Matches

I'm not using using R25, but when I tested the scene, the viewport performance was extremely sluggish until I deactivated the forester objects' viewport visibility. I'm running on an older gpu, but even so, once forester was hidden, c4d was much more responsive, even with the arnold ipr running in the background.

Arnold's performance also seemed pretty typical to me, so I'm not sure what's causing the difficulties for you, but hopefully one of the smart people here will be able to figure this out for both of us.

I think it would be useful to add a few splatters of ketchup, mustard, ice cream etc to make the scene look a little more chaotic and to help break up some of those big clear surfaces, if you're up to it. But even without that it already looks really great!

Best case scenario: maxon leaves pixologic alone to continue working their magic, and the development for zbrush continues like before.

Worst case scenario: maxon works their magic and zbrush atrophies over the years and leaves an opening for another software to usurp them.

In all fairness, the former is more likely to happen judging by maxon's acquisition of redshift which continued developing uninterrupted. Fortunately it seems that the brass at maxon is too preoccupied with subscription policy to spare any attention to hinder zbrush's future development. At least that's my silver lining . 

Good news for maxon, bad news for c4d.

Nothing on the market currently can compete with the scope of Zbrush's capabilities, and that alone gives maxon enough leverage to gouge the consumer base with their subscription platform, rendering c4d superfluous and unnecessary, especially in light of the negative reaction they received from their latest and disappointing release (R25).

Acquiring pixologic was a gutsy move on maxon's part, but was probably due more to desperation and lack of confidence in c4d's ability to bring in continuing profits.

Basically, it seems that maxon is hellbent to keep their current business practices whether by virtue or force, and now that zbrush is part of their arsenal, I'm expecting c4d to stagnate further.

I think Igor's comparison to autodesk sums up the situation perfectly.

Expertly done! 

Please keep sharing your work.

Loft nurbs might be the solution you're looking for.

It's hard to say without seeing the scene file, but I'd guess that either the axis needs to be changed or the bounding box is not fitted to the helix.

This issue is appearing due to inconsistent weight distribution. If you want an entire row of vertices to move in unison, then you have to make sure that in any given row of vertices, one vertex's joint and weight relationship is identical to it's neighbor's, i.e. Row 01 - JointA = %50, JointB = 35%, and JointC = 15% for that entire edge loop. This will keep the vertices moving together at an equal rate of speed and avoid pulled and distorted geo.

Also, lower resolution meshes tend to be much smoother and forgiving when it comes to this subject, so you may want to try to reduce and even out the polys.

16 hours ago, adamfilip said:

With the new release of Procreate 5.2 and its ability to paint in 3D, Wondering how this compares to Forger painting/texturing.

also the best workflow for procreate and C4D in windows.

 

can anyone share their experiences.

Besides the portability of the ipad, what advantages do you find by using Forger, being that C4D already has sculpting and texturing capabilities?

I've never used Forger although I've heard decent things about it, however I'm curious to hear about your experience with it, especially since you seem to be using it in tandem with C4D.

I can't be sure what's causing the tail displacement without seeing the current scene file, however I would suggest a rig solution that offers convenience and control with minimal effort. The basic idea is to have two rigs for your model: one should be IK-spline and the other FK. The FK rig should be skinned to your model and be driven by the IK rig through a parenting setup. This would allow you the convenience of the IK-spline rig without surrendering control by using an FK rig when you feel the need.

I'm including an example scene to demo what I'm talking about.

There are other solutions to handle a project like this, but I feel that this approach should be a sufficient start without too much hassle.

IK-FK_demo.c4d

It's difficult to troubleshoot without seeing the scene file. Please post your scene so we can try to help you out.

I've uploaded the file where I've gone ahead and cleaned up the joint rotations on the neck joints, and provided a rough example of the fk setup.

Just an fyi, setting the ik control spline to bezier and adjusting the tangent handles accordingly will give your ik spline controls influence over the rig's P rotation. However this can give you messy results when working with the fk setup, so depending on your animation shot you'll want to set your spline on either bezier or something like b-spline, like you had it originally.

I hope this makes sense. 

Constrictor_0006.rar

Hi, Sylxeria

The way I checked your scene was by zeroing out the rig controls' psr, and then quickly running through the joints via the object manager with the move tool set to local to see each joint's axis. Until joint 23, the chain maintained a relatively consistent up axis, which in this case was the Y axis, but afterwards started to spin around the Z, causing the up axis (Y axis) to tilt off course. This is a fairly easy fix using the Joint Align Tool.

Just as a tip for best practices, it's a good idea to freeze your joints before applying ik or binding the rig in order to have a clean starting rig or possibly to help troubleshoot later if necessary.

Regarding best approaches for this rig - a spline ik is definitely a good base, but could certainly have it's functionality expanded.

Just as an example, you could easily achieve an effect where the snake could roll it's tail up (or it's head) by creating an fk chain of joints or nulls and parenting the ik spline controls underneath. This is a motion and pose that would be tedious to manually animate using the spline ik controls.

There are other features that you may want to add depending on the needs of your project, and these should be incorporated into your rig and built upon to suit your needs and preferences.

I hope this helps

Congratulations, Igor

It's been very interesting following this thread for the last few weeks and reading all the different and passionate points of view, so I thought I'd throw my two cents in.

Speaking frankly I'm pretty confused by the current direction of C4D. Working procedurally can definitely be a cool and efficient way to work, but Maxon's effort here seems to be mostly reactionary to get on board with what they perceive to be the new fad. IMO a procedural workflow really shines for dynamics and effects, and since C4D has no fluid system and not a much of a dynamics or particle system to speak of, I find little value in the procedural workflow.

The idea of trying to compete with Houdini doesn't make much sense to me, since it will likely be many many years before C4D can even be considered a contender, and in the meantime C4D is trailing it's ACTUAL competitors in so many areas.

Maya is already the artist friendly answer to effects with fantastic capabilities, while Blender is a great FREE alternative with an impressive host of features to boast. Neither software is perfect, but each one has areas where they excel and take no prisoners, such as Maya's amazing uv capabilities, or it's native renderer Arnold, or other fantastic features like Bifrost, Xgen, and Mash etc.

Blender has really taken leaps and bounds to compete with Zbrush, and though Zbrush is the undefeated champion in terms of sheer polygon power, Blender has developed a rich sculpting program, and should be considered a viable alternative. Blender even beat Zbrush to the punch with their cloth brushes, although Pixologic quickly introduced this feature with highly impressive results, just like any smart developer would do to keep it's rep. Blender also has a realtime renderer, which is great for lookdev and maybe even final renders.

This realization really hit home for me with a recent project; I finally gave up on C4D's neglected hair system and reintroduced myself to Xgen with the intention of using Arnold's proprietary USD system to render out of C4DtoA, when I had the sudden epiphany that Maya SHIPS with Arnold allowing me to forgo all that export hassle and render out of Arnold directly using Maya. Despite it's clunky and disorganized interface, I find myself moving to Maya more and more, which is ironic because C4D's interface is far superior to Maya's and that's one of the few 'features' Maxon chose to mess with.

I could ramble on and on, but the basic point is that C4D has fast become a master at none, and really doesn't have a specialty area anymore. In my recent projects  I have found myself using C4D less and less, opting to use other packages throughout the pipeline that are much more efficient and capable than C4D.

I am confused by Maxon's decisions and wonder if they themselves know what their long-term goals are, but I guess time will tell.

Thanks for reading .

I've been working on a teeth shader in Arnold recently for a project, and while I haven't tried to replicate it in Cycles, I would say that the key to realistic teeth is nailing it's translucency, through the sss and/or the refraction channels.

The attached image shows a tooth shader being driven completely by sss. (The character is kinda gross, so please try to disregard all the gunk and cracks in the model )

I took a quick look at your constrictor scene, and the first thing I noticed was that in the neck chain, joints 23-41 were twisting off course and not keeping a consistent up axis. Once I fixed this, the rig behaved predictably without giving weird twists.

Try it for yourself and see if that helps. 

If the shoulder joint is also being used as the first joint of the arm ik chain, it's possible that the shoulder joint is shifting due to the pole vector.

This is just a guess, since I'm not sure what your initial setup was.

It's difficult to try and diagnose the problem without seeing the actual scene. Please upload your updated scene file and I'd be happy to try and help. 

I raised the tolerance on the Symmetry object to about 10, and the extrude tool was affected to respect the centerline, and not create polygons in the middle.

I'm surprised they beat Epic Games to the punch .

If the problem still isn't solved, please upload the file so we could try to troubleshoot.

Thanks.

8 hours ago, kbar said:

 

Could you explain the "Surface" option and how that applies to sculpting. I might not be getting exactly what it is you are after. Since the sculpting brushes are surface based. They don't just take what is under the brush preview. It looks at the connected polygons on the surface of the model and if they are with the radius of the brush then the vertices are affected. There is also the "Surface Distance" option on the grab brush which works a little different as well, it walks the surface of the connected edges and calculates the amount of distance travelled from the centre hit point. 

 

Also if you want a duplicate layers option I added it to my own sculpting brush tools if you need it: https://www.plugins4d.com/Product/SculptProjectionBrush

 

I have asked people a few times what they would want from the Sculpting system as far as additions go. But I don't hear anything at all other than wanting auto retopology and meshing tools. Which aren't actually related to the sculpting tools.

 

And since R23 there is a new remeshing algorithm built in called "Remesh". Which got improved further in S24 with more options.

Thanks kbar, I checked out what you mentioned regarding the "Surface Distance", and that is indeed what I was looking for. I must have missed this, since this is option is only available on the "Grab" brush and not the other ones for some reason. Regardless I'm glad to know about this function and I'm grateful you pointed it out .

Concerning what you mentioned about the sculpting layers, while I appreciate that you've expanded C4D's sculpting toolset, I still don't think it answers why C4D itself doesn't ship with these features, especially since the sculpting module was introduced way back in R14 and has remained virtually untouched since then.

I believe that remeshing is an expected feature for modern digital sculpting, and really should be included in any self respecting software that wants to stay competitive and advertises a fully functional sculpting workflow, as opposed to an addendum toolset to modeling.

I've experimented with the "Remesh" and found the results to be very unimpressive, especially compared to the auto-topo solutions from Zbrush, 3dcoat, mudbox, the Exoside plugin, and even blender. My point is not to bash Maxon's efforts, but rather to point out that they've allowed themselves to fall way behind the trend, and if they want to catch up and stay competitive then they've got to step it up, especially considering that they introduced sculpting almost ten years ago.
 

8 hours ago, kbar said:

 

I also developed an entire system for symmetrical painting that works using a Sculpting style workflow on top of the existing Body Paint layers system. I gave this away for free for a while too but have recently pulled it all down. Nobody really wants it (although it had over 3000 downloads when I made it pay what you want, but only earned about $7 in donations). Everyone has moved onto other applications. The main issue that many people face now is that they are using 3rd Party renderers in C4D. And you can't paint live on a texture and have it update in that renderer. People using Mari and Substance are disconnected enough that this does not bother them. But inside C4D people expect, or want to, see the final result while they are painting. So no one really wants to setup Standard Materials in C4D just so they can texture paint anymore. And in a world of procedural materials and textures I really don't know many people that even paint anymore at all. If you know people who want these tools then let me know.

 

You could paint using Stamps, Stencils with Symmetry right in the Viewport. These tools have been around since R17.

 

https://www.plugins4d.com/Product/PaintBrushes

 

I am curious to know what people actually want from BodyPaint. It sounds like it is just a new look to make it seem fresh. Internally it is a solid system. But these days do people want to paint on textures or do they want to paint masks like what Substance does? 

 

How complex are the models people want to paint? Mari is dedicated and can handle huge models and a large number and large sized, textures. Which is why it has a custom caching system. Can you, or should you, even attempt to compete with Mari? A dedicated tool for the job will always win for painting complex models in a studio setup. And with the subscription model now they don’t even sell BodyPaint3D as a separate application, so even harder to convince a studio to purchase a Swiss Army knife tool like C4D when all they want is a dedicated painting tool.

 

 

As far as Bodypaint is concerned, I respectfully reject the notion that C4D users are disinterested in Bodypaint and it's future development. Your experience with your "Symmetry" addition and it's dramatic change in downloads ratio, should tell you that Bodypaint users are not disinterested, but rather unwilling to pay any extra to gain basic features that are standard in other packages and should come with no additional fee.

Also, the idea that Bodypaint was abandoned because users expect live feedback confuses me. Many years ago, Bodypaint was a prominent staple in professional pipelines and had a strong foothold in the industry; Why would it be traded for other programs that are identically deficient?

The fact is that Bodypaint has been neglected for years, and I remember 3dKiwi ranting about this years ago and still nothing's changed even up until now. In fact, his Bodypaint tutorial course from about (over) ten years ago is probably still completely accurate.

Substance is a relatively new software, but I remember even a few years ago, when hand-painted textures were a bigger market, 3dCoat was much more prolific than Bodypaint, and offered a much more feature-rich solution for painting. Even today 3dCoat continues to stay competitive with the integration of a BPR workflow, smart materials, and masks etc.

Blender has also become a much better solution for painting and general workflow, is constantly being updated and developed, and for many is the Swiss Army knife tool that a lot of studios are adopting for the majority of their work. And is also free.

I want to reiterate that my intention is not to "hate" on Maxon, but rather to voice my criticism and hope that they decide to up their game. Competition is what motivates the industry, and those program devs that are content to stay in their respective lanes or get too full of themselves, will fall by the wayside to other packages that are eager to dominate and become number one; Zbrush, Houdini, and Blender are good examples of upward trending, highly competitive programs.
 

Cinema 4D is a great package, but there are so many area that are neglected and should really get some attention, before new features are introduced.

Just a quick disclaimer before I start ranting: I am a big fan of Cinema 4D, and the following is not meant to be inflammatory or insulting to the Maxon team, I'm just submitting my frank opinion as constructive criticism.

Motion trails are useful, but have some serious shortcomings, and I would love to see a proper arc tracker, like the ones available for Maya, such as the Atools' arc tracker.

Also having the pan/zoom tool would be a welcome addition for animation, and long overdue.

Cinema's sculpting module could also use some love, like having a "Surface" option for the brushes, like there is for "soft selection" editing.

Or being able to duplicate layers - I can't believe such a basic feature isn't available.

A basic remesher would be nice, or dynamic topology.

PLA is SUCH a cool feature, but it could be so much more, with just a few additions that would allow much more control. Like a PLA brush set, that can allow animators to intensify, tween, smooth, or erase PLA modifications, without having to go point by tedious point to get good results.

In my opinion, PLA could be a real game changer for animation, and really set C4D apart from other packages.

Even though I'm a fan of C4D's symmetry generator, symmetrical modeling would be a welcome addition and a very useful option.

While on the subject of symmetry, symmetrical painting in the very neglected BodyPaint3d would be nice, as well as some general updates and baking options, to make it more user friendly and modern to be competitive with Substance and Mari.

In my opinion, BodyPaint3d is a missed opportunity, and could have really been a serious alternative to Substance Painter, like 3dCoat tries to be, if Maxon had kept up with BodyPaint3d and the new workflows emerging in the industry.

Also, something must be done about Cinema's rendering. For a few years Maxon was promising a GPU renderer in the form of ProRender, which never got off the ground, and turned out to be a huge disappointment and waste of time. Maxon went on to purchase Redshift, but refuses to integrate it with Cinema as a default renderer, so they can maximize sales, which is understandable, but nevertheless, leaving the Maxon customer base high and dry is unacceptable.

The standard and physical renderers were very good in their times, but desperately need an update.

Either integrate Redshift into C4D, like Autodesk did with Arnold, or give Cinema 4D users, a viable alternative.

Another area that could use some love, would be the hair module. I really enjoy the hair tools, and Maxon was way ahead of the trend, when it came to hair and grooming, but they've allowed themselves to fall behind other hair packages, like XGen, Ornatrix, Yeti, etc. which capitalize on a procedural workflow.

I would welcome Maxon to convert C4d Hair to a more procedural workflow, but even without that, it wouldn't take much to stay competitive.

Even just a few features to stay relevant, like Strand groups, region painting, more controlled clumping, more intuitive hair material (modifier) stacking etc.

Also, C4D's viewport does not handle hair well, and slows to a crawl unless most hairs are hidden, making it harder to get decent feedback while working.

Cinema's dynamics system is really lacking, and could use some attention.

There are other features that I would like to see, but these are some that have been at the top my list for a while.

Thanks for reading, and putting up with my rant .

I think the problem can be avoided by making sure that your joints (and their parent nulls) remain at a scale of 1 in the attributes manager.

If you want to adjust the length of the joint chain, either adjust the position of the individual joints, or scale the chain using the scale tool in model mode and not in object mode, so the objects remain at a scale of 1 in the attributes manager.

I'm pretty sure that should solve the problem .