Jump to content

3D-Pangel

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. Wow...that is impressive. I do agree, TFD is still a great package and I have no idea how Jawset makes money given all the free updates. A very generous developer if you ask me (he must do this a side job and for the praise of those who use TFD). A very crowded field indeed but I am still going with my rank ordering for the reasons listed. I would like to learn more about FumeFX but so far, that intro video (while enticing) is not enough to sway me given that I have XP and TFD. In fact, I would imagine a large base of C4D users who do fluid sim's have either or both of those packages so FumeFX will have its work cut out for them to attract new users. Now, there is a growing criticism against C4D for NOT having its own native fluid package given that all its major competitors at its price point have fluids and for the aging TP module. Not sure how that is going to be addressed, but I suspect it will at some point. Will it be in R21? Not sure. But if C4D does implement fluids at some point, I would suspect that it will also offer similar viewport performance to FumeFX given past criticisms against C4D's viewport performance that they have worked to improve. So will one of FumeFX's advantages (viewport performance) be replaced by C4D's own native fluid package at some point? No one really knows. .....but (as 3DKiwi often says): Fun times ahead! Dave
  2. FumeFX does look like an interesting product, but I would imagine the cost to be around $700 (the same as the Max price). That is less than the X-Particles/Cycle4D bundle price (around $900) but for $200 more you can do so much more than fire and smoke (fluids, grains, fracturing, cloth, dynamics, OpenVDB and a whole new render engine). Now, there are some good controls that I find interesting within FumeFX for controlling the simulation, like C4D's FFD and setting some conditions using effectors within FumeFX itself based on velocity, etc. But those controls pale to what can be done if you use particles to shape your smoke FX. I did not see anything in that video on whether or not FumeFX works with Thinking Particles in C4D. Art directing explosion and smoke effects with X-Particles question/answer structure is just plain powerful and now XP has also incorporated Fields into its particle group structure which just takes particle control to an entirely new level of control. Plus in XP, you can use fluid particle advection to power cloth and physics simulations as well or use it to drive the motion of your MoGraph objects. Plus, you can pass everything through the OpenVDB modifier to get some truly interesting results (like smoke turning into water bubbles as seen in the XP reel). Plus XP has multi-physics capability in that a fluid simulation can drive a cloth simulation which in turn can drive a smoke simulation. That is an advantage over TFD, FumeFX and even RealFlow. Realflow for C4D has multi-physics but only within its own fluid/smoke simulations (true multi-physics capability exists within the Stand Alone version of Realflow, but that would be an unfair comparison as we are discussing C4D plugins). To the best of my knowledge, RealFlow for C4D and FumeFX has no capability to work with other non-fluid dynamic simulations but as XP now has cloth and rigid/soft body dynamics incorporated into its software, those boundaries are blown away. So again, the advantage goes to XP. Now TFD's advantage over FumeFX is that it is GPU accelerated and it works with X-Particles. That was an important capability for TFD before X-Particles incorporated ExplosiaFX. So that just leaves TFD with the unique advantage of GPU acceleration. Given that TFD also works with X-Particles still makes it a smarter choice than FumeFX at this point. But as you can infer, I am leaning towards XP as the best overall solution. So if I had to rate all the fluid packages out there today for C4D, it would be: X-Particles (it just has everything...and I do mean everything) TFD (GPU accelerated makes it unique and it works with XP....sooo…..) Real Flow (great engineering grade software, but too slow). FumeFX (Last place based on the information from the video. Hopefully we learn more in the future that will give it a unique advantage over its competitors). So FumeFX has some tough competition within C4D. The only potential advantage to FumeFX would be the ability to handle massive fluid simulations with less effort than XP. There is nothing to point to that being the case, but I would be interested in hearing about that from others who use FumeFX today. GPU acceleration is important, so even TFD still has FumeFX beat. But compared to XP (both CPU based), XP is (for the reasons listed above), the better choice. Its power, control, ease-of-use and capabilities just can't be beat. Dave
  3. I can confirm that the offer does NOT apply to purchasing just an MSA alone. If you put that in your cart, there is no discount. But if you put a new license in your cart (for example Studio), then you do get this message: Either the wording of the offer was a little vague or my own hopes were projected improperly on how I read the pre-release notices...but either way, a bit disappointed as 30% off the MSA price would have been nice. Dave
  4. So I am little confused by this as it says that this offer is for upgrades, side-grades and new licenses but ONLY available with an MSA. People who are side-grading or purchasing an new license probably do not already have an MSA. Plus don't new licenses always get one year of service or do you have to purchase a new license and then an MSA as well? I don't think so. So apart from people upgrading, then how does this apply? Not sure what this means. Also, if I have R20 Studio with an MSA, then can I get 30% off the cost of a new MSA to be tacked onto the end of my current MSA? Now that is a deal (especially with the discount coupon on Redshift). Can anyone from MAXON (Hrvoje maybe) provide some clarity on this? Thanks, Dave
  5. Well, I think you want to slow the smoke down a bit based on how I interpret "punch" and view the gif. Believe it or not, to slow down the smoke, you need to LOWER the gravity setting. Kind of counter-intuitive but gravity is an overall controller for all the other settings (buoyancy, etc) that are underneath it. Play with that an see what you get. Dave
  6. Very nice....excellent detail. Why do I get the impression that Cerbera created that cave in about half the time it took me to read how he did it? ;-) I am sure that when Cerbera is in the zone, it is stream of conscious modeling where he just wills great art into existence. Sits down, plugs in some good tunes and "poof", three hours later he has created the Empire State Building with perfect quads and polygonal flow and wonders quietly where the time went? Dave
  7. DAZ has a pretty good export function with a C4D preset already. The export format is OBJ for which C4D has improved the import capabilities with each release. To use, here are some general steps in DAZ: Select Export in DAZ and chose OBJ On the OBJ export options, select the C4D preset Make sure that Invert Positive Direction under the X axis is checked. If you plan to render the model in C4D, then make sure that Disable Write Surfaces is NOT checked. Otherwise, you will not get your textures. On OBJ import into C4D, make sure that Flip Z Axis in NOT checked. Now, this is just for the models and textures. I do find that lights do not transfer as well but I always redo the lighting in C4D anyway. I also rework the textures and clean up some of the modeling so it not one-click easy as these directions imply - there is some work to do afterwards. As I do not do character animation, I cannot speak to how well those items can be imported or if they can be imported (Riptide Pro users will need to chime in here). So if you are waiting for a plugin or for the resurrection of Riptide Pro (whatever became of that plugin?), that does not mean there is no path from Daz to C4D....there is a path but you have to work on it a bit....but that is half the fun. Dave
  8. Hmmm.....then this meme may resonate with you: I am just surprised that they actually had meme's about C4D!! You may also find this YouTube presentation rather interesting: A rather frank and honest look at the capabilities of X-particles when dealing with some really large datasets (this guy's work is in 12K). Now, he is not knocking XP...But he is quite frank about the size of the files and the size of the computer you will need for large venue's. I did not listen to the whole thing, but it struck me as odd that he knocks Real Fluids (engineering grade software...but too slow) and never discusses Houdini. He makes it work with C4D and XP even though the caches get up to 500Gb.....you just need a 48 core computer with two RTX Quadro cards, Krakatoa and alembic output. Easy! Dave
  9. Hrvoje, I have been venturing into rigging and have been watching the Mastering Movement videos. There is one part of the third video (roughly 13:15 in) where you are talking about moving an individual joint without moving the other joints lower on the hierarchy as you adjust its position to the model. You mention that there is a key you need to press to make this adjustment and I am sorry, but I am just not able to discern what you are saying. Now when I make an adjustment in R20, I noticed the rest of the joints do NOT move when the expectation is that joints lower on the hierarchy would move. So now I am confused. The help manual was not that helpful. Adjusting joint with or without impacting the hierarchy is a rather important adjustment to be able to do when aligning joints to the model. So how do you do this in R20? Thanks, Dave
  10. How much information are you caching for each particle? For example, do you need to cache particle rotation for the foam? Do you need to cache velocity? I would imagine all you need is position for foam, so how big does the cache file get if you ignore everything else? Dave
  11. May I direct you to the venerable Mr. Walmsley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqfi4ZNJ8Y4 ExplosiaFX support starts at 24:45 but the whole video is worth watching. Definitely contact Insydium about getting the bundle deal retroactively. Argue for either a refund or have them throw in the Cycles 4D starter back for free (which is about the same difference). When it was first released, it was rubbish which I think is a stigma that may be out there for people who have yet to give it a second look. But Insydium was quick to fix those issues and overall, I find its results are pretty good. The main developer was sick for the past year (which is very unfortunate) so progress was a bit slow in that time but he is back now (and I hope doing well) because this latest release has some really good features. I am not sure how the feature list of Cycles 4D compares to Redshift or Octane, or even how it compares to Cycles for Blender. But from watching some tutorials, I would say it would fare well in a comparison. My only concern now is this: How many nodal material systems can you learn without getting completely confused? There is C4D, Cycles and in the future Redshift. Will I be lost trying to remember which nodes belong to which renderer? Hopefully, the command manager helps me keep everything straight. Dave
  12. Run - do not walk - to Bob Walmsley's tutorials at the Insydium Youtube page. He will have you caching particle advection to influence a grain solver which is then passed through an OpenVDB modifier and Cycles4D to render glass bubbles knocking down a brick so quickly, clearly and simply it will make your head spin. I don't know which is more impressive: his teaching ability or the power and ease of use of X-Particles!!! I would probably say both. Question: Did you get Cycles 4D with X-Particles? Given the sale, it would only be another $86.50 USD and the latest release of Cycles 4D has some really nice enhancements for handling ExplosiaFX simulations from Insydium….they made it very simple. Dave
  13. Wow. Loved it. There is a psuedo making of video found here which shows him teaching the robots in his workshop. Now, when looking at the full video, I tend to think that it is not all CGI robots (maybe only at the end when they are shooting lasers and destroying the place). Actually, it is more impressive if it wasn't because programming robots is not easy especially if you want them to be performing to a beat. One of my first jobs was introducing robotics into electronic assembly --- it isn't easy. Now, there is nothing that says the robots are actually performing the music - rather they are programmed to make certain movements in time and rhythm to the musical beats which may explain why the musicians among you are seeing performance inaccuracies. But that does not mean they are CGI. I believe that those are real robots strumming those guitars, beating the drums, etc...but I think they are just faking it rather than making music. Robotic "Milli Vanilli" if you will (the old timers out will get the reference. For everyone else, go here to learn more). Dave ...and for those who just love different type of music (like myself), then you have to see this (oh...and its all real by the same artist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oItpVa9fs
  14. Some music to help you pass time while rendering: Appropriately named too! May I also suggest this site: www.extrememusic.com Great site for production music where music is classified by mood, tempo, and style. In the mood for something to zone out to? Just type in "chill" to the search bar and up will come hundreds of tracks that will all stream to you one after the other WITHOUT ADS!!! Dave
  15. Oh that's depressing. Please say it ain't so. I really don't want to pay monthly for using C4D nor do I want to pay an inflated monthly fee for access to an Adobe suite of products if all I want to do is use C4D. As a hobbyist, I only have enough time to learn (and therefore use) C4D....all the other stuff would be wasted on me. What a buzz kill to my Redshift excitement. Dave
  16. I finally made it to the MAXON page and I am not quite sure what to make of this statement: Will Redshift be integrated into Cinema 4D? Redshift is a separate product which already offers outstanding support for Cinema 4D. MAXON and Redshift will be working closely together to make that integration even better than it is today. So while they say that MAXON and Redshift will be working together to make integration better, that does NOT necessarily mean that Redshift will be integrated INTO C4D. It could still be a separate plugin with better integration but that you still have to purchase it because they do say it is "a separate" product. They never directly answered the question "Will Redshift be integrated into C4D". Thoughts anyone? Dave
  17. We need to resurrect that old thread of the Redshift, Octane, Cycles 4D comparisons. I think it came out well over a year ago (not sure). I tried to find it without much success (but then again, I did not look very hard as I am at work. A search of Octane and Redshift yielded too many pages). Not sure if it is still relevant, but I do remember that it was very well done and that Redshift seemed to be the better choice, but it did have some downside --- which is to be expected in any fair side-by-side comparisons. I think it was around usability, but not sure. It would be good to review that thread again. From reviewing the Redshift site, I would say that it does have some exciting possibilities...so I am just gob-smacked with anticipation and high praise for the MAXON folks. They ain't ya fathers DCC software company any more!!! Dave
  18. Way to go MAXON! This is huge. Given that there is already a Redshift plugin, I wonder how this acquisition will affect R21? I can't imagine any deeper integration before September so it could be that the R21 install has the Redshift plugin --- more than likely for Studio owners only. I can't get to the MAXON site to learn any more (it must have crashed due to traffic) as this is pretty significant. If you go to the Redshift site, there are a number of plugins and DCC software (Max, Maya, Houdini) that have been integrated into Redshift. To understand their fate, do we look to Arnold? Need to see how Max integrated Arnold to get sense of what happens next. So many questions....so many possibilities. Wow. MAXON is certainly making an even BIGGER name for themselves with this move. As our favorite Kiwi would say: "Fun times ahead"...and they will be fun. Dave
  19. NOTE: This sale is really an... ALL INSYDIUM 50% OFF SALE So it is not just X-Particles as inferred in the subject line but Cycles 4D, Cycles/X-Particle bundle and (the most exciting part)….. 50% OFF MAINTENANCE Plus you can purchase up to 3 years of maintenance at this price if you so desire. Honestly, at the rate they keep improving X-particles (their latest update continues to impress), I do wonder what's left to release in the future? Sure, you can make it faster or handle monstrous particle sets, but those are probably limitations of C4D and not 100% in their control. Relative to what is in their control, like additional features, I am left to wonder what else is on their development timeline. My brain hurts trying to think of some particle control or modifier that they don't already have and on top of that add fluids, grains, volume breaking, particle dynamics, object dynamics, etc...etc...etc. ;-) Now, this is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but even Next Limit is having trouble keeping up with X-Particles relative to their C4D plugin. I looked at the feature list relative to the cost and I did not see any breakthrough features that would make me want to run out an buy V3. I have always been an Insydium enthusiast. I just hope I remember on Monday to renew my maintenance! Dave
  20. Really impressive and I hope it leads to more dream jobs (or maybe it has but you can't tell us just yet). What would be cool is to have three side-by-side images: Wireframe, Final Render, Final sword as used in the show (if possible). In short, it would be interesting to see if the prop department could add as much detail to the physical sword as you did with the render (possibly a 21st century version of man vs. machine) or how they were inspired by your work -Dave
  21. I am okay with violence, provided the violence serves the story and is not just mayhem for mayhem's sake. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Game of Thrones (including right now to get ready for the final season) even though that show has some violence that puts Love, Death and Robots to shame. But I enjoy every episode because I am emotionally invested in the characters...and that is the difference. Does the violence serve the story....does it help make the villain more evil or the hero/heroin more heroic? As long as I am rooting for the character(s), then the violence does not bother me as much. As long as it makes the danger more real or give you a taste of what things are really like (as in the opening battle in "Saving Private Ryan"), then it is necessary. I just felt that some of the violence in LD&R could have been dialed back a bit and not taken anything away from the story points...and that is the test point on why I felt it was unnecessary and gratuitous. Again....just because you can render it doesn't mean you should. Dave
  22. I also thought the entire series was pretty amazing visually. Relative to Sonnie's Edge, while visually striking (the beasts were amazing), the violence at the end actually made me a bit queasy. Watching her head get crushed and eyeballs pop out was bad enough...but then having the guy stick his cane into her crushed flesh and pull up a loose flap left me wanting to tell Blur Studios (whom I highly respect) and Dave Wilson (the director) that just because you can render and animate something doesn't necessarily mean you should. Same sentiments can apply to "The Secret War" -- sorry dead bodies of children with the backs ripped open or lying blood covered against the cabin really added nothing to the story. There was enough dismembered body parts lying around to convey the plot point that these critters were nasty. Also watching a soldier with his head half ripped off fall in slow motion was another queasy moment for me as well. You could trim some of those scenes and nothing would be taken away from the excitement of the story which was very good. Just because they are digital characters does not make it okay to push the gore to new heights -- especially now when the characters are becoming so real. That is my only criticism to what was otherwise an outstanding anthology that definitely bears repeat watching (except the first and last episodes -- my stomach can only take soo much). Dave P.S. For those who may disagree, then consider the following before you reply: If people love watching gore in movies and games, then have we evolved much since the days of the Roman Empire when gladiators used to kill each other in Colosseum as public entertainment? Just a thought in case anyone thinks that we are an advanced society that has evolved to a new age of enlightenment.
  23. Yes. The best part of the e-on software tools was Carbon Scatter and that is the one tool they are not continuing. The mis-steps made by that company show how easy it is to lose your dominant position in a marketplace. Don't some 3rd party renderers also offer some pretty good instancing capability as well? I know Cycles has the ability to scatter and rotate instances and Octane has that capability as well as scale randomization. Also, Forestor has a some good scattering control capability built into their tree plugin. But Carbon Scatter was just the bomb. You could feed it anything and control it pretty well. Never played with Surface Spread...I will have to give it a look. Dave
  24. Another option is Cycles 4D with either X-Particles or C4D's native particles. I suggest Cycles 4D as they just implemented a rather improved motion blur capability that works extremely well with particles. Check it out here in the video at the 23:09 mark. A rather grainy screen shot to hint at what I am talking about is below (the viewport render had not finished yet): ...and for anyone who is keeping an eye on X-particles, their next feature is the ability to have 3D objects to be dynamically impacted by particle physics (essentially, every point point in the mesh is mapped to a particle under the same control as the dynamic particle solvers). So why is this cool? Well, you can now have the fluid simulations that actually drive the physics of the objects they interact with: a wave pushes a boat....water hitting a cloth.....wind blowing ropes with accurate collisions. It is also a much faster way to get soft body dynamics than what you can get from C4D's native dynamic solvers. Learn more here
  25. Hmnmm...actually I have been rather interested in Octane lately. But I guess my point is this: How much of the skill in lighting is artist driven and how much of it is tool/render software driven? What is that ratio now and where do you think it will be in the future? Can you even have a meaningful contest on lighting given what the various render engines can provide these days? I swear that as technology grows, pretty soon the only choices being made will be where to place the key light because after that the software takes over and you will get GI results with infinite light bounces, random walk SSS, spectral scattering and absorption, soft shadows, etc. all automatically calculated in 5 seconds because you selected the "Make it real, make it beautiful and make it fast" options in the render settings. Dave
×
×
  • Create New...