Jump to content

3D-Pangel

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    1,696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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…..
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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

Latest Topics

Latest Comments

×
×
  • Create New...