hvanderwegen

Just checked the demo video. It doesn't seem to be able to be used in point/edge/polygon mode. Sometimes it is useful to draw new objects, and at other times it is preferable to add objects in an existing mesh. Snapping tools seem to missing as well? Not sure. Nor does it seem possible to draw objects on other objects - he seems to carefully avoid doing that. That last option is rather essential to have in my opinion. Rather a steep price ($25) when $19 gets you arguably the best hard-surface polygonal modeling tool HardOps (Blender addon), which includes precise drawing functionality as part of its ever-growing hard-surface modeling tool set. Anyway, tomatoes and potatoes. Different tools. 🙂

Which are useful for scene creation/bashing, but perhaps less so for direct modeling? For direct modeling "drawing" objects is a very useful workflow to have. I suppose it's all about the most convenient workflow for a particular part in the process. @bezo Good find!

@ShynnSup The Drop It plugin might be useful too: https://www.alphapixel.net/drop-to-floor/

What you are looking for in my opinion is a method to directly 'draw' boxes in the 3d view, with an option to snap to other objects. As far as I am aware that is not possible in C4D. C4D is more parametric object oriented. But as @Cerberastated, in the latest 24 you could use the new dynamic placements tools, which are pretty cool.

It works for me in C4D 24. Perhaps a limitation of R21? Did it work before? If it doesn't work, you could move that edge to snap to the center line manually.

Many add-ons merely improve quality of life in Blender rather than anything else. Everything Materializer does can already be done without the addon, but it adds a LOT of convenience and workflow speedup. As for the other tools: arguably the UV tools + UDIM, sculpting tools, viewport, built-in renderers (Cycles and Eevee), compositing are already much of an improvement compared to Cinema4D. (Obviously C4D still steals the show with MoGraph - but what else is there left?) And many free add-ons, including the standard collection that is part of Blender, only improve quality of life further. Then there are additional free render options such as LuxRender, AMD ProRender, Renderman, Appleseed, Yafaray, ... And a free version of Octane for single GPU users. One thing Maxon may have to deal with is the performance boost that Blender v3 is going to provide: in my tests v3 alpha's raw mesh editing is currently far ahead of Cinema4d. I have tested single-mesh models that choke Cinema4D 24 while Blender 3 alpha happily chugs along. I've noticed that B v3 alpha is more or less on par with Houdini. Only Max is a fair bit faster than the rest. B handles scenes with many objects already much better than Cinema4D, and version 3 is only going to further the distance now that the B devs are actively working on improving mesh and sub-d performance. And this is also already true for sculpting mode which performs much much better in B. In effect, Maxon has some work ahead of them to keep Cinema4D's performance on par with the other DCCs. What worries me is that Maxon already has rewritten the core to boost performance, so I am unsure how much more it could be improved. Or if they have the intention to - they may feel that the current performance is fine (which is not the case in my opinion). The base C4D package relies too much on external paid-for tools. The cost of upkeep is too high for what it provides the user with in its current state in my opinion. But perhaps R25 will be a super update 🙂

Check out this video. It's a real-world comparison of both CPU and GPU render engines.

Nothing to worry about here - except perhaps that Adobe is thinking "if you can't beat them, join them". Other companies have funded Blender development, and for them it is an easy method to raise some 'free' marketing buzz. Blender will always be open source and the licensing does not allow it to be 'purchased' by a company. Adobe might have been looking for a 3d DCC in the past, but the way I see it is that they are now more interested in providing painting/texturing tools, which fits their product line much better. Acquiring Substance Designer and Painter made/makes business sense for Adobe. The latest Photoshop release seems to be compatible with Substances as well, I have read (I haven't tried this yet). And I've just been testing the new Substances add-on for Blender - it is already pretty brilliant. Seamless and easy to load substances that are easily found anywhere on the web. Image maps are automatically generated at up to 4096px for saving as images (I wish 8192px were possible, though). All PBR material channels are automatically taken care off. Combine this with the Fluent Materializer add-on, and the sky is the limit with very easy mixable high quality materials! And all for free - amazing (well the Fluent Materializer add-on is $35). https://cgthoughts.gumroad.com/l/materializer PS I also noticed that there's a Mixamo Blender add-on to load up Mixamo rigs and animations directly in Blender.

Without a doubt in my mind: absolutely. This and previous actions on the part of Maxon seem to come straight out of Adobe's play book (which is probably why ex-Adobe management was hired to assist Maxon in this process): First, introduce the rental model but keep the perpetual license, and make certain both are initially presented as equal alternatives. This is to ensure to avoid a user uprising. Sooth any nay-sayer users, but never allow anyone in your organization to confirm that your end goal is rental only. Present it as "freedom of choice", or along similar lines. Next, with each new release clearly present the rental version as the ever more affordable and attractive alternative. Incrementally reduce exposure of the perpetual license on the website in favour of the rental option(s) and reduce access to it. Keep touting the advantages for the user of rental rather than perpetual. The goal here is to slowly and seamlessly prime and groom the larger user base to accept rental as the preferred option rather than perpetual licenses. Provide extra perks for users who rent your software. Reduce perks and updates for perpetual users. And at no time mention the end goal. Keep users in the dark. "Listen" to your users by providing additional rental options. Cater towards companies and small/medium sized businesses (which generally really like rental options due to fiscal benefits). It is important to continuously stress the attractiveness of rental licenses, while adding more and more to the unattractive qualities of the perpetual license. Convince as many existing perpetual users to make the switch to rental. And very important here is the use of language: instead of "rent" rather use "subscribe", or even better: allow for no distinction: "buy" or "purchase". (The younger generation of users is no longer quite so aware of the distinction between renting software and purchasing software anyway. This is great for software companies.) In the final stages before ending access to new perpetual licenses it is necessary to complicate the process of updating existing perpetual licensed versions as much as is possible. At the same time, it is expected that a segment of older loyal perpetual users will never accept rental licenses. This won't matter, since the less expensive rental model probably already increased revenue by a large margin. It is at this time that the company will release statements about how for the sake of continued development, the benefit of improved features of the software, and the company itself that perpetual licenses be discontinued. "if it's good for you, it's good for the company, and vice versa". Along those lines. The company may opt to keep the peace, allow this user group access to a perpetual license for the time being, but no new perpetual licenses will be available. Drastically increase update pricing, and after a few releases stop perpetual updates entirely. Or be more cold-hearted, and disallow perpetual users to update their licenses. After all, by this time that group of users is probably reduced to a small minority. Happy company! And accepting users (for the most part).

https://www.nonecg.com/3D-products/nyc-set-8-1-block/

I downloaded the free city block, and opened the C4D file. All textures are absolutely linked to a specific folder on their E drive - meaning none of the textures work and must be relinked. But alright, Project Asset Inspector to the rescue. Some of the buildings have walls that overshoot in width. Oops. And finally, the scene consists of more than 5000 objects, which noticeably slows down C4D's viewport to a paltry 14fps on my system (3900X + GTX1080). Many objects are duplicates, and I would expect those to be referenced/instanced. As a potential C4D customer I would not be impressed. The collada version loads up without issues in the geometry and with only 21 objects runs butter smooth. But all textures are based on the FBX version and have different prefixes, so it is not possible to quickly fix the textures. Have you fixed this file already? Seems to me this is not helping them to advertise their models to C4D users.

BlendSwap has over 23.000 free models. Many are CC0 licensed. Lots of architecture related ones as well. https://www.blendswap.com/categories You do require a copy of Blender to convert the objects for use in other apps.

And B goes one step further: the wireframe may be adjusted with a handy slider to get rid of mesh mush: Outlines remain visible as you can tell. And notice how 'deeper' objects are less brightly coloured, helping in depth perception. Wireframe transparency is fully controllable using simple sliders. Anyway, I am so used to these things, that when I opened an architecture project in C4D I really missed them while inspecting and fixing things. That is why I asked here if I am missing things. This is more than just prettification: these display options assist me while working with complex projects and save valuable time. But it is what it is. Here's hoping Maxon will improve C4D's viewport display capabilities in upcoming versions.

What I usually do with more complex multi-part objects is also turn on the random object colours: At one glance it becomes entirely clear how this object fits together. I find this extraordinarily useful in my own projects while constructing things, because everything is simple to distinguish, and I do not have to assign textures or viewport colours. It saves time. Time is valuable - it's the only thing I can't get back. I looked for a similar option in C4D, but came up short. It is possible to assign viewport colours manually, but why waste time? And B's colours are quite smartly chosen automatically. Talking about the viewport, I regularly switch to wireframe mode for precise nudge operations in orthogonal views. In C4D I get this: In B I turn on random colours at all times: Which allows me to differentiate easily between objects while nudging.

The difference is quite marked, and mainly caused by cavity shader and the outline shader. But perhaps not so obvious in large screenshots like the ones I posted earlier. Here I post more detailed screenshots to clarify. Ridges are indicated by an additional highlighted edge, which facilitates easier identifying of shapes and the outline assists in discovering topology issues (example below). It really is more than just "prettification": This is C4D's viewport with AO turned on: This is Blender's viewport without the cavity or outline shader: AO is definitely helpful in understanding the shapes better in C4D's case. Let's turn on the cavity shader: A marked improvement. Also an improvement over C4D with the AO shader: the cavity shader adds highlighted edges as well as darker shaded cavities. Notice how details jump out more. Paneling is much easier to distinguish. In C4D's viewport some of the paneling is hardly visible and blends into the grey surface of the saucer section. In B even the tiny door details are quite easy to distinguish and understand. Also, the cavity shader can be finely controlled: screen space, object space, or both applied simultaneously, with slider settings for both the ridges and the valleys to fine-tune. In effect, B's viewport contrast is leagues ahead. And our eyes/brains need contrast to identify shapes. Next, let's add the outline shader: @MighT thought that I had turned on textures here, which is not the case: the outline shader outlines separate objects. In this model parts of the top saucer section were modelled as individual objects, but because these connect seamlessly it is impossible to detect without the outline shader applied to the viewport. Adding the outline also assists in understanding how some of the other parts work together, which was invisible to our eyes before. Combined with the cavity shader these darker outlines further increase contrast and help our brain understand the shapes. Notice how even very small details such as the small dots on the top stand out. Compare to C4D's viewport, and those dots are hardly visible. In UX design, if contrast is too low, it hurts usability and understanding. It hurts my eyes to identify details in C4D's muddy viewport. Which is not the case in B's contrast-rich display. As it happens when I took these screenshots, I noticed a tiny topology error (if you open the above image the mistake is visible): One triangle is part of another object. Without this outline shader, it would have been very difficult to spot or check for. ...TBC in the next post due to max total post size limits. ( I wish WebP files would be accepted on this forum )

I was afraid that that would be the case. Ah well, it is what it is. Thanks for the answer.

So I turned off HQ noise, and at least the viewport doesn't lag anymore.

I am mostly working in Blender nowadays, but I'm back at the office and I was asked to work on a Cinema4D file (using the latest version S24). Perhaps an odd question, but is there a way to improve the viewport quality for modeling (hiding materials) to emulate the following quality or at least come close to it (view full image to see details): After turning on the viewport effects, adjusting the viewport light, playing with the SSAO settings, and increasing the anti-aliasing in the preferences, the best I can achieve is this: But it comes at a cost: the viewport becomes more sluggish and is reduced to ~25-35fps. This does not happen in Blender, which happily cruises along at 60fps. Both apps are set to default materials (well, in B's case a few objects are set to a different colour). I am so used to B's viewport quality while modeling, that I now find it difficult to work in C4D. Suggestions? Am I missing something? PS this is not the model I have to work on, btw. Just a showcase of the differences in viewports.

Also checking this one out in the upcoming week. How is it that I missed these? Thanks again!

This is really cool! Thanks for mentioning this, because I have been on the lookout for a 3d/animation/design versioning tool for a while now, and although there are one or two out there those are quite expensive and not aimed at individual designers/artists. For development I use Git / GitLab, but that just doesn't work well for visual/art projects. Downloaded, and checking it out this upcoming week.

As far as basic competitive feature sets go, I hope R25 will finally have a decent market competitive built-in renderer. They started work on implementing ProRender, got rid of that, and now users are left hanging without a decent modern fast GPU render solution replacement. It is rather surprising that C4D is the only DCC that requires its users to invest in a third-party/external render solution to gain access to a modern up-to-date (fast) renderer. (well, there *is* Centileo, which is free.) Maxon should really just integrate Redshift in this upcoming version (based on history, management may decide to do exactly this, but increase the base package rental fee 😜 )

If you have Blender in your toolbox, export your object as OBJ, import in Blender, and switch to the UV Editing tab. Then: - select the object, and enter edit mode (tab) - hit A to select all faces - in the left window open the menu UV-->Export UV Layout - check "All UVs", and select SVG as the format. Choose a size and fill opacity. Then export. This generates a nice SVG which is of course completely editable in a vector editor. And does not rely on pixels. so when imported in Photoshop it lets you pick the document resolution. Also much faster and more efficient compared to creating channels and paint layers in Cinema4D.

The only other company which comes to mind is Newtek (LightWave). And that is certainly NOT an example to follow. In a sense, Maxon actually behaves more poorly than even Newtek, because Newtek at least interacted with their customer base off-and-on. This still irks me to this day: BodyPaint was 'da bomb' when it first was released. It was ahead of its time. IF it had been updated regularly, and adopted a PBR workflow, nodes, a proper realtime PBR viewport.... Can you imagine? Substance Painter and perhaps Designer would have been the second choice. Perhaps. BodyPaint was a prime reason for me to use C4D at the time. I still find it absolutely unbelievable how Maxon dropped the ball here. They could have carved out and owned this market segment. But seeing Physical render, dynamics, hair, and sculpt mode receive(d) the same "build it once, let it linger" approach of development, I am not surprised. Still, I can't help but wonder sometimes how different things could have turned out if C4D management had had just a tiny ounce of imagination and vision regarding BodyPaint. What could have been. Oh, the lost opportunities. 😔

The important thing is that there are good alternatives to Adobe's products nowadays! 🙂

Yes, there seem to be builds / special versions for RTX capable (20XX/30XX) Nividia cards. Since I am still stuck with an older GTX1080, that version runs very slow for me as well. PhotoLine is an image editor, similar to Photoshop, that's been around since Atari ST times! Not that many people are aware it exists, because the developers don't advertise or market it actively in any way. I prefer PhotoLine over Photoshop and Affinity Photo as my main image editing hub. It is capable of some unique tricks. For example: layers can be cloned/instanced, and reused anywhere (even as masks). the layer opacity operates from -200 up to +200 ! Imagine Affinity Photo or Photoshop allowing a negative opacity - basically reversing mixing modes or doubling up on layer effects. This also works with the non-destructive adjustment layers for quite interesting possibilities. An infinite depth of adjustment layers and masks is possible. Adjustment layers can be applied to masks, which can have masks with other adjustment layers and layer instances. Each layer may have its own bit depth (1/8/16/32 bits per channel), its own colour profile, and its own resolution. All independent and non-destructive. The background layer decides the final render intent (in image mode), so even switching to a different image mode does not affect the content of layers. Switch to greyscale, switch back to 32bit colour: all layers retained their original data. adjustment layers can be applied to other adjustment layers infinite number of mask layers with sub-mask layers, etcetera. bitmap gradients for masks are non-destructive(!) all layer transformations are non-destructive, and unlike Affinity Photo and Photoshop the user may edit the pixel content at any time. full vector layer support. Pretty good vector editing tools: blending objects, warping vector objects, vector/bitmap combined fills, and so on. Also conversion of bitmap to vector. The latest beta introduces proper mesh gradients. scripting support proper "smart objects". Even the option to non-destructively assign Photoshop compatible filters to these, just like Photoshop. Also the option to link external files: update the external file, and the master file updates too. built-in non-destructive procedural patterns and noises. And unlike Affinity Photo, all done with a visual interface. File support for various file formats which are missing in Photoshop and Affinity: webp (animated as well), animated PNG (latest beta), JPG 2000/XR. Import of autocad files, and many other more obscure file formats. completely non-destructive layer-based workflow. Much more so than Affinity Photo: RAW development is non-destructive, for example, and does not require a "special" workspace. It is just part of the regular layers. HDR workflow support. LAB workflow support. EXR import. Normalizing of z-index and HDR layers. support for external applications: send your layer or file to an external app for editing, save, and PhotoLine picks up on these changes automatically. Works great with many applications. Even InkScape with SVG as an intermediate format. Send a layer to Krita, work on it, save, switch back to PhotoLine, and the layer is updated. Which allows for quick round-trip editing with most other apps. Or send layers/results to external apps for finishing and export. This last option is my favourite. It saves so much time in my workflow. The developers are incredibly responsive. Many of my suggestions and requests were implemented - often by the next beta version. Often small improvements were added within a week. I have a license of Affinity Photo, Designer, and Publisher. I use Publisher, but Photo and Designer have proved to be... awkward and frustrating to work with. Too many paper cuts, missing basic features, and overall stunted workflow in my opinion. I do use Affinity Photo for HDR and stacking, though. But that is it. Just too many little frustrating things that proved to be workflow stoppers for me personally. That said, PhotoLine requires manual work to change the rather inconvenient default settings. It is more of an image editor for advanced users, and tutorials are almost non-existent! Here is my setup: