Leaderboard

Here are some cool examples:

I would agree. Radial symmetry is both simple to use and powerful. Living in the Northeast, my initial inclination is NOT to create snowflakes....we will be getting plenty of those soon enough. But I would love to see how you create a snowflake without any triangles in it!!!!! I am also happy to see deeper RS integration into C4D with the RS camera and its interaction with the standard viewport. Overall, this update (63 days after R2023) feels more like a 0.5 than a 0.1 release. So very impressed with Maxon deciding to release these new features sooner rather than later. Is this a new behavior with the subscription only model? That is, the need to bundle features to create a more meaningful purchase for perpetual licenses no longer exists. So once the feature is stable out it goes! That could explain why it is 2023.1 rather than 2023.5 because more may be planned within the year. Therefore, they started the amount of incrementation in release numbers pretty low. Does this mean that there is more to come and the standard pattern of release cycles we have come to expect no longer exist? I have no idea....but I like the indications. So with all that said, it is apparent that Maxon is NOT becoming an Adobe clone and any comparisons to Adobe are unjustified given how much and how fast they are improving C4D. Dave

Yes Pyro is absolutely very great to have inside C4D. Next up Hydro? 🙂 I am still on a perpetual R23, but I see Maxon is indeed putting really great value into the subscription model so I consider to switch to R2023 sub very soon.

You can use any render engine that supports Open VDB volumes. This is also how Redshift renders Pyro.

That's... interesting. Last time I searched for it I either didn't find anything or I found something with it that makes it useless for what I needed it. All I can remember from last time I tried is that the transform tools were not sufficient for me.

Before After I'm assuming it'll have this Release License for each app

Also, it has to be said: The quality and performance of the latest features added to C4D is really astounding. I think, since C4DR26 we're now officially out of the drought and it's raining good stuff! I didn't think I would ever say this, but: It's really cool to have a subscription where the company actually puts work in it! The Maxon sub gives me 10x the felt value in comparison to Adobe 🙂

Wow, Pyro gives a great first impression. My first take on Pyro (based on watching the launch videos): + Good Perfomance + Good Viewport representation of the sim ++ Same UI/UX as the rest of C4D +++ Interoperability with the other sim stuff! Fields! Vertex maps! Yaay! + Decent Export Speed and Cache handling Compared to Embergen (my fave... until yesterday :D) +++ Very good Performance + Very good viewport representation -- BUT you have to rebuild everything in Redshift + Very good UI/UX, but it's a different approach than C4D, so I tend to forget things between sessions - - - Getting things to work with other apps is a nightmare. The time saved doing the sim is burned when dealing with the exchange to a DCC - Slow-ish Export Speed and a ton of bugs on top So, my early conclusion: Pyro is not as fancy as Embergen, but natively embedded into all of C4Ds workflows - which is an absolute killer argument for Pyro. ❤️ Very, very pleasant surprise! ❤️

For a first effort I am impressed. My understanding is that there is really one full time developer on this so not sure if it is fair to compare it to TP which benefited from two technology acquisitions (explosiaFX and DPIT fluids) and TFD which has been around for well over 10 years and still improving. Comparisons to Houdini are also unfair given how long Houdini has been around and I think their development staff has 4 PhD's working on fluids? Not sure, but what I faintly recall was impressive. I just want to make sure that people's expectations are appropriately balanced because our eyes have been trained to expect results from far more mature programs so the playing field is by no means even. Plus, this was GPU/CPU from the start where my expectation would have been CPU and then a migration to GPU given the complexities of coding fluids on the GPU (look how long it took Insydium to get there and they have a much larger development team). Also, and I brought this up in another thread, the "look" of the final image really has more to do with the shaders for both the density and temperature channels (black body shaders) than how the simulation generates that channel data in the VDB files. Density and temperature data is created by the simulation engine in the course of solving the physics to make fluids move like fluids. So, if that data is off then it won't be the "look" that bothers you but rather how the fluids move as their motion is impacted by temperature and density (pressure) within each voxel - all things the simulation engine is resolving with each frame. If it moves right, then chances are you have enough accurate data to shade it any way you want. So, the "look" is driven by the shading. The motion is driven by the physical calculations. If you don't like the motion, then that is a fair criticism but as for me I am impressed by the first release. Dave

Chris is in the house.

If I'm understanding the problem correctly, you are selecting the individual objects versus the main null object you are wishing to use to rotate with? Instead I believe you want to select the bras (Null object).