Jops

you could try the clipping settings in the project settings

Thanks a lot you guys 🙂. All fine. I was just checking back, saw no reaction and was in the mood to write something 🙂 @catnap I might have bin to fast with my response. Nice to see that you checked my setup out 🙂 It is a very interesting project you are working on there 🙂 best regards Jops

no feedback whatsoever? sad 😞

since R21 or so cinema includes a spherical cam. it is a separate tap in the camera object. you could try this instead of the mirrored ball.

interesting question. There are some things I could think about. - standard emitter with in size animated spheres. mabye with metaballs. - spline deformer for the bow wave (look into the manual) or maybe something like this > File best regards Jops comic_boat_FS.c4d

that of course limits the user base further, but there are still quite some people working with physical. The node system should be a reason to use physical or standard, as it offers possibilities that go further then many third party render engines. But it doesn't seem to be a reason for many people. I can't comment on the redshift node system, but octanes nodes are way easier to use then C4D material nodes. More limited to, but that doesn't bother me 99,9% of the time. I don't want to get bothered by complexity every day, that I just need once all three years. To find a good compromise is the real Art.

I have to disagree. Look at the material node system. It is super powerful, but even though it is around for quite some time now extremely few people are using it (in my experience). The reason is not that people didn't want to get a material node system (they really did), but in order to make everything possible maxon over complicated the system. No matter how long you propagate this system people will use easier systems for 99.8% of their tasks and will only use the node system, when they need to achieve something that is not possible with less complex systems (if they even know, that the nodes are capable of it). The basics of python are learned fast (it is really not that complicated), the challenge is to know the thousands of modules and functions that come with C4D. Scene nodes it basically just programming without the need to write it as a text. That of course is very convenient, but it still is programming. And that is a different profession. Xpresso is more limited, but it can achieve a lot that people need. Much of this is not so complex stuff like setting up user data and connecting it with different parameters in the scene. The beauty of xpresso is, that it is exactly on the edge of complexity that at least some artists are willing to master. It is a very good compromise between usability and power. Maxon has a good reputation for their user interface. But that is basically true for the foundation of the program many years ago. Some elements that came later are not that generically user friendly. As I said material nodes have a nice node editor but over complex and reflectance is still a mess after so many years. Sceene nodes represent the whole scene tree they are very complex out of principal and even though it is fantastic that they will be accessible they (in their end form) will be way to complex for 95% of the c4d users. That is the reason why maxon will reinvent the object manager. And now we are at the base of the discussion (as I see it). Sceene nodes as such will be much to complicated to be viable alternative for xpresso. We will see how maxon will try to solve this (and if they learned somthing from their material nodes) I don't know how long sceene nodes will take exchange the old core. But I think that maxon will not update anything that is related to it in order not to make double the work. When I interprete the last releases correctly they basically put all their efforts into the new core and so long we can not expect any big features besides it.

I don't believe, that there are gone be any mayor maxon developed features before the Node core and object manager are done. Will it be ready this version? I don't know, But I think that there is a fair chance that not. Will they integrate redshift into the package? I am quite shure that they don't want to, because they would either loose money or had to rise the price. Well they could come up with a Indie license. But that nearly for shure would mean to raise the price of the normal license to at least the double, but I don't think that price rises are smart right now Thy could be bold and give a version away for free that is complete, but striped of all plugin support, just renders up to full HD. And has no netrender support, only .stl as a export option and saves a .fc4d format, that can only be opened in a comercial version that is upgraded from the free license that saved the file. That would be a real competition to blender and still be to limited for most professional work. We are living in interesting times and I am looking forward to seeing what they will do. But I really think they are not that bold and they will just try to survive the time they need to get the core done. My bet is: - a improved version of the node and object manager tech demo - Some minor features that are mainly bought or plugin inspired or open standards integrated. - Some old features removed (as they did in the last versions) - some workflow tweaks - somehow small improvements of existing features best regards Jops

Physical can generatr flickering when objects get visiblr or invisible or if they get introduced to the sceen. Your animation looks lile metaballs. If this is the case, then look if you blend in blend out or generate objects. I know no workaround for this. Standard render is not affected.

I really dont like the modern style of making business. All the forcing of the own customers is despicable. What I even dislike more is the way they try to communicate changes that benefit the company like if they where benefits for the customer and expecting goodwill, that they themselves are not willing to give. Maxon is by no means the worst, but it definitely has developed into this direction. They are still offering perpetual. But as long as it is so much more expensive I will just update every now and then, making shure to pay them less then they would have gotten with the MSA (out of principal). But thank god the 3D Market has real competition. I see so many people around that changed from max and maya because of the behaviour of autodesk. Maxon will have to make shure, that they will not alienate to many and loose them to blender (once they are gone they hardly will ever come back).

in three years there will be people who started with subscription and payed maxon more than 3500,-€ and they will have absolutely no place to revert to.

It is obviously no question of right or wrong. I like the looks of huge monitors, but I tend to get migraine easily from long hours in front of monitor light. Therefor I prefer a narrower working space.

yup. exactly. I couldn't live with one monitor anymore. And I always can buy a third one if I really need 4k for a customer 🙂

wow, looks like my last post got deleted or was lost?! I was just saying that even though I like the look of these super big monitors, I think that I can not look at them for a whole day. pixel wise the two 1440 just have 10% less pixels compared to one huge 4k. I wanted to invest In high quality Monitors, but as there is no "right" chioce right now considering the high density situation I decided to go for more "budget" Moniors - two Asus ProArt PA278QV (1440 calibrated for 100% sRGB and Rec709). They represent a great value for the money and will serve me well till the high dpi stuff is sorted 🙂 Thanks a lot for your input. Jops

Hi there, after nearly 10 years I have to replace my good old calibrated Dell 24' fullHD Monitors. Today there are so many good affordable Monitors for artists around. So I will get myself 2 x 27' Monitors (because I like the form factor and one huge 4k is to much of a monitor to look at the hole day (for me)). I just dont know if I should go for 1440p (no scaling problems, easier for the grafics card) or 4K (future prove, nicer to look at). I really like the 27' 1440p Monitors. they have a nice pixel density not to little not to many (you can still see the individual pixels which is fine for someone that is working with them 🙂. but I feel, that the time for monitors with a pixel density under 150 is over soon, and I dont want, in three years, sit in front of the monitors and consider them outdated. But I also think that tinkering high desnity monitors in Windows (including the apps) is still a lot of work and sometimes with poor results. I have a old Grafics card ( in a new workstation, as so many have 🙂 ) It will get replaced as soon as prices come down, but so long I will have to use the Monitors with 1440p or 1080p (which should be ok for a short while) So all of you that have 27' Monitors: What do you think? Is 4k the way to go? How does 1440p on a 4k screen look like (for the short time) will 1440p be outdated in 2 or 3 years? Is 4k still a hassle or is everything already cool? I really would be interested in any information I could get. best regards Jops

It is ridiculous that a 3500+€ software gets basically about 3 month of bugfixes. this is just ridiculous. No one who knows that will ever buy a new perpetual c4d license. Unfortunately that seems to be exactly what they want 😞

I didn't hink that that would be a great deal for me, but actually this also is true for me.

You are right. If Chriss Schmidt's presentation had been the official MAXON presentation I could imagine that there would have been less complaints. Therefor it also might be a communications problem.

considering the situation right now with covid and Blender, depending on how far you look into the future this might well cost them more then they gain now.

especially the people that pay subscription are not just "allowed" to criticize but they have to, as they can not just skip one version to show the company that they don't like the way things are going. Therefor they have to be loud. That is also one side of the subscription model. This is one of the reasons why people get negative. there are many more, like the relatively small updates because of the fast update circle (so this doesn't just have advantages, too) or the comparison with blenders development speed. then we have decisions by MAXON. for example to put a lot of energy into the new core (which I like) and not to change or improve any feature that will be dependent of the new core in the future (which I dont like considering the long long time this already has taken). there is a LOT of features that need a revision. It is a difficult situation MAXON is in and I can see the reasons for their decisions (even If I of course would maybe do things differently) There is just one thing, that I really do not understand. As MAXON is in the moment feature wise not developing like the competition why are they not trying to generate good will (for example by integrating Redshift into c4d at the same price) and why are they alienating their perpetual customers. There would be ways to generate more positive feedback but they prefer to remove features without replacement, hold off customers year after year (we are developing something great for the future), to rationalize the (in my case) great service of their resellers away and increase the prices for perpetual licenses for former MSA customers. I think customers well have reasons to complain. best regards Jops

It is correct that every student can get a free c4d license for its private computer. But for the installation on computer pools of schools and universities things are a bit different. Depending on how long you plan to give c4d courses the installation on these pools might be free or cost some hundred bucks per computer.

found on the website: The Cinema 4D products (Cine Designer and Set Designer) are both offline for now. We may update them in the future. http://www.cinematographydb.com/

its going to be a subscription release. therefor I am not to exited. even besides that in the moment I really feel my excitement towards c4d has cooled down (unfortunately). The integration of redshift is a must in my opinion (all the other packages have a GPU renderer), but I am not to shure if they will really do that. Maybe they will use it to increase the price. I think they might get rid of some legacy stuff. In the last releases we saw that quite some of the new features where free available (Open Image Denoise) or aquired (UV unwarping). I could imagine, that we see more like this. they really seem to be into the new core we just can hope, that they improve fast.

I meant all of what you are writing about. Offering an additional subscription is absolutely sensible and necessary, but offering a perpetual licence at these conditions is obviously just an attempt to create a softer transition in order to have a "legitimate" reason to offer subscriptions only. Unfortunately, this will work, and Adobe proves that you can be successful in the medium term despite alienating your user base. I can see the attempt to move away from Adobe in many places, but it's a slow process. I am not renting my musical instruments, therefore I dont have to pay anyone if I want to play my own songs, or work on them. I have the feeling that the designers have lost their artistic honour when they let something like this happen to them, or I'm looking at it the wrong way and 3D has just become a work that is not bound to personal artistic skills but is just regular work that can be executed by anyone. But as I sad. It will work and even though I don't want this to be forced on me I will then have to decide to leave the software I work with for 20 years and that I love or let myself lock into a never ending dependence.

Jup in every possible way perpetual is deprived. it is obvious where things are going 😞