MikeA

PS: Should have said - using Cineware is, IMHO, a complete and utter waste of time. Render passes out of Cinema. Import your rendering into AE to do your post render work. Save your sanity.

In AE you have your AO and Shadow layers set to Multiply blending mode - but you have no base image underneath them to multiply onto. Simply put a base layer at the bottom of your layer stack - a solid, image or movie.

I really wish MAXON would fix this. It's embarrassing. Extrude, lathe, loft, sweep... they were the basic, and core, tools every fledgling 3D software started off with in the 90's... 20+ years later and C4D's sweep still can't handle this most basic of situations...

An interesting question - and quite a difficult one to answer I think. Every renderer has its strengths and weakness - so whats best for you will very much depend on what you want to output. I think C4D physical is often underrated. Yes, it's slow, but it is fully integrated of course, is artist friendly to use and has a good range of features for a typical user. ProRender is still a work in progress and also very slow. Something like Redshift is more focused on 'production rendering' - generating final animation frames quickly and reliably. But, it can be more techy to set up some materials, is less artist friendly in many respects, and is much more dependent on bitmap textures, having almost no procedurally based textures. It also needs Nvidia based graphics hardware. It shines on animation rendering of large high polygon count scenes (in the millions). That's were its rendering speed really makes a difference. Each of the major C4D rendering options have different pros and cons. You've really got to do a bit of digging to uncover those strengths and weaknesses. Greyscale Gorilla did a comparison article a few years ago: https://greyscalegorilla.com/2017/08/what-renderer-should-i-use-in-cinema-4d/ It's now notably out of date, but it might still give you an overview of the main pros and cons of each. I think you got to ask yourself what are the problems you're having with your current renderer? Then find one that fixes those shortcomings - while not adding others itself! If you've not got any significant issues with the renderer you're currently using - stick with it and aim to develop your skills and output using it. It's very tempting to think a new renderer will make your work better. In the vast majority of cases it won't.

I think bentraje may have been referring to the integration of Redshift and the C4D nodal material system in R21. If so, my understanding, from comments I've read, is that this will still happen for R21. I believe Redshift are waiting on MAXON for some additional features in the API before they can finalise and release the integration. I'm just hoping it will be a point update for all R21 users - both perpetual and subscription...

Of course - animate the fractal noise offset. Add any distortion effect underneath it in the effects stack, eg:mesh warp.

from 45 to 50... I'd definitely be doing that in AE. Some stretched Fractal noise with animated evolution. Add colorama for the tinting. Add Bezier warp to distort the whole thing. A couple of layers and some simple masks and you should be done on the main part. Add in your favourite particle system for the spheres.

Thanks for adding your voice - I know I've requested it in the past - probably multiple times! : )

It's not that it can't be done - a quick bit of maths can calculate the scale settings... I've been doing it for years. It is just that it's such a basic feature to be missing: lock the axes in proportion, set one to a specific physical size. It should be one check-box (or similar) to lock in proportion and one value - job done.

PLEASE open a support ticket to request a feature on this: https://support.MAXON.net/index.php The suggestion form seems to have disappeared... This lack of this very basic feature has been driving me mad for years... C4D has this great CAD importer... but it can't scale an object proportionally to a very specific size without clunky workarounds. where's my valium....

That's a blast from the past - I remember buying and using a few Espona models myself a long time ago. At the time the aircraft models were some of the best you could buy. I'd have to disagree with Hrvoje on this - just because a company closes does not mean it's assets become public domain. It's more than likely those models (company assets) would have been sold before Espona ceased trading - so they are very likely still under copyright, just with a new owner. ZChristian's suggestion of Digimation looks likely - I think I can see an ex Espona model in that video review that I once used! It may still be in my model collection somewhere!

On the contrary - I think most pro users really appreciate these small but significant improvements. Maybe MAXON should promote them more. Were they on the 'what's new in R21 list' ?

OK guys - persuade me... What's the big advantage over a decent screen and a tablet and stylus? I really don't get it...

Thanks Srek, I'm sure we all appreciate your willingness to respond to the conversation here.

Srek: "The scope of Cinema 4D users is enormous, our customers are working in such a wide variety of fields that i sometimes despair to find things that will help even most, if not all." I can certainly understand the issues here. I work in fairly 'niche' areas of 3D myself, so often the areas I'd like to see improved are often of little interest to others. But having said that, I'm surprised to hear you say: "i sometimes despair to find things that will help even most, if not all." to me there seem to be many areas requiring improvement that would benefit the vast majority of your users: UV mapping improvements, handing speed of large numbers of objects... etc.