chrisjones

I think the key here is the development between Apple, MAXON and Redshift. The fact MAXON bought Redshift then last year Apple announced their Metal API is driving the development of Redshift on the Mac speak volumes. Almost all queries relate to the 'supposed' inefficiency of 16gb RAM in the Mac Mini being able to power Cinema. If I was that serious about purchasing one I would wait until the usual reviewers test exactly this set up and go from there. They are given equipment to test, so save your money and let someone else figure it out for you. As cheap (comparitively) a Mac Mini is, if it's inefficient a year down the line that's an expensive mistake. For what it's worth, I suspect the M1 chip utilises the 16gb RAM in a much different way than an Intel / AMD chip would. Apple rarely wastes development time and money, and for something as potentially game changing as this I can't see them making such a howler.

@goshinga Hi! I think for a beginner you are aiming too high too soon with that kind of model. Sorry to say that. What you need to do to advance is start off by making small things, things you can feasibly acheive. Trust me, there will be things you assume are too easy that will give you headaches as every single thing you ever model will have some sort of challenge. I was on and off using Cinema for about four years, then at the beginning of 2019 I made a conscious effort to start making things. I've nowmade four pretty decent peices I'd put on a website to showcase my skills, and that's over the course of two years nearly. Two years for four things!!! fair dues I am a working father of three, but still, these things can take time. Lots of it! I'd say the one thing you have going for you is the fact you're registered on here looking for answers – trust me, there are many on facebook groups etc you can clearly see they ask for and take no advice and it shows… My one bit of advice would be to simply learn how to model properly for that will give you such a good base to then progress from. If you can, get Making It Look Great 11 by Motionworks. That's what I devoured daily for a long time and refer to it constantly.

I often try to either recreate stuff I've already made in Cinema in Blender, or start something new in Blender but ultimately return to Cinema. I learned how to model in Cinema, without any plugins really apart from occasionally using HB modelling script for snapping, but I prefer Cinema's vanilla tools. It is so intuitive, just being able to visibly parent / child objects to each other, amongst a million other little idiosyncrasies, is one particular point that stops memoving to Blender. And the selection tag, with it's well thought out icons, you don't even need to click on to know it's either a vert, edge or face. Blender is too one-dimensional in it's UI regardless of the fact it had that enormous overhaul. If your workflow is compromised by poor UIX then that is a problem. And my two cents worth – working destructively isn't so bad. I always save backups and then bake down. It's taught me to model correctly using quad topology and focus on edge flow. There's a huge following for HardOps / Boxcutter and MeshMachin3 in Blender and they are awesome for hard surface stuff but you struggle when uv'ing etc, and if you bake down the meshes you have some serious clean up operations to endure. If you learn to model with quads you can survive without plugins.

I wasn't aware of that. As someone who has worked in design / advertising for nigh on 22 years, I recall the switch from Silicon Graphics to Macs, and the horror at these little toy machines being introduced to take the industry forward in place of the revered SGI's. So here we are 20 years later waiting for Apple to show us what's next... I only ever see custom PC's in niche areas of design, such as events where the 3d operative is making an exhibition stand visual in Max, but the interior visuals, and experiential items are done in Cinema. I have a couple of friends work at MPC and the Mill, and they've not seen a Mac for years, and use Maya / Houdini / Modo and Nuke and tailored pipelines. Generalising sure, but you get the idea. I guess the real impactful features from the last few versions – Volumes / Fields / and er, can't think of another – focus on super creative motion graphics and speed of iteration, and there's outstanding tutorials all over the internet showing how these can be utilised to create awesome work. But the real fundamentals of modelling, texturing, uv'ing for example, there's a conspicuous absence compared to similar for Blender. It seems Blender is almost at a feature set comparable to Cinema, all this for free, so there is a genuine appeal to Blender should MAXON continue to be expensive and quite niche, and especially if yet again they completely overlook the modelling and UV tools in future. For what it's worth, I have tried twice now to switch fully to Blender but I hate the UI and the approach to a lot of the modelling procedures – that management stack on the right is light years behind Cinema's arrangement, and things like the material manager is hideous compared to Cinema. I can use Cinema on autopilot for the most part.

You have to join the dots to see what the future holds: MAXON buys Redshift Redshift assist in development of their product utilising the new Apple Metal API Apple are the dominant force in the design industry (not VFX) Cinema 4D is the go-to 3d software for designers (not VFX) So MAXON and Redshift know their product is gonna exist for a long time yet, especially as the performance of these will be a core feature in Apple hardware updates. Allowing small studios, freelancers and hobbyists the opportunity to use these products under license via subscription satisfies a certain demand but they know full well the bulk of their revenue will come from businesses tied to that Mac ecosystem. This is what makes Cinema and Blender actually so different, regardless of their operational similarities. Blender is being touted as a viable alternative to Maya. They don't even want to gain a strong presence in the design industry. Just my two-cents worth…

It's to appear like the subscription money is doing a good job of providing people with a healthy return on their investment.

Hey @Freemorpheme for your questions I believe the best answer is Motionworks' Make It Look Great 11 if you haven't already come across this then I suggest you should. Toby Pitman explains the core principles of workflow planning, problem solving, topology etc – really essential. There's loads of youtubers that can show you how to model something, such as Arrimus 3D, Nikolaus Shautz (Nikomedia) and so on, but the MILG11 series actually explains how to do it.

@natevplas I get your sentiment thanks! I've actually just been spending ages trying to use good practice to get models that ok, maybe not 'perfect' but I have learned that doing a cheap, sh*** boole-ridden model causes grief all the way down the line further on. I guess after all that modelling I just wanted to find a quick solution so I can get lighting, then rendering, and hopefuly crank out some nice renders for my folio. I'm definitely gonna do cerbera's method first and see how I get on – he's got a few examples of these kind of devices modeled and rendered in the same way so for me that makes him the go to guy for advice on this technique.

@Cerbera great work! seems we have similar interests in things to create in 3d. I may well be asking your guidance again no doubt

Yeah I have quite a few of this device and they are waaaaay too perfect to be anything but renders. I actually began making this because I'd seen a thing a while back Jon Dickinson of Motionworks had posted on his Twitter feed about how to do the jogwheel – the centre wheel that mimics a turntable – and just carried on from there. It's kind of like my practice model, where I attempt different methods. Here's a basic render of what I've created so far:

Hey thanks Cerbera, really appreciate you taking the time to explain. Trust me I'm not one to ask first without trying. I did a few experiments, got fairly close with a layer shader in the colour channel but it got so convoluted it became difficult to tweak as it was all so intertwined. I knew it could be a simple process. I guess I should have persevered with the anisotropy in the first place!

Hey all, Bit nooby this one – I wish to create the brushed effect shown on this surface using C4D native materials and Physical renderer. I've been spending so much time learning modelling, and wanted a few decent models first before moving on to texturing. The model has two plastic surfaces – the outside of the device has a fine diffuse black and the centre, around the jogwheel, has that kind of anisotropy surface. I have created a layer in photoshop using noise and motion blur, as you would if you wanted to create a brushed metal surface in photoshop. Do I use a luma shader? or put it in the reflection channel? how would you guys do it? I guess it's just a dark metal really?

Mesh Boolean is really cool for multiple booleans on hard surface models. Kind of like the Volume Builder tool in the sense you can quickly build up complex models. Like any boolean, it's hideous on curved surfaces. The fact the objects within the heirarchy have tags that have variables is really cool.

@Rectro Thanks sooooo much for taking the time to craft a well thought out response, I really appreciate that. I will check out your fan art walkthrough later to get a general overview of the approach you take. And it's cool that there's a very good Z Brush artist who's brain I can pick on here too! I wish to utilise the application on a few things I have coming up. You know that moment where you become aware of a particular application, and you haven't quite figured out yet how it will become a part of you armoury? I was exactly like this a number of years ago when I was wading through Andrew Kramer's After Effect tutorials on Video Copilot, and there were a number of tutorials that started to introduce the viewer to importing 3d objects, that then progressed onto a tutorial that actually made one to import. I had heard of Cinema 4D but hadn't the faintest idea exactly what it could be used for. And then I discovered Behance, and studied what people were making on there and after finally getting Cinema, and after a number of years, I get it. At the moment, with Z Brush, I know I will prefer to sculpt my surfaces, make maps of the surface to then use for my models. Right now I kind of don't quite get it, I'm just waiting for the penny to drop. Of the three – Cinema / Z Brush / Substance Painter – Z Brush is by far the least accessible in terms of UI and procedure. Like I mentioned, I am going to use Z Brush to define the leather portions of the ear cups on the headphones. I think something as straightforward as this – simple base model, really generic topology etc – shouldn't pose to omanuy problems and also it will give me a gentle introduction to making the mesh a tool in Z Brush, utilising the subtool principles etc, and exporting and re-importing into Cinema. Thanks once agin for your response, I'm sure I'll tap you up again in the future!

Hey guys, Hope you are all well. Apologies if this is blasphemous on a Cinema forum, but do any of you guys use Z Brush? I am modelling a set of headphones, and I fancy trying to create the soft ear cup and headband parts in Cinema as basic models then use these simple shapes for my first foray into Z Brush, which I plan on getting on trial to do so. I've got a few tutorial vids etc but always helps to have real humans giving real world advice. Perhaps my main priority would be to have the genral gist of the workflow explained from an experience standpoint. I'm guessing I do whatever sculpting in Z Brush then import the mesh back into Cinema, but I don't know if I then just bake the normals and use those, or retopologise. Just a general noob question really! Thanks for your time Chris

@zeden thanks for the recommendation. Have you used it at all?

Thanks guys. I often discover little things that make me wonder if they are useful to assit with the modelling side of 3D, but I guess unless everybody is utilising these external tools then best to just persevere with Cinema's tools. For what it's worth, I have been plugging away for so long now at just modelling I actually feel I am getting somewhere at last. It takes so long, it's easy to desire a magic formula to make things easier. That said, I found I only got really schooled once I saw Make It Look Good 11 by Toby Pitman for Motionworks.

Hi All, I have just discovered Fusion 360, and downloaded a trial. I wondered if anyone on here used it to create decent block-outs to use as a start point for modelling in Cinema? or even well crafted meshes? it seems like it could be really useful to create hard surface stuff. I have experimented with some organic meshes, saved them as Step files and imported them into Cinema, then used the polygon pen to retopo the object. I know I could do much of that in Cinema, but it seems using a program that doesn't encourage me to continually refine like Cinema naturally would is in a way quite useful.

@everfresh Thanks, I had a good play with the method and quickly realised it is a far more controllable alternative to soft selection. I like it, and glad I've happened upon the technique so cheers for that!

@everfresh interesting approach to the concave, I'm not au fait with using falloffs for that kind of effect. I would have assumed soft selection would be the best way to attempt that. Your method – is that a direct alternative to the soft selection method, and if it is would you recommend that? Thanks. @Bolos – kudos for attempting this in modelling, great practice!

Re that, I find in R20 using this method of clone mode in the slide tool has some strange occurences, whereby sometimes upon activation it will use a really extreme offset, like in the 100's, and it's almost impossible to rein it back in manually, so I have to then undo, click the clone option, and manually key in a figure that's more to what I was after. Thus defeating the object of the quick-key method…

While I understand the desire to turn everything AI assisted, what good is that for the immediate future? why even bother learning anything today if AI gets it's grubby little fingers on everything? what's the point of learning edge flow today if I know AI will do everything for me in the future?