Jump to content

jwiede

Gold Supporter
  • Content count

    533
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jwiede last won the day on September 5 2016

jwiede had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

28 Noble Beginner

About jwiede

  • Rank
    Respected community member.

Profile Information

  • First Name
    John
  • Last Name
    W
  • C4D Ver
    18 Studio
  • Location
    San Jose, CA USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2,951 profile views
  1. Navie Effex Gone?

    Alas, as a paid Mac customer of Effex 2.8 (and since 1.x), this doesn't really help me. I deeply appreciate the effort, and I'm glad for Windows Effex customers, but it doesn't resolve my situation. I can't get a working serial code for R19 for my existing commercial install, and he hasn't posted the Mac version in github (yet, anyway).
  2. Navie Effex Gone?

    Let me say first that I was deeply sorry to hear of Samir's medical issues. I've had some serious medical problems in my life as well, and appreciate how devastating they can be. At the same time, I didn't have the luxury of just "walking away" from my financial and business obligations when it happened to me, and I'm more than a little bit disturbed that there's repeating pattern emerging where that's precisely what these "small shop" plugin vendors selling high-priced plugins are doing, considering it perfectly acceptable conduct I've lost thousands of dollars of third-party plugin investments in the last year after just a few (<3) plugin vendors disappearing. History shows it only takes bad behavior by a few vendors to result in serious impact on the economic health of an entire platform ecosystem. It's fine to express sympathy for the issues they encounter, but I'm shocked at how nobody seems to be particularly disturbed by the aftermath in these cases. It's already difficult to make money in third-party plugins, but these high-end vendors destroying customer trust only make it that much harder for other plugin devs to achieve any success. I'm sorry they have issues in their lives, but failing to make any provisions for existing customers' 100%-foreseeable needs for serial updates/renewals, etc. (esp. after asking multi-hundreds of dollars for plugins, once or more) is just a completely unacceptable level of business planning, IMO bordering on the unethical.
  3. Equivalent LW function in C4D (r17)???

    Or find a copy of the Per Anders "Spline Cut" script that's been around since at least 2007. Search for "spline cut" here for further refs. It was still working in both R15 and R16, so there's no particular reason to think it doesn't work in R17.
  4. aaOcean for C4D?

    Thanks so much for passing along the C4D aaOcean link! Very much appreciated!
  5. Okay, fair point, R18 does behave the same. Still, I'd argue MAXON's repositioning the "Hardware OpenGL" as a more complete render engine going forward, though, and it just seems odd to me that "Render View", which uses the set render engine to render in the viewport in _every_ other case, does something different just for that case. As Standard isn't actually the selected render engine, it's not even clear what render settings are being used in that case, nor how to adjust them -- is it just using the default settings? From a UI/UX consistency viewport, it definitely is unexpected that C4D would choose a non-selected engine to do the viewport render in that case, IMO anyway. I could understand if "Render View" just did nothing, but rendering with the Standard engine in that case feels like a UI/UX mistake. It wasn't even obvious it was using the Standard engine, I had to check the different results to confirm which was used. At the very least, if that is the intended behavior, there should be a clear indication which engine and settings are used (and perhaps have a setting in prefs for setting engine and settings in that special case). It'd be great if someone from MAXON could weigh-in here as to whether the current behavior is intentional or not?
  6. When I press the "Render View" toolbar button, after selecting "Hardware OpenGL" as render engine, instead of getting the view rendered using the HW OGL render engine, I get the view rendered using the "Standard" render engine (as in, pixel-for-pixel exact match to "Standard" result for same). Anyone else seeing this behavior? I'm seeing this with C4D R19.024 on macOS 10.12.5. Expected Behavior: "Render View" button should render view using "Hardware OpenGL" render engine, as selected. Please let me know if more info or screencast needed to demonstrate problem. I'll file as bug next chance I get.
  7. Any idea when? It's still apparently present in R19.024.
  8. New in Cinema 4D R19 - Full Feature List

    Your answer was fine, thanks. I'm just looking for any additional details about the precise technical problem blocking ProRender on Nvidia on macOS. The whole point of OpenCL was to work on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs, after all.
  9. New in Cinema 4D R19 - Full Feature List

    Anyone have a pointer to the explanation handy?
  10. New in Cinema 4D R19 - Full Feature List

    For those of us with Macs & Nvidia cards, was there ever any clarification on whether ProRender would even work? I'm fine if Nvidia cards aren't "supported" but are functional in C4D ProRender on macOS, less so if they arbitrarily disabled ability to run on Nvidia macOS.
  11. BodyPaint 3D open beta

    What version of ZBrush are you using? Modern ZBrush4 UV, polygroups, spotlight, and polypaint toolset are actually quite powerful and flexible for both UV and texture painting work. While the workflows for each are a bit different than the equivalents in "standard" 3D apps, once you take the time to understand the ZBrush workflows, its toolset are every bit as capable (and can work smoothly with very high poly-count objects that would choke "std" 3D pkgs). Having used MODO for years, I'll just reaffirm what others here have said: MODO's UV toolset is much more powerful than C4D's/BP's, and IMO, one of the most powerful UV toolsets on the market now (as of 11.1). MODO's painting capabilities aren't as amazing, but still beat BP in areas like symmetry support, and overall ease of workflow (esp. w.r.t. map and channel controls). I suspect the updated BP might win out over MODO when it comes to working with larger poly-count objects, but we'll have to see.
  12. BodyPaint 3D open beta

    While the BP viewport improvements are quite impressive in their own right (and they are!), the Beta does highlight just how outdated many aspects of the BP workflow are compared to more modern alternatives -- and in the same manner, that same light really shows the "dust" gathered on the UV tools and workflow. I don't actually expect much more within R18 beyond the already-shown BP viewport improvements. That said, I do think MAXON should consider throwing R18 customers another bone by finally adding symmetry (XYZ & radial) support in BP as well -- it's kind of ridiculous for any painting system to lack that functionality in this day and age. That's great to hear! BTW, anyone looking for modern, efficient painting features and UX in C4D should take a serious look at this plugin/technology.
  13. I appreciate the quick answer, thanks!
  14. Anyone know if there's an aaOcean plugin available for C4D (R18)? I know about the HOT port, but am looking specifically for aaOcean because it produces better surfacing in certain ways. Thanks!
  15. Spritz 3.0

    Can you clarify, is the Vray 2.0 version the same as the regular 3.0 version in terms of functionality? What are the differences between Spritz Vray 2.0 and Spritz 3.0?

×