Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. Thank you....if it is selection tag based, then I would imagine that it won't work with primitives. No biggee, just wondering. I would love to see a video on how fields can be used in a polygonal modeling workflow.....not that you probably don't already have a "few" requests for tutorials. But this could help change the perception that "modeling" improvements were not fully addressed in this release. Dave
  2. I have been watching a few of the fields videos. After one example, there was a post that said that they would work with OpenVDB meshes. If true, then would they also work with standard meshes (that is, take action on the individual polygons in that mesh)? Will they work with primitives such that you now have a completely non-destructive workflow? Just wondering if fields will give you more control and options than with the current set of deformation brushes in C4D. Dave
  3. Thanks for the clarification as I just assumed it was just breathing hard
  4. Pull out the 2009 Star Trek reboot and watch the opening scene where there is this amazing close up of the hull of the Kelvin spaceship. Just look at the multiple levels of metal reflections off of the hull. Just gorgeous. Please try to duplicate that! You can find it here: Also check out the work done on the Enterprise's hull at 1:02 mark. Dave I met Roger Guyette (Star Trek ILM VFX supervisor) before he worked on Star Trek. We talked about the work he did on Mission Impossible 3 and the lighting of the Hong Kong that he had to recreate in the scene where Tom Cruise jumps off a building. He has a tremendous eye for lighting and texturing in all his work.
  5. Any tutorials on material nodes? Now, using a node is pretty straight forward, What I want to understand is a deeper understanding of how to break down a desired effect into a design approach with the nodal system. A lot of times, the tutorials go as follows: Connect A to B to C,D, and E and then back to D with a side connect to G and back to F and viola you have aged copper with rusty edges. Okay.....so how do you know to start with A? How did you even know that nodes B to G were required? That is the type of training I am looking for - how to build that logic and a few design approaches. Thanks, Dave
  6. Unfortunately, when I load the OpenCL drivers that ProRender recommends on my Xeon/Quadro P4000 machine, C4D becomes unstable. I issued a crash report and the tech response on what to do, while complete and thorough, was rather involved and not implemented for the simple reason that ProRender is so slow. It just wasn't worth implementing a work around that may (or may not) compromise other features of the program. Better to uninstall the drivers and leave ProRender unused. Dave
  7. Much appreciated. As for me, my commitment to C4D remains just because the program is so much fun to use, stable and works as intended. But I think MAXON is missing an opportunity with their non-mogrpah customers if they remain silent. I know as a MAXON employee you see the entire plan of getting from point A to point B with the new core, but we can only see Point A with each release and (to use a graphical analogy) you can draw a lot of lines though a single point. Therefore, if MAXON opens up a bit on the future of the program it will help us draw a line in the right direction. In short, you have to give us a reason to continue to be patient as you fully roll out the new core because in our minds, we were thinking that rolling out the new core was only a 3 year journey that started in with R17 and end with R20. Obviously that is not the case as you just said that more time is needed to make fallow ground fertile. I just think it is in everyone's best interests if MAXON starts to give us indications of what you are planting! Dave
  8. Okay....while I am still trying to absorb exactly what R20 means to me, a quick overview of this thread shows that response shows more disappointment than excitement. Maybe we set our expectations too high with R20. It is clear that MAXON has signaled a focus on motion graphics with this release...which is fine as that is the jewel in the crown for C4D. But I think we need some response from MAXON on exactly what the future holds for those features of the program that continue to be ignored. Does MAXON still have a commitment to improving BP? To particles? To modeling? To Character animation? Where do these feature reside in MAXON's overall market strategy? What is their priority? Please be honest with us. If they are no longer part of your business model or a low priority than it is best to be upfront with that information now. That level of honesty will create more good will with you user base than to let us figure it out after years of inactivity and silence. Worse yet, is to lead us on that you are still working on it, but then not definitely address the missing features with each release. And while there are "performance" improvements with the new core, then please explain how those improvements are better than desired features in our overall workflow? I am not asking for release dates. I am not asking on a specific set of features planned for R21. I just want to know if there is a commitment within MAXON to address long standing user concerns on areas of the program that are not core to your key markets such as motion graphics. What are your priorities when it comes to BP, particles, character animation, modeling, etc. Dave
  9. Same here Dan. I also wish you a full and speedy recovery. Dave
  10. Another way I look at is that the time you have with an unsupported app (that is, no longer being upgraded), is as limited as your OS. So roughly about 7 years given Microsofts current support structure. Ultimately, your going to upgrade to a new PC with a new OS and graphics cards that no longer work with your old version of C4D. Nothing lasts forever so the though that you will always be able to use C4D even though you have moved to a new application is not entirely true. But by that time (7 years with the new app), you probably don't care. Nevertheless, no matter where you end up, you will eventually be walking away from everything you have invested in that program. Dave
  11. WARNING: Long winded post. Do not read on your cell phone while driving --- this means you Hrvoje! Honestly....while no one likes to be held hostage to pretty much anything, I have to ask if statements such as "this will be my last update unless the next release has XZY feature" are realistic. Now I am a hobbyist. My income is thankfully not tied to my skills with C4D (if it was, we would starve). But regardless of being a hobbyist or professional, DCC programs do require a bit of commitment. Other than Blender, they aren't cheap and do require a significant investment in money and time until you feel comfortable with it. So for those who have reached their breaking point, what do you thoughtfully consider when you think about switching programs? I've been with C4D for 10 years now, so here is what I take into account every time I consider if I should drop the program: How much time have I invested in learning the program. How much cash have I invested in program upgrades How much cash have I invested in plugins/libraries/shaders/models tailored to C4D? How much time would it take for me to convert my scene files to another platform? How successful would I be in converting those scenes? How much would need to be redone? How steep is the learning curve for that other program? Could I be as proficient using that other program as I am using C4D? Is the other program as logically laid out as C4D? Would I be fighting that programs interface and if so, for how long? Does the other program have plugins or features equivalent in function to the ones I have for C4D? Also, what is the core reason why I want to leave C4D? Have my skills outgrown its capabilities? Is there some feature that I must have for which there is no work-around other than purchasing a whole new application? Are they continuing to add meaningful features to the program with each release that I would be interested in? Can I afford the upgrade costs for that other program? How do they compare to C4D's? What is the future for the other program? Is its parent company stable and investing in the development of the program? ...and as a hobbyist, this question definitely applies: Is the other program as fun to use as C4D? Do things works as expected ALL THE TIME? Is the UI design pretty consistent so that the learning curve is shallow when I wish to try new things? I could easily go on....but the point is that time spent with any DCC program does create a bit of inertia against switching. These are not easy decisions and when you think about it, they should not be made emotionally There is a lot to consider. Maybe its different for people who make a living with the program as every issue has a greater impact, but remember that time spent learning that other application is time NOT spent making money (or with family, friends, etc). So I would imagine the considerations professionals make may slightly parallel the list above. Yes...I have seriously considered switching over the last 10 years -- more than once too! It has not been a blissful relationship every single year. There have been some great releases and some that do make me mad. But then I sit down, put aside the emotion, go through the list above and ultimately decide to stay. Even without know what is in R20 and with no expectation for what new features are in R20, I think I have made the right decision every time. Dave
  12. Srek, Welcome back....you have been missed. I know that defending the software in the face of some pretty unfair criticism at the Café is what led to your 3+ year hiatus, so I mark your return as yet another good sign of brighter days ahead. Dave
  13. So couple of things: If all 3 of them signed a common contract then that contract would still have provisions on the process for any of them to independently separate themselves from that contract. I can't imagine any of them would sign a contract that said "If one of you decide to separate yourself from this agreement, all 3 of you go!!!" Honestly, would you sign onto something like that? Probably not. Therefore, all 3 would still need to come to some agreement that now is the time to retire. Retiring is a big decision and everyone has different financial considerations as well as plans for the retirement years. Even if money or health care was not a factor, you still have to have to ask "Well, now what do I do to fill my day?". I am 57 and have been thinking quite hard about retirement particularly as my day job becomes more demanding and the kids are moving out of the house. These are not easy decisions to make as there are a huge number of things to consider. So again, for the 3 of them to make that decision to do it together is interesting. Again, I ask why? The reason for all 3 to go at the same time must be damn compelling. Dave
  14. Wow...very insightful comment and spot on. No worries about offering it as that is the type of criticism I am looking for. I want to keep the paneling as it does help sell the scale and adds visual interest more than what a simple texture would do. Flat straight walls just make it look small and uninteresting but the first rule of believable detail is that they look like they belong there as well. Your comments correctly point out that some of those panels do not look like they belong. Shame on me as I am an engineer and a design that looks like it would exist in the real world is what I look for in other models so I need to hold myself up to better standards as well. Dave
  15. Take a breath people. Honestly, you can't buy or sell a major division of any publicly held company "secretly". Too many financial arrangements need to be made at both companies for that to happen and it would all come out in their quarterly earnings reports or legal filings that would have needed to be made. So it can't be done in secret. A better question to ask is why did Uwe Bärtels, Harald Egel and Harald Schneider retire now -- right on the cusp of probably the most significant release in MAXON's history? Why not retire 6 months after it has been released? They certainly deserve to take a bow after navigating a complex piece of software through a massive core re-write and still keep the company financially solvent and its user base somewhat intact. For examples on how NOT to do it, just look at Lightwave (and I would submit that disagreements on the new core is what prompted the key founders to go start modo). This is by no means a trivial accomplishment. In my opinion it was a huge, scary task and MAXON did it quite well. I mean there were a few bumps along the way (like R17 - which despite its criticism still delivered the "takes" feature), but still it was done exceptionally well. So after all that risk, after all that work....why not see the program through its R20 release, enjoy the praise, take a well deserved bow and then hand over the reigns to a new CEO? Also, why do all 3 have to retire? Honestly, getting 3 people to decide on a single place to eat is hard enough -- let alone getting all of them to agree to retire at the same time. So things just don't add up which may be why we are all suspicious. I think there is more to learn here. I also think it involves something significant and is based on plans put in motion by Nemetschek and not MAXON. I don't know what that is but it appears that they are positioning Dave McGavran for success by bringing him in at this time and therefore positioning him to spring board off that success for whatever Nemetschek has planned next for MAXON. Now, before we run off screaming "Conspiracy" with our hair on fire, consider this: R20 and the new core MUST represent a significant opportunity for MAXON and Nemetsheck. That is why Nemetschek is looking now to make whatever moves they have planned. If they just wanted to unload the program, they would have done it years ago and before the significant investment in the new core. But they didn't. So now R20 is really starting to show its true colors and potential. I would also submit that it is probably exceeding everyone's expectations and that is why you are seeing a regime change. Bring in fresh new energy with extensive connections in the DCC market to seize the opportunity that comes with R20 and the new core. Remember folks, Dave McGarvan is not just a software developer. In his past role at Adobe he probably has spoken to every major customer of DCC software on the planet. He has connections. Get ready. This story is not over yet. Dave
  16. Excellent. Any thoughts to SSS on at least the antenna or feelers coming out of the face? It almost looks like you are using it already as the skin has a bit of internal glow but you could go further with it to sell the organic translucency in insects. Does the shirt have a luminance channel or is that from the external lighting (which is very good)? Very good work and I can’ wait to see more! Dave
  17. Thank you. That is what I am going for and it takes a while to really understand exactly what helps do that in a somewhat believable way particularly in a sci-fi environment that never really existed anyway. Here's an update And here is a background detail to help sell the scale. Never meant to be a center piece of the model, but just something in the background that help sells the scale a bit better than tiny port hole lights. Dave
  18. Okay....now I am starting to like it. Still need to add some detail to the central core but the 4 arms are about complete:
  19. My 8th hope is that you weren't reading my long winded posts on your cell phone while driving!!!!
  20. The Paul Babb interview crystalized a few things for me about C4D: It actually changed a few of my negative criticisms about the software. Were I was always unhappy about the pace of new features, Paul's interview pointed out that they focused on logical implementation and stability more so than just having the shiny new feature set. Until he pointed that out, I realized that is probably the main reason why I love the program: everything works as expected, the UI follows a consistent logic, is easy to learn and the program is damn stable. So with that said, here is my hope with the new leadership AND the new core: MAXON holds on to its core values relative to software quality. The new core allows for a faster pace of implementation without risk to its reputation for software quality. The faster pace of implementation allows MAXON to become even more of a serious competitor in ALL DCC areas and not just motion graphics. Continued success allows MAXON to become more open and transparent MAXON continues to fairly evaluate the value and cost of the C4D relative to the competition. Whatever your feelings are about the value of the software, remember that MAXON did not raise MSA prices for 10 years. I am sure that past decisions not to raise prices was based on some internal discussions about their competitive position in the marketplace. David McGavran recognizes the differences between Adobe and MAXON cultures and reputation in the marketplace. My hope is that he fully understands the value of MAXON's reputation especially relative to user support (eg Cineversity), fully recognizes what needs to be protected, seriously and carefully evaluates if anything needs to be changed and does so from a MAXON rather than Adobe perspective. No quick decisions here please. I also hope that in this respect, he needs to listen to and take guidance from Paul Babb. The example post he made on the Adobe forums that was posted in this thread is very encouraging relative to his commitment to the users so I remain hopeful. My final hope is that David McGavran recognizes that the users are watching and nervous about Adobe's pricing and support models being implemented at MAXON. Hopefully, the user storm created when Adobe went to a subscription model was something he did NOT enjoy because it will NOT be any less intense should it happen with C4D. Honestly, some of the stuff written about Shantanu Narayen (Adobe CEO) was pretty nasty. Hopefully that entire experience stuck with him and will shape his position on pricing at MAXON. Now when you break this all down, I understand that every CEO will be putting his own stamp on the company. That is to be expected and he was hired based on how he wants to carry MAXON forward into the future. I just hope that stamp looks backward at MAXON's history, culture and legacy as much as it is looking forward. Dave
  21. Interesting. I met Paul Babb during their "Power Integration Tour" in Boston. I walked in a little early and there were not a lot of people there yet. I saw him at the presentation table they had set up at the front of the room so I said hello as I took a seat. He just responded "Hi. I'm Paul". That's it. No last name. No title. I had no idea who he was at the time and for all I know he could have been the guy who cleaned the carpets after the presentation. It was only during the presentation that I found out who he was and I was oddly struct by his "down to earth" attitude --- which appears to carry through even today judging by the interview. Couple of neat things from his Linked In page via the link also posted above: Double digit growth all but two years from 2000-2017. Took company from virtually unknown to a rank of 3rd in two years among competitive programs and 1st among Adobe users. Instrumental in implementing a bundle deal with Adobe After Effects cementing Cinema 4D as the preferred 3D package among Adobe users. Today, Cinema 4D is heralded as one of the fastest growing and most widely used 3D products for digital content creation and the 3D motion graphics software tool of choice for industry-leading production facilities Now you can put anything on your LinkedIn page, but I would have to believe the first 3 bullets. I find the first part of the fourth bullet surprising, especially that C4D is one of the fastest growing DCC tool out there. Now, are DCC programs still enjoying the growth they have had in the past? Not sure, especially as the market narrows. Nevertheless, it all paints and encouraging picture for the future. Dave
  22. Wow....I encourage everyone to study this mesh. Edge loops and extrusions do not create quads like this. These can only be created by hand. The model is loaded with these. And you did this in two hours? Wow... Dave
  23. "the sheer joy of the solve" I could not have said it any better. I don't model for speed or profit, but rather for fun as a hobbyist. I can understand how professionals need to balance/manage their time effectively and may need to resort to something ugly like Booleans that get the job done. But, true professionals with an eye towards creating a model that will serve its client in the best possible way over time and in any pipeline will strive for quads. Quads loop better, texture better, less prone to phong breaks if only because they quickly call out non-planar surfaces and sub-divide better. They are just more robust and if I was paying good money for a model, I would be a little disappointed to see it filled with ngons. If I have to use Booleans, I only do it to get a rough shape then delete the ngons and replace them with quads...and do so for the "sheer zen-like experience" where time melts away. Am I 100% polygon free in all cases? Unfortunately no as a few triangles will creep in from time to time especially with curved surfaces. Even the sphere and cylinder primitives have triangles...but it is a goal. Cerbera, Any way of getting a large screen shot of that mesh....or at least what it looks like before sub-division? There is a wealth of leaning to be had in that image. Dave
  24. For Fathers day I was left alone with C4D. Best present ever! So I continued working on the interior. Honestly, the whole process is trial and error...try something simple and see if it works...usually it doesn't. Scrap that and go for something more complex. Scrap that. Finally bite the bullet and go for something detailed. This was the process for the internal docking bays inside the station. Once again, the port hole luminance maps need tons of tweaking and I am NOT happy with them at all. I may have to model each window individually as textures that worked on the outside just don't seem to work on the inside. Here is the interior tower (I really goofed on the glow....so forgive me for that): And a close up showing the interior sections of that tower a bit better: Still not happy with it....but way much better than the initial attempts (they were horrible). Dave
  25. Wow...pretty cool! Thank you. Now for Hrvoje: How are we doing on updating your VP scripts to at least work with R19? Did I miss the python versions? Dave

About Us

C4D Cafe is the largest Cinema 4D community. We provide facilities for discussion, showcasing and learning our favourite software.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, watch tutorials directly from our video gallery,  get your own private messenger, post and upload images, manage your profile and much more. If you need to find solution to your problem or otherwise ask for help, C4D Cafe is the right place to be for learning 3D.  :cowboypistol:

  • Create New...