everfresh

i have to say i'm with king of snake on this one. all those star shapes and stuff would be most efficiently modelled by drawing out splines and extruding them, leaving the caps ngons. the model just gets unnecessarily heavy, slows down the viewport and slows down the rendering. i only see disadvantages here in cutting everything to quads, makes no sense at all. in cg the fastest way to get you there is always the right one, if it doesn't compromise the quality of the end result. and by end result i don't mean a wireframe render. if you wanna show off how good of a modeller you are that's another thing, but if you want to model it as quickly and efficient as possible and if you want to keep the poly count low then make those shapes ngons wherever you can.

awesome. great ideas and nicely executed!

looking great so far... any plans on what to do with it or is it just for the sake of modelling?

a little animation and redshift rendering practice. skateboard model by vector.

thanks guys :) @digitvisions there were 2 people doing the 3D animation, Michael Marczewski and Quentin Dubois, my part was just modelling and rigging the hero character.

big fan of her work, so i was extra stoked when i was asked to do the character rigging for this piece... :)

same here, solid modelling i'd say, but you could have made him much more efficient regarding the poly count, especially the head. you could have gotten away with only half the poly count in total without loosing any detail. makes your life much harder for weighting and facial poses than it needs to be, also your playback speed in the viewport will suffer, since you're planning on animating a short it's really worth saving every poly you can. makes everything go much smoother...

i'm on vacation, so i choose not to care.

you might enjoy this one then ;)

^^ this. brings me back to the objective: how good is houdini with cel shading? does it provide something like s&t, the ability to create complex cel shading setups, does it have something equivalent to a hatch and a spot shader? if not, can you built something like that in houdini and how hard would that be? i've never seen anything cel shaded made with houdini, although i'm sure it's possible to create cel shaded materials with it. another question for me would be about it's character rigging tools? anyone ever dabbled with that?

guys... really? no need to take anything personal here. everyone here is right to a certain extend, at least that's how i see it. i don't think anyone doubts that houdini exceeds c4d in most areas. but it's always about which workflow is for you, some click with houdini, some don't. for some c4d provides enough functionality, for some obviously not. for the work i do and for my personal projects for instance c4d (in combo with xp and a few other plugins) is just right. sure it would be nice if we had this or that functionality in c4d houdini provides, but that also goes the other way around, maybe not to the same extend, but it does. i addition i think no one here is really really happy with the pace of c4ds development. this makes the arguing even more pointless. we all seem to agree on most aspects anyways. so i really don't get why threads like this have to derail all the time. cheers.

like @Cerbera i'm having no trouble with the existing tools, although of course it could be better... in addition to seamilar there's also a plugin around called uv-vonc, which also brings a few nice additions to the native uv-workflow.

i've not heard too many good things about the realflow c4d plugin (crashes, limitations...). and since you preordered xp4 and it will already come out in a few days i would definitely wait and see if xp4 meets your fluid-sim demands. realflow is really good at doing fluid sims, and i doubt xp4 will reach it's quality. but from what i've seen xps biggest hurdle in doing fluid sims has been covered with the open vdb mesher, seems to be butter smooth with almost no jittering at all. that in combination with the new fluid solver should get us pretty far and pretty close to realflow quality. if you're planning on doing large scale ocean sims realflow might be an option, although i think you'd have to go with the standalone version, afaik the c4d plugin can't do large scale sims either. like @grain mentioned, i'd rather go for houdini indie, you'll not only get fluid sims but a full blown vfx feature set for a fraction of the cost.

very nice renders. which render engine did you use?

yeah, i already noticed... thanks. again.

thanks guys... vector knows i'm trying to keep a low profile on my birthday, so thanks for the tease :D

nice :) since you're doing a cartoon i would stay away from dynamics for the car though... you probably want the animation to be snappy - so not physically accurate by any means...

fun! :) what's with the flickering of the trees?

you need to excuse those two, they can't help themselves, they already have meetings twice a week at AQ (anonymous quadroholics)... you need to be careful, don't get to close to them. it's infectious. i used to have an occasional ngon here and there in my characters, and i didn't mind at all. but i got too close to vector, and now i also find myself modelling everything all quads... nice modelling btw ;)

another product video for my main client, it's particularly fun to make product videos for this brand since i created the logo and claim and the whole CI as well. also their products are really high quality, always more satisfying to do advertising for good products.... rendered with c4ds physical renderer.

thanks... :) here's some wires of craig crookedile.

@Cutman is the 100k meant before or after tax? what if you make most of your income in graphics design with other software like adobe apps? those points aren't really clear on their faq....

i made this little project to get familiar with redshift, which i bought about two weeks ago. i tried to squeeze in as much as possible to learn a few things like how to do displacement, volumetrics, fog, blurry transparency and SSS with redshift. the swamp scene rendered 12 minutes at 1080p on a single gtx1080ti, the most expensive thing in there was the SSS, without it the render took only around half the time. if i had rendered that with physical i would have waited half a day for the render to finish. just so much more convenient to go to the fridge, grab a beer, and when you come back it's done. redshift is really so much fun, instant feedback on the IPR, even with heavy stuff. the look dev alone would have taken 10 times longer otherwise. best 500$ spent in a long time.

yeah, the walk cycle is a bit wonky, but hey, the surface of that floor seems slippery enough for it to be somewhat believable :D btw, you can render out a hair pass as post effect and then combine it with the object buffer...

as mentioned by myself and many others in this thread ease of use is still c4ds main strength. it seems to be particularly popular among designers and generalists, also people who usually don't have that much of a technical mindset. as for myself i've learned to like the technical aspect of things through learning c4d, and only because of that i have the perspective of being able to flirt with houdini. if it wasn't for c4d, i'd be scared sh*tless even looking at it. what makes c4d still worth every penny for me is that i'm able to produce stuff very quickly, so the money i make by using it doesn't remotely compare to it's price. so at least to me c4d is still a very good deal, although i'd also like them to step up their game. i don't do much vfx stuff for work, or have the need to incorporate the most fancy procedural eyecandy imaginable to the stuff i usually do. sometimes a little bit more funcionality would be nice, but i can usually get by with a plugin or another idea to solve the issue. even though i'm not that happy with c4ds pace of development these days, i'm still happy to use it every day. i believe houdini can be a huge time saver for complex stuff, but for the simple things c4d is still unbeatable in productivity IMO. so right now i don't think houdini is that much of a threat to c4d, even though a lot of c4d users have picked it up, i believe most of them still use c4d for the simple day to day work. for me it isn't an either or kind of question, i see houdini as an addition to my toolset, not really a replacement. if houdini ever manages to get near the ease of use of c4d it will be a threat, for now it's more like apples and oranges. others with a more technical mindset and more sophisticated needs might see it differently, but the fact that c4ds userbase is still growing tells me there's still a place for it.