Jump to content

3D-Pangel

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. I would be interested....but it would be dependent on what the base model is going to be if only because certain scenes are more interesting/motivating for me to work on than others (it all comes down to mood). If this is for a class, then would overall render time and hardware used be part of the judging criteria? For example, you can achieve some impressive results simply by enabling global illumination and using emissive surfaces....but the renders times become huge (unless you use a render farm....thus the need to also specify the hardware platform). Trying to duplicate that lighting without GI and with straight lighting to reduce render times can be done but requires a massive amount of tweaking -- and talent. Consider the following to make my point: as they are similar experiences to what this challenge is going to represent: As lighting exercises, I purchased DAZ models by my favorite artist Steffen Morrill (Stonemason). The models were importing into C4D and required some texturing work and had NO lights whatsoever. The first was done with straight lighting (around 200 to be exact) that I added and rendered in 5 minutes (No GI was used): The second was originally attempted using the same technique but I just couldn't get the look I wanted (in particular the yellow light cast by the neon marquee on the right) using conventional lighting. After about 25 iterations, I finally switched to GI using that marquee as an emissive light source and it all worked. Easy to set-up and required very little skill but produced great results....and it took 50 minutes to render: So my point is this: Great lighting can be achieved with GI, HDRI, etc. but you sacrifice ease for render time. If the scene is going to be standardized, then you need to factor in render time into the judging because to duplicate the same results using conventional lighting takes a tremendous amount of skill. Dave
  9. Yes....the sky and cloud generation capabilities are impressive in Terragen….but then again, they always have been. It is what put Terragen on the map just like trees and ecosystems put Vue on the map. Long ago, I used the free version of Terragen and a 6 orthogonal camera set-up along with a free package called "Projection" to create custom spherical maps based on Terragen's sky/cloud capability. As for that capability from MAXON via an update to their sky/cloud tools, not so sure. I think MAXON purchased that capability from a generic developer for use in architectural visualization programs...as such, not that photo real (or at least not without a huge amount of effort). There are some white papers out their on spectral atmosphere generation and there was even a C4D plugin that could create that same lighting effect in C4D (eg. golden sunsets, etc) but it did not integrate those light effects on clouds with god-rays, etc that you find in Terragen and Vue. So the math/science on how to do it is out there. Maybe it is on MAXON's development timeline but I would probably not bet on it. If 3D Quakers does not pursue it, then our next best hope is some 3rd party rendering solution. I think (if memory serves) Octane has a pretty good solution for spectral atmospheric lighting....not sure. Dave
  10. Yes, it is. You need to see examples at their Facebook page found here. Scroll down a bit as a new RDT collection on forest textures (showcased via an awesome animation made with Forester) is at the top of the page. I used to use Vue xStream and as much as I loved that program, using it within C4D was always painful. Viewport performance was painful and rendering was even worse when used within C4D. Vue by itself was okay, but importing/exporting geometry between C4D and Vue to get around the poor integration found in xStream was just pitiful. But what really killed my support was that e-on lost their way a bit with their acquisition by Bentley and their whole site got hacked so overall support and development pretty much got sidelined between 2016 and 2018. In that period, Terragen won the market from them. But as for me, I decided to leave Vue xStream which is what happens when you get nothing for your maintenance subscription --- something which we take for granted from MAXON...every year, you get an upgrade. Forester partially filled that void left by Vue with tree creation and plant population and Rock Engine further fills that void with landscape generation. Using Forester within C4D is super easy. Overall, the program is well integrated. I would hope the same is true with Rock Engine. One thing which Vue did do rather spectacularly is their spectral atmospheres...move the sun and the sky/cloud lighting changes appropriately. A good HDRI map can fill that void, but should 3D Quakers have a custom sky/cloud generation plugin also on their development map, then I would say they would offer a pretty good competitive solution in the landscape content creation market. Dave
  11. I like both techniques and wonder why they couldn't be combined. While the Lester Banks video was easy to follow (as well as just brilliant) the first one minute tutorial required you to be super quick with the pause button to unpack all the steps. To help, here is what I as able to discern from multiple views in the first video: Tree Deformation (first video): 1) Set up a spline that matches the main trunk and subdivide it appropriately. 2) Set up a hair object converted from that spline 3) Link that hair object to some planar object (a disk in this video) placed at the base of the tree. 4) Set the hair object to generate squares --- I would imagine that this step somehow allows the geometry of the tree to be linked to the hair object performed in steps 6 and 7. Not sure. 5) Select the hair object and go to the simulate tab in the C4D main menu and select "Set roots". Now because the planar object was linked to the hair object in Step 3, that planar object now becomes the "root" of the hair object. Again, not sure. 6) Bring in a mesh deformer and make it a child of the parent tree object. 7) Drag the hair object into the object window of the mesh deformer. Set the external mode to "surface" and press initialize. 8) Go to the hair object's Dynamic's tab and set Rest Hold to 50% 9) You now have the tree model to be impacted by hair dynamics. Grab the planar object created in Step 3 and the tree will react appropriately. Add wind and the tree bends (but the leaves do not move -- for this go to the second tutorial. At this point, you can do some pretty neat things with the tree that even plugins like Forester cannot do. While Forester can simulate wind blowing the leaves and branches around, physically moving the tree around has no dynamic impact on the tree. This technique allows you to simulate a tree being cut or knocked down. Or something big (like a truck) crashing into the tree. For those who are truly gifted with X-particles (which means "not me"), imagine using the multi-physics capabilities of X-Particles to impact the tree dynamics. Could particle Advection be used to the drive the base hair spline on those trees? Couple that with the X-Particles grain solver and could it be possible to have an avalanche tear through a forest pretty realistically? Or have the leaves on the tree generate static particles which are then advected by the fluid simulation of an explosion while the tree reacts dynamically. The effect I am thinking of would match those 1950 videos of nuclear bomb shock wave ripping through a winter forest in slow motion (as seen here at 18 seconds in) I feel that this can be done because X-particles is so well integrated with C4D --- but not sure. I would hope Mario Tran Phuc reads this thread and is challenged by the concept. If anyone could do it, it would be him. That guy never ceases to inspire. I also hope that full dynamic capability is added in Forester 2, but they are too busy with Rock Engine - a pretty cool landscape generator for C4D - so don't hold your breath. Dave
  12. So does that impression change with R20? I know you can't determine that for anyone but yourself -- but what do you think? For me, OpenVDB is challenging my perception of traditional modeling (hey, it's still all quads right?). Nodes has power but deep to get into. Fields blows my mind. Couple fields with XP-2019 and it is a bit staggering what you can accomplish. So again (IMHO), R20 almost makes it worth the wait....and it was a long wait. Now had they thrown in a better symmetry tool...well then.... Dave
  13. It just occurred to me that maybe MAXON is using Safeharbor to test out an upgrade policy similar to what Modo has: all upgrades at the same price.....hmmmm…..
  14. I saw this and felt I had to pass it on: Safe Harbor Studios is offering upgrades to R20 Studio at $1695 from any release from R16 to R19 and from any version from Prime to Visualize. Find out more here: Obviously, this deal is a no brainer for anyone who has R16 Prime and who considered R20 Studio out of reach at $3600+. Not such a great deal for people who missed out on renewing their R19 Studio MSA, but then Safe Harbor added this sweetener for pretty much everyone: Note that you not only get R20 but the next release as well (presumably R21 --- I mean, they wouldn't pull a fast one and give you a maintenance release...would they? Hmmm....best to check into it if interested). Unfortunately, only for US and Canada ---- and here I was hoping 3D-Kiwi would find a cheap path back into C4D!!! Dave
  15. Congratulations on all the new events in your life. Question: Didn't you also do a tutorial on the new reflectance shader in C4D? Did you pull that because of nodes? Do the 80% discounts only apply to your tutorials, that is does it apply to Tim Clapham's as well? Just wondering why the discount codes do not seem to work on some of the tutorials as indicated in the previous post. Thanks, Dave
  16. How about a tutorial....make it in 2 parts...first and last name. Advanced course in your middle name (if you have one). I would love to hear your daughter pronouncing your full name too in the tutorial as an exercise class: "Follow along with Hrvoje's daughter". She would most definitely make us all look like idiots....but based on how this thread has shifted so drastically from its intended purpose....that wouldn't be too hard. Dave P.S. So nice to be praising C4D after a major release, seeing it win major awards, and have a few good laughs over it all.
  17. So C4D wins an Oscar, enters into the rarified territory of widespread industry recognition once reserved for heavyweights like Maya and Houdini, and the biggest take-away we have is we now know how to pronounce Hrvoje's name? Really? Granted....it was a plus on many levels to hear his name in the acceptance speech. I too have always struggled with pronouncing and spelling his full name since his Vertex-Pusher days...which prompted this old idea for a T-Shirt Glad to know we got the first name defined now. So.....what does MAXON have to win in order for us to know how to pronounce his last name? The Nobel Peace Prize? Dave
  18. Well...there it is....the dope slap to the back of the head as predicted. The real learning is in committing goof-ups like that. Another one (which I figured out) was that the Invert Color node was not quite generating the black-white contrast that I wanted even though all the generator nodes were looking to ONLY be black and white. Well....turns out they were not. They were 90% white rather than 100%. That makes a difference when you invert them (turns out that 90% black is more noticeable as not being totally black than 90% white is as not being totally white). Nothing like a good mistake to forever program your brain on what to avoid, never to forget, or what to check first. Is the pattern node bug causing this problem: Look a the viewport image (now that the solo button is turned off) Now look at the image once rendered: What happened to the outer circle? -Dave
  19. Very classy speech! Did he give a shout-out to Hrvoje? He also mentioned “Bjorn”. Could that be Srek? Now that is cool! Great day for MAXON users and creators everywhere! Dave
  20. I have followed the Café tutorial Hazard Symbol and get the same results until the final step. For the life of me, I have no idea what I am doing wrong. The attached image should help explain what I am encountering: Note that the problem is with the Pattern generator....while creating only 1 circle, the circle (while centered on the previews) appears 50% off in the U and V axis in the final material preview. I have no idea why. Plus when you render it...it is the only thing that appears. Again, another mystery. I had to place it on a sphere just to see if anything turned up as playing with the UV on the plane (the test object in the tutorial) was not telling me anything. I have gone through the tutorial twice....checked everything multiple times. Is there some basic setting that is off? I am pretty sure the answer will feel like a "dope slap" to the back of the head, but actually I am looking forward to a simple explanation as this one has me puzzled. The scene file is below: Hazard Disaster.c4d Thanks, Dave
  21. Okay....I have mixed emotions about this. I did make a pretty good sizable purchase of all the tutorials as I knew I needed R20 training. Then I got sent over-seas for an extended assignment in Malaysia and never got to watch them. So the advantage of "early" learning was not possible. But here is where I land on it all: I am very happy to help out the Café.....consider all the money I spent on the training my gold donation status for the year. But here is another HUGE advantage -- in addition to free Café Training from this point forward: Does anyone have exercise as part of their daily routine? I do. I go to the gym each morning around 5:00 AM and get in some time on the Lifecycles for about 40 minutes each day. The ones at my gym have TV's and they also have internet connections. I used to just zone out and watch the news, but found myself getting a bit irritated watching the news and who wants to be mad so early in the morning. Plus, my hotel TV in Malaysian has about 2 English speaking stations...so no go. So I go to YouTube now and watch C4D tutorials while cycling. Up until now, it was mostly X-Particles 4 and I would just marvel at how clearly and easily Bob Walmsley would walk us through some pretty complex advection tutorials. While in Malaysia, I used to think that it would be great to watch Hrvoje's tutorial while exercising. Well...now I can. Try it. Don't think that you can't learn unless you are following along within C4D while watching the tutorial. Just listen. Watch it more than once. Let it sink in. And if you happen to cycle 12 miles and burn 600 calories in the process --- all the better. Shower and then go home and try for it for yourself (showing is not required....but highly recommended). So thank you! Dave
  22. I would assume by soft body interactions that the particles are spheres or blobs of some sort and/or you going for a type of bubble look? If so, I do recall a YouTube video from Insydium as part of their XP4 2018 Sneak Peek where Bob Walmsley applied an xpCloth modifier to a sphere, added some xpTurbulence and other modifiers and got this very cool looking softbody type animation (without the overhead that true softbody dynamics can give you). He did it as a demo and was surprised at quality of the results. I can't remember which YouTube tutorial it was as it wasn't labeled as "how to make bubbles using cloth" but rather part of a feature overview. You could ask at the Insydium forums. I hope that helps. Dave
  23. I am not sure how many particles you are generating, but I am just wondering what you want to edit/keyframe outside of the native controls in X-Particles that makes you want to bake the particle animation? XP has some pretty good controls for insuring you are getting the desired particle motion. If you are only dealing with a small amount of particles, then maybe just use MoGraph. I can't imagine going through the keyframes on very high particle count animations that is possible with X-Particles (eg. many hundreds, thousands or even millions). Now, if you want to cache the particle animation for quicker feedback and to scrub the animation back and forth, then use the xpCache object under the Other Objects tab. You can either drag in the emitter or the generator depending on what you still want to be able to change after the file is cached.
  24. OMG.....Okay...you know I am a huge fan of Ragdolls 3. In fact, today was a bit rough and I thought I would go view Ragdolls 3 again to raise my spirits. And lo-and-behold, there is Ragdolls 4 ….. and it was funnier than Ragdolls 3 (….."oh my colon....oh my ankle"....that line killed me). I know I have been traveling a lot (122,000 miles in 2018....or over 8 days sitting in an airplane)….but how did I miss the release of Ragdolls 4!!! In any case, thank you...thank you...thank you. Just brilliant! Dave P.S. You should have a banner "25,458 Ragdolls injured...and counting" P.P.S The fluids in Ragdolls 4...was it X-Particles? I did not see it listed in the credits.
  25. Do you have Turbulence FD?
×
×
  • Create New...