illuminate the rest of the scene, but hide it from camera and reflections ? Then your luminance could go back down to reasonable values and you'd get accurate reflections in the floor of the one luminant element that remained seen by camera ? We could also ask if you have remembered to tick 'polygon light' in the illumination tab of the luminance material, which would seriously improve your GI shadows ? Next we could wonder why you are using Physical Render and reflectance based material workflow when there is a hair object in the scene, which works much more nicely with the render engine it was designed for, which is Standard. And also why you are using Ambient Occlusion when GI is turned on, which should negate the need for it ? So, lots of things to think about there... CBR
  8. 1 point
    I have worked with the Bendy Arm/Leg form the Built-in Character Builder. I haven't had any priority problems. Can you send a sample file for inspection?
  9. 1 point
    me too. I made my decision, I did not renew MSA and won't pay subscription so I am out. edit: an ignominious ending or beginning to a once leading 3D software.
  10. 1 point
    The thing with subscription, the true problem, it only works for a limit time. Then the user who can‘t pay or don‘t want drop off for another software. Hard to get them back. AD us facing that problem right now and tries to avoid it with the low price for individuals (like Houdini). Downpoint in Houdini is the special file format that makes many resources unavailable. So, AD might get back a few switchers, but they ignore the causal users. The ones that work for passion or the ones that uses a software just rarely in a company. The model is all for short term cash flow.
  11. 1 point
    Dumb question time. Why can't Cinema 4D have a perpetual licence with annual maintenance i.e. MSA then also a monthly / annual subscription plan for those that want to rent Cinema 4D / don't want the hefty outlay of buying a perpetual licence. Don't give me any BS that it can't be done. The Foundry offers both for Modo. Everyone is then happy.
  12. 1 point
    Not a fair comparison. If you agree to Adobe's discounted, 1-yr contract you pay on a monthly basis—not one, lump sum. Not so with MAXON's Annual Subscription; where the price is displayed with a monthly figure ($59 [USD]). This is why people are upset. If pricing was $59 / mo, billed monthly (i.e. month-to-month)... they might be on to something [good, for many people / "the world"]. (Heck, throw in Redshift at $59 / mo and people would, probably, be quite excited! ) In reality, your price nearly doubles once you go from Annual to Monthly Sub. -- I, personally, refuse to subscribe, going forward, and can't stand the 14-day "call-in", either. This is why I am not planning to upgrade, in any form, including Perpetual. (Too bad for INSYDIUM, Next Limit and other companies, too!) I have never pirated MAXON's software, nor have I ever violated their license agreement. I just don't like the "new way". (And, I fully understand the flexibility of it, too.) I don't like how MAXON has handled this announcement—at all. (Which stinks, because I can only guess how much work goes into an annual event / release like this. I feel like the pricing and offerings are not consistent with what they're marketing.) I have been a long-time customer of MAXON. (More than a decade, now!) But, I'm feeling pretty upset for people that purchased a full, Studio license in the months leading up to SIGGRAPH—in addition to the long-time customers / supporters / MSA subscribers / etc. -- We're all just giving our opinions. (Some are more factually-based than others. Ha-ha. ) Just trying to make sense of all of this—even though I have made other plans, moving forward. (Not sure whether to be angry or grateful, at this point. I guess I don't fit their ideal customer profile any longer.)



×
×
  • Create New...