Jump to content

Isleofgough

Cafe Oldtimer
  • Content count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Poor

Profile Information

  • First Name
    Philo
  • Last Name
    Calhoun
  • C4D Ver
    19.024 Studio
  • Location
    Seattle
  • Interests
    Graphics arts

Recent Profile Visitors

996 profile views
  1. Black Friday 2017 - Post your deals here

    http://3dcoat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/21682-black-friday-sales/ $100 off 3D coat
  2. 3D Model of London

    Not cheap at all, but looks like a lot of detail: http://vertexmodelling.co.uk/products/high-detail-london-3d-model-level-of-detail-3/
  3. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Regarding crashes: houdini is not as stable as C4D, at least on OSX. The need to use VEX or python will come up well before one needs to do anything more than xpresso in C4D. As a modeling alternative, I don’t know anyone who thinks it is as easy or versatile for most modeling compared with C4D, modo, or whatever. It is a great program and very powerful, but it is still a bit of a niche in the 3D world for special effects. The indie version is no doubt the best deal of any 3D program other than blender.
  4. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Quoting from the best.... You have lots of knowledge of both programs. I've hit roadblocks with both Modo and C4D , but generally I get further in C4D. Houdini to use all its power really requires VEX and Python programming knowledge. They make xpresso look like a walk in the park.
  5. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Regarding Modo: As Nigel said in the Modo forum recently, "While the bevel tool has been improved it's still behind the competition. The Foundry push Modo as "Use best-in-class direct modeling tools combined with a robust and flexible procedural modeling system". They need to check out the Bevel tool in Cinema 4D, plus the knife tool and polygon pen tool. All are superior to Modo's equivalents. Modo's modelling guide system is so bad and unuseable they might as well remove it. Again, Cinema 4D's modelling guide system and dynamic guide are vastly superior and make precision modelling easier. While some animation enhancements would be most welcome as a modeller I want to see modelling tool enhancements. Curve / spline drawing in Modo is very primitive compared to other apps." The procedural additions to Modo are welcome, but not nearly as flexible as Houdini's. Frankly, I find this sort of modeling much EASIER in Houdini, as at any point, one has the full power to add any operators for modeling, animation, etc. I know this thread is about Houdini and not Modo, but since Modo was brought up, I think it is not up to C4D in lots of features (curves and CA and mograph notably) and it shares the slow down with complex models. I frankly don't find working in that program very enjoyable. I know people love to hate Maya, but it has come a long way over the past few years, and I would probably think about Maya before Modo if I were looking at an alternative to C4D. That is not an endorsement for Autodesk as a company though. But back to Houdini. Houdini can slow down with complicated scenes and certain render settings. However, unlike C4D and Modo, one can export out position settings for fractures or clones that give much simpler point positions. This can be reimported and linked to complex models, resulting in much faster animations. Houdini is brilliant software, and very logical and powerful. Since it gives you access to the programming behind procedurals, it can be manipulated at a lower level to create amazing models and scenes. If one tries to create complicated models without some programming, I think it would not be as useful or powerful as many of the other 3D content creating tools, such as Maya, C4D, etc. It is also easy to get lost in all the nodes. I too have been thinking of transitioning to Houdini, but the learning curve is pretty formidable.
  6. Leaving C4D-Land.

    To beat a dead horse: Finding the most powerful program by an internet search can lead you to huge waste of time and money. I know, because I've been there. I came to C4D from Softimage, and abandoned that excellent program due to lack of OSX option and its abandonment as it changed ownership. I miss it. C4D is powerful for a generalist. It may have limitations for very complex scenes, advanced mograph, the most sophisticated character animation, etc. but it performs a great job with stability and speed for the vast majority of users. Maya, for instance, may be more powerful for movie houses, but they have a team of MEL programmers. Modo used to be a good modeler, marginally better than C4D - since it had things like falloff, but it was not stable. It has become more stable but also less intuitive to me, and it lags far behind C4D for CA. At one time, its renderer was better than C4D, but I am not sure that is true anymore with physical renderer and the variety of third party renderers. I love Houdini. It makes lots of sense and is wonderful for special effects. But do you really think it is a good a powerful program for organic modeling? Have you watched the videos for creating a human figure? Mantra may be a great renderer for special effects, but it is not ideal for architectural rendering. I haven't found any program that can replace C4D for speed in the projects I've had. That makes it pretty powerful to me.
  7. Leaving C4D-Land.

    C4D has advantages of stability, intuitiveness, ease of creating models, simplicity (of things like mograph), NPR rendering, fur/hair, etc. For things like modeling a human, I would use this (or Modo or Maya or 3Ds Max) any day over Houdini, as Houdini is going to save every edit as a node. Where Houdini excels are things like particles, fire, fluids, etc. Its parametric paradigm means that one can substitute complex models for simple objects after the fact. One can do a bit of this with cloners in C4D, changing spheres to teacups etc., but unlike C4D the substitution is much more flexible and not limited to some subset of the program. For example, one can create tentacles of an octopus with something like a sweep nurb, but in Houdini, one can then select certain polygons and create bevels like the suction cup parts. The original curves are still there, so they can be animated, yet the sweep is much more complicated than C4D allows without converting to a polygon object. In addition, points can have an infinite number of attributes, not just position in space over time. One can create an attribute that is based on some function over time (like sin(time)) or add an attribute of some randomness between 0 and 1. These additional attributes can be used to drive models, particles, etc. Unlike C4D, you seldom paint yourself into a box. For instance, (excluding the bevel effector in C4D), if one creates a complicated bevel and wants to reduce the number of polygons, it just requires a click in Houdini. One has to do a lot of remodeling in C4D. The rendering system (Mantra) in Houdini also allows much more complicated shaders. However, all this comes at an expense of complexity. For instance, creating a spring (sweep nurb of circle along a helix) is a couple of clicks in C4D but requires several not completely intuitive nodes in Houdini.
  8. Leaving C4D-Land.

    Cinema 4D has worked very well for me, but since I do not earn income from 3D, the price of maintenance is pretty high. I thought about jumping ship for Modo and I own a copy of that, but its lack of history state and parametric features (beyond very elementary) made it not workable for my needs. Houdini however is cheaper and more powerful, at the expense of some ease of use and stability. On a 2017 iMac, C4D is definitely more stable, but I haven't lost any scenes in Houdini from the occasional crash. Houdini allows one to directly manipulate attributes much better than C4D. For simple animations, I do not find it any harder than C4D. Some things are simpler. For example, if one starts with a sweep nurb in C4D to build a tree, roots, or blood vessels; and then wants to create branches, one has to change the nurb to an editable polygon object. There is no such limitation in Houdini, so this is actually simpler. The issue with Houdini is that everything always is procedural, and this can create a lot of nodes that one doesn't really need. One can collapse these down, but for fast modeling, it is not as easy as C4D. If one is not doing mograph type work, I'm not sure there is much advantage in Houdini other than cost (for Indie). The material system is more powerful, but definitely more complicated.
  9. Houdini integration

    I see that it kind of works if one saves the houdini objects as an asset rather than trying to use a scene file as an asset. I still lose some materials and any ability to edit the asset in C4D.
  10. Houdini integration

    I have C4D R19 Studio and Houdini Indie. I have downloaded the version of Houdini that supposedly corresponds to the C4D pipeline (which is not the most recent version). When I try to import any houdini asset (hiplc), I get the error message that it is not a valid asset. There is not workable integration with Houdini that I can find.
  11. Moi3D does a bit better converting Rhino solids to polygons than Rhino itself.
  12. What's next for the CD Plugins?

    His death is very sad. I appreciated not only his plugins but responsiveness when issues happened. He did make it easy to convert joints and skins from his plugins to the generic c4d versions through a menu click on the cd joints and skin plugin. Constraints are easy to recreate if you change aim constraint from +Z to -Z.
  13. Sketch and Toon

    It should show up in regular renderer, but not in physical render system.
  14. change navigation to modo method

    Unfortunately, Cursor mode is not the same. Maybe C4D behaves differently in Windows than on a Mac. As mentioned above, the closest is "Cursor" and "trackball rotation" but Modo's system is still easier for rotation. For zoom and positioning, they are equavalent, but use different keystrokes.
  15. I have worked with modo and C4D for several years. I much prefer C4D for stability, parametrics, splines, mograph, etc. However, I find modeling in Modo easier, in part from the method it uses for navigation. I have played with various navigation permutations and combinations in C4D and cannot get it to match the mouse navigation in Modo. In Modo, for instance, it is easy to take a cube that has been rotated and, using the alt key, to rotate around the cube so that the grid is rotated and the object looks unrotated to the camera. I can't get this to happen in C4D. If one switches to camera rotation, the object rotates around the camera, rather than the camera around the object. Does anyone who use both programs know the settings to get C4D to match modo for rotation of the camera around an object? The closest I can get is trackball rotation selected and "cursor", but that still does not rotate the same as in Modo.

×