Jump to content


Regular Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. If you are going to do more work in this area, you need to do it to the right type of music. May I introduce "Space Tones" from the Extreme Music production company: https://www.extrememusic.com/labels/space-tones Great orchestral compositions and all available for immediate streaming for free and without ads. Stay inspired. Dave
  2. I would be interested if you have found planetary textures at any sites other than the one's I am familiar with....and those would be: Celestial Motherlode NASA Earth Maps (or Visible Earth) Earth from Space Dave
  3. Threekit is currently looking for a 3D Technical Artist or a Senior Generalist 3D Artist. Note that remote work opportunities exist in the US and Canada. I have never heard of them but thought it might have value to someone so I am forwarding the email I received (shown below) to the Cafe. If they are emailing me directly, they must be desperate!!! Dave
  4. Why couldn't you just boolean out the tunnel from the displacer object? Or use the relief object with your height field maps and apply a boolean modifier to that as well to subtract the tunnel model? The issue will be that the resultant boolean object will show the tunnel passing though the terrain but that tunnel model may not end at the extents of the terrain. So while I can't guarantee success, it may still be worth a try. Dave
  5. You nailed it! That certainly get's the point across that the moons of mars really are not moons as we think of moons. More like captured asteroids as you say. So the bluish gradient captures our night sky as seen through our atmosphere, but how do you eliminate the flickering without having ridiculously high anti-aliasing values during rendering! Some stars just do not consistently render from frame to frame....even when the camera is not moving. I've tried everything (high AA settings, rendering out to twice the finished image size and then reducing in post) with only somewhat passable results (still not happy) --- even with static backgrounds. Admittedly, I have not done a space animation in quite some time (3 to 4 years), so maybe the denoising algorithms have improved significantly since then - but I would still like to hear how you did it. Dave
  6. There is drag and drop capability if you click and drag. Unfortunately, the tricky part comes when you click and when you drag. For example, when dealing with the top stop light (visibility) -- say it is green but you want it to go to red as well as the 5 objects below it. Left-Click it so that it goes red and while still holding the left mouse button down start to drag the cursor down just a little bit in a slow and steady fashion until you see the pointer turn into a paint brush. At that point, while still holding down the left mouse button, as you paint down that column of stop lights for all the other objects, their visibility will turn to red. But if all else fails, there is also the layer manager as well to turn on an off layers from both visibility and rendering. Dave
  7. Nicely done! I felt like I was at a kiosk in a science museum. Very professional and some good information. I also like how you showed the orbital path of the moons with their inherent wobble. Plus the stars rendered very well....no flickering (there could be a whole tutorial on how to render star backgrounds properly...with and without motion blur. It is not as trivial at task as you would think)! So very well executed. The only thing I questioned was the size comparison of Mar's moon's versus our Moon. Now there are pictures at the Nasa.gov site which do match pretty close to what you showed. But Earth's moon is 3475 Km versus Mar's moons at no more than 27 Km. If you were to actually make this to scale, it would look like this: Yeah...some artistic license needed to taken. Dave
  8. If I may, I love Cinema 4D and my intent with my Avatar is not to profess fanatical devotion to Blender. Now, Blender is a good program. It's users do have a lot to be happy about. I did try it when the interface improved with 2.8. But despite those improvements, it is still a bit clunky. Everything is there and for the most part stable, but (IMHO) the UI unnecessarily gets in the way of fully enjoying the program. In short, C4D is a lot more fun to use! So why do I have that Avatar? To serve as a reminder to MAXON's leaders should they troll the site that the hobbyist community does have a pretty valid option other than C4D for our CGI fix. Yes, we could follow the subscription plan, but we are hobbyists....we use C4D for the love of it and not as part of a business model. As for me, should my personal financial circumstances change such that I can no longer afford to stay current with the program, I still want to have something that works and not watch years of work go away when my subscription turns off. You can ONLY keep C4D on with a permanent license and those costs have increased significantly (from $620/year in 2017 for the Studio MSA to ~$950/license upgrade). So my avatar is really part of that old argument of subscription vs. permanent licenses. I am a hobbyist that wants permanent licenses as long as it remains affordable for a hobbyist. Blender as an open source program will always be affordable. Blender gives us options....a reminder for the MAXON employees and CEO who visit the site and not intended to disrespect its members. Dave
  9. Interesting.....as Neutron Man (or Neutrino Man)...is Srek wanted for going to fast? Did he exceed the speed of light? Will Srek be arrested by Albert Einstein? Dave
  10. LOL! Nice to know that I have added the quality of Srek's worklife. Please forgive me Srek! Please know that I at least had a good laugh...hopefully, you did to! Dave
  11. I have two 2560x1440 monitors and I agree they are perfect resolution for doing graphics work....but then again, my nose is only about foot away from the screen. IMHO, color depth, contrast and dynamic range is more important than resolution when it comes to the viewing experience in a normal home entertainment setting. The first time I saw a 4K screen in the store, I walked up to about 6 inches away and marveled at how I could see the pores on the persons face. Step back a few feet and that experience goes away. Sit down 6 to 8 feet away so that you can take in the whole image without neck strain and you might as well be looking at a 1080P image. Same thing goes in the movies. In fact, do you realize that digital movie projection uses and old TV technology called DLP (remember the old rear screen projection TVs)? Well, I arrived really early for the first movie showing of the day (it was a hot day an I needed an escape to air conditioning) and up came the DLP calibration routine (three DLP chips each projecting R,G or B). Each DLP color image was only 1080P according to the calibration routine. That was it!! On a 40 foot screen too. So not sure why you need 4K on a 65 inch screen. But what immediately becomes noticeable at any distance is the color banding (eg. 8 bit color) and the lack of detail seen in the darker areas of the screen or the blooming (and again loss of detail) in the brighter areas. It all goes back to color reproduction, dynamic range and contrast. A great test for any TV is put up a completely black image and turn off the lights. Do you see completely black or are there subtle grey clouds all over the screen? Well, that shows that the TV is failing to shut down the pixels completely and that will lead to poor contrast. So resolution is just a sales gimmick (IMHO) used to demand higher prices from the consumer. Also a great number for bragging rights along with screen size ("I have a 65inch 4K TV with 7.1 surround sound!!!" --- "Awesome. How many 4K movies do you have with 7.1 surround sound?" Errr....two.) Now, a better question is when do you need 4K or 16K textures in your work? Those files are huge! Is there some equation that says if the object occupies this much screen space in the final render, the texture resolution needs to be this size? For example, if I have a shot that shows a close up of a rock and it takes up 80% of the screen space in a 2560x1600 render, then the minimum texture size needs to be X? Dave
  12. That was a master's class in gaseous fluids - particularly the Redshift section which I am just beginning to grasp (having recently purchased it)! Thank you! The link you provided on VDB artifacts is a wealth of information. Were the stepping problems you experience noticed in TFD or only when you tried to render with RS? As for me, I always use a density value of 1 in TFD...not sure why but probably because most tutorials use that setting. They rarely explain why though and this is the first explanation I have read (especially the post from Jascha Wetzel). His caution about Fuel settings though and the Fit Range settings are invaluable. Again, thank you! Dave
  13. If that is right out of the render engine....you nailed it. The shading is perfect. Looking forward to the animation!!!! Care to summarize what you learned in a few bullets? Dave
  14. The opportunity for developing parametric modeling tools is very exciting. We have some of that right now in the form of plugins that generate stairs, windows, hand rails, nernies, etc. But Nuetron either gives the user the ability to create these tools themselves or the plugin developer the ability to recreate their tools (or expand their capabilities) using nodes rather than python. Just like MAXON came out with car shaders with their material nodal system, I would imagine that there will be library of parametric modeling tools coming with the release of Neutron. ...and if you are looking for some ideas.... Check out Howard Day's work on YouTube along with his "Lazy Tutorial for Lazy People" series of modeling in 3D Studio Max (found here: The technique for hull plates at 1:36 is very interesting). Quick simple techniques that I think could be easily replicated by Neutron. Dave
  15. Interesting discussion and I think you nailed it when you discuss content. The internet had made us a content hungry society. There is so much content out there that people have many other choices to feed their need for knowledge. The true value of the Cafe is in the expertise of its moderators and members to pretty much solve/answer any question that comes your way. Going back and organizing all that would be a huge task and probably not yield as much benefit as the effort it requires. The best way to deal with it is by looking forward which means that whenever the tag "SOLVED" goes up, someone checks to see if the thread has all the appropriate tags for easier searching later on. Now, the other phenomena is the "lurker"....the people who visit but don't post. That could be a symptom brought on by the dark side of the internet: bullying, attacking those with views different than yours, etc. That is NOT a big problem at the Cafe. This is a pretty safe space thanks to our moderators who maintain the right balance of oversight in all discussions. But, the Cafe is a unique place and its members are unique as well (and I mean that in the best way possible). It probably takes a while for new visitors to feel comfortable enough with the community to actually post something. Now, most other DCC companies have their own forums. Is that the Cineversity forum for MAXON? Maybe. But should MAXON start to exert more influence on the Cafe via financial support, advertising, etc. could we have threads on Blender, or Houdini? Would there be as high a tolerance for push back on MAXON that we enjoy today? You won't see those types of discussions at Cineversity (well...to be honest, I haven't looked for them at Cineversity but that would be a surprise if they were there). Relative to content, what happened to all the tutorials that used to be on the Youtube Cafe page? Some have gone missing such as nodal materials, volume breaking, etc. Dave
  16. Before anyone from MAXON chimes in, let me take a stab at calming your concerns. Look at how the new material node architecture was implemented in Cinema 4D. You have nodes, you have legacy and you have something in-between called the uber-node. Not sure how you could cover the gap from old to new better than that. They even provided a very handy set of the most common shading types (car paint, etc). Now, based on the re-iteration from the MAXON execs at the end of the presentation that they are NOT forcing anyone to use these new modeling nodes, I would imagine that they would take the same approach to rolling out Neutron (though I personally like "Neutrino" better, but let's not go there). It will be similar to how they rolled out the material nodes: You will have legacy, Neutron and possibly something in the middle. In fact, I would imagine that when MAXON said that R20 and R21 contained updated primitives and basic modeling tools "with significant speed increases" designed to support the new core, we have already started to be exposed to that "something in the middle" without even realizing it. Though I previously had some concerns about this, when all is said and done I am pretty convinced you will get the viewport speed increases even should you decide to stick with the legacy object manager and modeling tools. So the path to viewport improvements will not be a technically challenging one for the user....it will be challenge for MAXON though and that is why I think it will be rolled out in bits for some time. The big question how long will that take. Dave
  17. Great to hear from you and especially happy to know that everyone is healthy and doing fine. Also good to hear that life is Covid-19 free. Unfortunately, can't really say the same for the Americas. These are tough times all around. Don't be a stranger. Even though you have been away from C4D for sometime, your insights on the program are always appreciated (at least by me). Take care, Dave
  18. LOL! That's right...some form of fruit. A cross between a 3D-Banana and a 3D-Strawberry!
  19. I wonder if it has more in common with Modo's tool pipe? I know we have a few modo users on the forum so hopefully they catch the video and can chime in. I know that there is at least one modo user on this forum, but he rarely visits us anymore so I have forgotten his name. Lost weight. Grew a beard. Rides his bike a lot. Good at photography. Loves modeling with leggo's. Grew up with Oscar winners.....hmmm.....Nope. I got nothing. Dave
  20. Well, the Second presentation on the making of "Star Wars: The Last Stand" by Sekani Solomon (found here) I think will be the standout presentation of the day. Everything about it, from the modeling, lighting, animation, motion graphics, camera work...everything....is just outstanding. Really well done. Dave P.S. If you can't make the presentation, he did post a making of video here. No verbal explanation, but just a work flow video. P.P.S. What a shame that I got more enjoyment from a 1:43 fan film than I did from the entire final trilogy. But that's just me.
  21. Not to belabor the point....but....err...as I look at it....Neutrino man and Srek look like they could even be related. Heck...they are even looking at each other. ....just saying. Dave
  22. Really? Neutron....and not Neutrino? I mean, which one works better for you? This one: Or this: Honestly, you folks resonate more with the first one in my book Dave
  23. I have a different take on Neutrino. I would NOT imagine that MAXON's new core that took years of development would only be limited to your basic primitives. When you think about the architecture of a nodal system (essentially the visual representation of C++ which is an objected oriented programming language), you then have to ask why Neutrino enables massive object handling in the viewpoint. This question leads me to conclude that the viewport is NOT managing data sets (coordinates, normal vectors, etc) in the traditional sense with Neutrino but rather instruction sets. So with Neutrino there could be less "stuff" to push through the required matrix manipulations as you rotate the viewport. Hard to explain, but hopefully you get where I am going with this. All this leads me to believe (and again, this is all PURE SPECULATION) that Neutrino ALSO means that when it is fully implemented all modeling commands are nodal and as such 100% procedural. This would mean 100% non-destructive modeling once fully implemented with the ability to make changes anywhere along the node chain (or modeling history) and have the finished object updated. In short....when you think of Neutrino, think of Houdini with C4D's interface and ease of use...and of course stability. This could be a game changer in the DCC community. But there are a couple of "minor" downsides and that has to do with handling non-procedural models. They will of course not yield the same viewport impact. There "may" be no capability to edit them using nodes (not sure, I would think not, but I just wanted to put it out there). Also, at some point as nodes become more powerful, there may be some modeling capabilities that are ONLY available via the node system. Again, I would think not...I mean look at the bevel tool improvements in R21 which were based on the new core - that thing can bevel anything without corrupting geometry. It would also mean that your pre-R22 geometry needs to be perfect if you want it play well with the new node system. Run the mesh checker!!! No complex poles. No Non-manifold edges! You get the point (again, not a major issue as you should be doing that anyway). But these are minor issues to be sure....even if they are issues at all. Also, props to the new paradigm of sharing MAXON's future development plans. This should be applauded by EVERYONE regardless of whether or not each new feature tickles your fancy or not. So I salute Mr. McGavran and Paul Babb for peeling back the curtain a bit. Dave
  24. Is the massive increase in viewport performance only for nodal objects and nodal primitives or is it for any model you add to the scene? That is, if I add 10,000 tree models (from Laubwerks, Xfrog, Forester, etc) will I get the same viewport performance as shown in yesterday’s presentation with those nodal trees?
  25. I certainly expected that there would be a charge for this service. I would have been more surprised if it was free. I was just amazed that it was something you would offer as it would be something that you would put a lot of prep into (for some reason, I am guessing that you are a perfectionist who likes to do things right...and do it right the first time. That opinion probably comes from those perfect quad meshes you create). One thing I would like to strongly encourage you to consider: A tutorial on solving tough and/or common modeling problems in Cinema 4D. Essentially the techniques for making only quads in various modeling situations - especially those involving curved surfaces and/or intersecting curved surfaces . The course would NOT be for the beginner as it would require familiarity with C4D's modeling toolset and short cuts - but rather just the techniques that you have developed. Focusing on the techniques only as opposed to teaching basic tools would be enough work as I would imagine that coming up with appropriate examples and structuring the lesson to clearly explain the solution would be challenging. I would pay dearly for that type of training. Just a thought....and a hope. Dave
  • Create New...


Dear members, we are aware of few more bugs that are still present withing the theme.We just wanted to let you know that we are working to fix them as soon as possible.


Please be aware that we are manually approving all new registrations, due to spam prevention. Please be patient in case you cannot login right away, we will approve you within 12h or less if we decide you are not potential spammer. 


Thanks for understanding! :cowboypistol: