Jump to content

3D-Pangel

Contributors Tier 2
  • Posts

    2,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    140

Everything posted by 3D-Pangel

  1. I have been interested lately in modelling topology solutions. The solutions are pretty software agnostic as good topology is pretty universal regardless of the software package being used. Also given that there are many ways to solve a particular situation, I have been interested in as many solutions as possible and have wondered if others have the same interests. I found this site which I think is just an awesome resource. As I look at this site, it does make me wonder if Topology should be its own sub-forum in the modeling section. You present a problem involving a particularly challenging basic shape and you just post a solution that shows great topology (good edge flow, no complex poles, evenly spaced quads, etc). As Core4D moves to embrace other software packages there is no need to present a tutorial, rather just the rough initial shape and then the solution --- or multiple levels of solutions: one level for hard surface models that won't be sub-divided but will be UV'd, another for hard surface models that will be UV'd and sub-divided and a third for character models that will be UV'd, sub-divided and deformed. Most of us know the modeling commands but what most of us lack is the thought process behind the topology solution. That information only comes from the masters of modeling who probably have grown their techniques over years of refinement. My hope is that over time, there is always access to that level of good source of reference information - whether it be from the "Topology Guides' site or within Core4D itself. Just a thought. Dave
  2. It is both a reference and it has step by step tutorials. At 46 hours it has both. They do walk you through the interface and explain the logic of Blender's interface. For $17 I thought it was worth the risk to purchase it. What is interesting is if you go the web-site to get course information, you will see 12 sections listed. But once you purchase the course, you get a listing of 19 sections in the tutorial menu - so that does hint that they are adding to the course over time. I took a screen shot a provided it below: Note that they spend two hours on "Understanding Blender" - so I would imagine that is a gentle introduction for newbies into Blender. Notice that I said "I imagine" when I discussed that chapter. Here is why. I ran into a problem with Udemy's streaming capabilities. During my morning workout, the tutorial would stop after about 4 minutes and a System Administrator message would pop up and say their Engineers are working on it. Move to another tutorial and it happens again. After 4 attempts with 4 different tutorials, I switched to Insydium tutorials which always stream like a champ in glorious 1080P - so I know it is not my network. Hopefully this is just a temporary problem but if not, then fortunately I can download each course and put it on a USB drive to then watch while working out (I will admit that Samsung TV is amazing -- and very cheap too). Probably need a 64 Gb drive for the entire course. Dave
  3. I purchased the Blender Encyclopedia and so far am quite impressed with the course. It truly is an Encyclopedia that mixes both step-by-step training with individual training at the tool level. They also explain each node of Cycles and Eevee. Plus, if streaming at 1080P does not work for you, you can download each course which fits right into my workout set-up as the TV I use does have a USB port in the back which can be used as a source. I also "hear" that they will update some courses with each major release as it was called the 2.8 Encyclopedia but they also say it covers 2.9 as well. Overall, it is a pretty good reference for $16.99 (normally $103 after 6/23/21). Now the disappointing news. I do NOT have a set of 6-pack abs. If you think I do, you are confusing me with Hrvoje. I mean, I am 60 years old after all and while I think I am doing pretty good for my age, I am still completely invisible to all should I walk the beach....and I am at peace with that. Dave
  4. This is not what my wife used to test me, but I think it may help. I just searched for "What type of learner am I", and this site came up. To validate that the site actually does what it says, I took the test and it confirms I am a visual learner. Only 20.6% of the population are visual learners. It also said that all visual learners are good looking, good natured, trust worthy and have a fine set of six-pack abs. Yes....I can definitely vouch for the accuracy of that test. 😄 Dave
  5. Wolf, There is a lot you said there that I agree with. I laughed at your comments about trueSpace. What a pile of crap and the way Caligari went under in the end (remember proTeam) really biased me against all subscription programs. Relative to learning multiple programs, my struggle is finding the time as this is a hobby for me after all and not a full time vocations. But with that said, the cost of the Udemy Blender 2.8/2.9 Encyclopedia just dropped in price again from $23.99 to $16.99 so I am probably going to purchase it. I think Blender 3.0 is going to create a much stronger attraction for me as I hear more about some of the UI changes. Personally, I hate learning via short cuts because I find I am always stopping the tutorial, rewinding 10 seconds, and listening to pick up that short cut again. I feel like yelling at the instructor: "Yeah! We know you are an expert! Stop showing off and slow down!" My wife, a high school advance calculus math teacher, told me that there are various learning styles and tested me to find out which style I learn best with. I am a visual learner...I need to see it...so verbal shortcuts in a tutorial are barriers for me. Modo tutorials also use a lot of verbal shortcuts and I think that prevented me from going further with the program (that and their whole object paradigm which for the life of my I still can not understand). I do agree that C4D tutorials tend to be more "show" than "tell". Oddly, as my time is limited, I tend to do most of my learning while working out on the exercise bike early each morning 4 days a week. When Covid hit and the gyms closed, we canceled our gym membership, purchased an Echelon bike, some weights, a squat rack, and a 50 inch 4K internet enabled TV for the basement. Set up a high-speed ethernet over powerline connection to the TV and now I can stream YouTube and purchased tutorials to watch while working out (thankfully 50 inch 4K TV's are pretty cheap because that is the only way to see the UI while on the bike). The remote is attached to bike so I can rewind and repeat really interesting sections. Something about just watching the tutorial, taking it all in rather than stopping and repeating the commands on my PC really help me internalize what I need to know. While I may not exactly remember every single step, I do remember what needs to be done but more importantly (especially if it is good tutorial), the purpose, approach and the reasons behind it. Also, once the technique is internalized, I also remember the tutorial it came from in case I need a refresher while at the PC. 46 hours of Blender Encyclopedia training being streamed from Udemy may be the way to go for me to learn Blender. I do feel that there will be a point in the future when the technology of all these programs catches up to each other and there is not that much to distinguish one program from another in terms of features, stability or ease-of-use. At that point, the annual subscription or perpetual license costs will no longer be able to be cost justified. In short, the changes/improvements will get less and less each year as time goes on but the upgrade/subscription costs will stay the same. It will be at that point I move to Blender. Dave
  6. Wolf, Well...that is disheartening as I really love your modeling tutorials. Your explanations are clear and the logical choices you make in approaching a modeling task just resonate with me. You are right up there with Cerbera, Vector, DasFrodo, etc. and anyone else in my mind who is better than me (and that opens it up PRETTY WIDE so my apologies for forgetting to mention anyone). I did look at that course and it is definitely something to keep an eye on. Unfortunately, at 25+ hours of instruction that is a bit of time commitment and probably one which I would only be willing to make when I finally decide to leave C4D. Dave
  7. To a certain extent, I agree with everyone. My main test for whether or not I can work with a program is to spend the first couple of hours working my way through the interface without the benefit (and in complete absence of) any training. C4D just clicked with me...I could figure it out. Not so much with modo (the object manager in the early versions was a stumbling block and I have never looked back) and to a lesser extent the same with Blender. Now, with that said, I am still finding out smarter ways to work with C4D after 16 years. There are elements of the UI that make me wonder why I didn't find that years ago. The answer to that is simply that you fall into a methodology and keep to it out of habit. So I think that comments to people's initial exposure to Blender are just as valid as expert's criticism of the interface. All is good feedback. But if I may add something --- from watching the Blender tutorials, there is almost this "pride" over being able to navigate through the bumps in the Blender UI and/or workflow. Which makes me wonder if that pride suppresses complaints and therefore creates a status quo that people do not dare challenge. I mean, why can't primitives remain parametric until the user decides to make them editable? That should be an easy fix. I hear some complaints about it but the response on the forums from Blender "gods" is almost like "How dare you question our culture -- Shame on you for bringing it up!". This is an over-exaggeration, but you get the point. These guys are the experts! They are the publicly recognized power users. They have a voice but they don't support the person raising the issue....they just explain it away with something along the lines of "Hey, this is Blender and it has always been that way". To me that is complacency from people who could make a difference as I would imagine they have close ties to the development community. The fact that they can't explain why it is not being addressed implies they have accepted rather than raised the issue. That complacency to accept things that could be changed is never good. Now in contrast, users bringing up long standing complaints over C4D don't get shamed for bringing it up but the response from the C4D gods is usually a disappointing "Yeah....brought this up 5 versions ago and on every revision since then. I have no idea what the developers are doing". Hey, at least they are trying. Dave
  8. Mjolner and Houdini have found you "worthy" Really great accomplishment. I mean that is not a trivial object to model in any application for a newbie...especially Houdini. So I am definitely impressed. Congratulations! You have crossed the Rubicon between C4D and Houdini and are now safely on the other side! Maxon and C4D will soon be just distant memories. Dave
  9. Let me clarify a few points: "-I don't understand your concern with the architecture and future growth" As I said, "unless the core architecture is absolutely brilliant" at some point the inclusion of so many disparate features (grease pencil, post processing, and a fully featured 3D app with all that entails) at some point is going to impact the pace of quality management which in turn is going to impact the pace of development. I mean, I marvel at what the developers are doing today and the pace of change. That is why I suspect that UI improvements to the Object Manager, which is the connective tissue of any 3D program, are the hardest and most difficult thing to improve. Someone nailed why I have such trouble with Blender in that there is a disconnect between the Object Manager and the Attribute manager (to use C4D terms) when it comes to materials. I swear that has to do with how fast they are growing the program without giving just as much consideration as to how every new feature integrates with ALL the managers. I am keenly interested in what Blender 3.0 delivers as I do sense that it will be as drastic an improvement to Blender's usability as was the change from 2.79 to 2.80. "-The UI is mostly quite elegant, IMO. But it's a different tool than c4d. Seems to me you've been wrestling for two years now. You don't like where c4d is going, don't like their treatment of customers. But you can't let go. You are asking other apps to be c4d. The reality is that you have invested THOUSANDS of hours using c4d, watching tuts. You expect to have the same comfort level with another 3d app with just a few casual sessions?" Fair point. I even said as much with "Does C4D create a blind spot that prevents you from moving to another platform?". I have invested a lot in C4D - both the program and its eco-system of tutorials, plugins, models and libraries over the years. Honestly, what keeps me in love the with the program (other than the interface) is X-Particles, Forester and Redshift. Should Insydium ever make a version of X-Particles for Blender (as they are already very familiar with Cycles, I hope this is something they are considering), then that makes it just that much easier for me to leave C4D. "Might I ask you honestly: how many hours have you spent in Blender in the past 12 months?" To be honest, not that many - other than checking out the newest releases and playing around a bit. Most of my free time is with learning Redshift and X-Particles and converting a NoneCG model of Times Square to C4D for that company (a passion project that is massive: over 31,000 objects and over 2Gb in size). Again, more investment in C4D because once that is done, it just makes it harder to walk away. Look, CG is NOT my day job and my day job is also my night job too as I do a lot of night time calls as well (the downside of working with an international company in a central role). So time is limited. I guess I need the Blender equivalent of 3D-Kiwi's Blue airplane tutorial -- short but really get's you through the ALL the basics. "-Trust me, Maxon, Autodesk and Luxology have already felt a big bite in business lost from Blender." I certainly hope so. Nothing changes behavior better than competition.
  10. When you watch a video by Ian Herbert and see how fast he works in Blender and how he can make the amazing just happen without effort, you wonder if you could ever get to that level with such a clunky interface. In fact, with each of his new "mini-tutorials for lazy people", I question if it really is the interface's fault for me not picking up that program faster or do I have some mental condition that impedes my learning. Does C4D create a blind spot that prevents you from moving to another platform? Probably not, but I do find the transition very difficult. Also, unless their core architecture is just absolutely brilliant, don't you get the feeling that at some point that architecture will NOT be able to keep up with the rate of feature growth? Could that explain why menu navigation is just a huge eye straining exercise? Can this pace of tool innovation continue before it all just collapses under its own weight? Personally, I think they need to shift gears spend a little time on interface. 2.8 was great but now that they are capturing global mind share, the best way to capitalize on all that is to make the program easier to use. Has any of their "innovations" extended to things that we take for granted -- like a texture manager. I think I tripped over Blender's version of a texture manager but it was not intuitive. Also, why is plugin loading/management so difficult? Too many steps IMHO or is my C4D blind spot getting in the way. And wouldn't you just love an object manager like C4D's in Blender? Nope...no innovation there. So when does the pace of Blender innovation extend to the UI? Who are their UI designers and do they have a UI standard that all developers must adhere to? Is there any role at the Blender Foundation that is responsible for improving the user experience? Or is user-experience 100% met by the shiny new features that they pack into each release? How does Blender Org treat new users....and by new I do not mean new to CG (for example, they would not know any better when using parametric primitives for the first time) but experienced artists trying Blender for the first time? Is that a segment the Blender Foundation wants to grow or is it already growing for them? Do they want it to grow faster? Honestly, if Blender decided to say that UI and improving the NEW user experience is now their number 1 priority, I think that would really make other companies like Maxon, Luxology and Autodesk feel a little bit nervous...or at least more nervous than they are now. Dave
  11. 3D-Pangel

    INSYDIUM MeshTools

    Honestly, there is not much to impress with the sneak peeks so far. The UV advection and Foam capabilities added to the OpenVDBMesher are welcome additions but (as stated before) Meshtools is not that exciting (yet?) and I see no point to the xpOpenVDBImporter. Talking about xpOpenVDB Importer....isn't OpenVDB an output from XP? What is to be gained by importing? For example, would entire VDB simulations now be able to be handled like any other particle in XP? Nice idea, but I can't imagine a PC/workstation and/or render farm being able to handle VDB data sets to the same quantities as what XP could generate with particles. Thousands and tens of thousands of VDB objects being added to scene would kill most machines. Smaller quantities (around 100 or so) is more likely and probably just as easily handed by MoGraph or Fields. So not sure what the benefit is here. So 2 out of 4 is sneak peeks generating "some" level of interest so far feels like a 0.5 release rather than a full point release. It does make you wonder what else they have been working on. The only thing that would make sense is that all their energy has been directed to GPU acceleration judging by these lack-luster sneak peek videos so far. Now that would be exciting. Dave
  12. Hah! I wondered if it was you. Now I get it. It is a U-Render asset and therefore warrants the U-Render handle. Regardless of who created it, it is still an impressive render. Dave
  13. Wow. Just plain wow. I love it all (texturing, lighting, DOF, and modeling). Is there some SSS going on as well? Was this done using U-Render or is that just your handle? Dave
  14. One other thing to consider is form language. What sci-fi forms look plausible. Visit this site and ask yourself how hard it would be to create these concept shapes by starting with primitives and then adding detail via shaders or kitbashing. The new place tool in S24 really is designed to take advantage of quickly adding details via kit-bashing and sci-fi kit-bashing kits are readily available for sale at Gumroad, Artstation, etc...etc. In short, when it comes to hard surface modeling, sculpting may not be the best approach. IMHO - you really need to know modeling if you are going to also embrace sculpting because once the sculpt is finished, you will need to retopologize the entire mesh to make it useable -- and that means modeling. This work flow makes sense for organic shapes where you are dealing with skin wrinkles, scales, horns, claws and muscle groups but probably more work than is required for hard surface modeling a sci-fi spaceship which has inherently flat surfaces anyway. Also, don't over think adding modeled details to create scale. Scale in a sci-fi model is also achieved quite easily by paying attention to the the port-hole lights (a simple texture map) than by the modeling detail. A good tool for creating these detailed texture maps is Jsplacement which is free. A good tutorial on what it can do for adding sci-fi detail in C4D is found here So don't be discouraged thinking that if you can't draw you can't create sci-fi spaceships. Start thinking and experimenting with form language - pushing and pulling primitives around until you get something that you like (and what you like is really all that matters). Then start thinking about where adding details via pre-made kit bashed models or textures makes sense and look like they have a purpose. Here you can learn from real life such as ISS space station, industrial complexes, heavy machinery, etc. How are heavy doors engineered? How are pipes and electrical conduits managed in real life. In short, take your inspiration from the real world. And now some inspirational sites: Fractalsponge.net – 3D Scifi-Art The STMC: Download Star Trek Meshes & 3D Objects for 3DS,Max,Lightwave LWO and trueSpace COB models concept ships: STAR WARS Saturday (something seems to be temporarily wrong with this site...but when it gets back on-line, it is awesome) Dave
  15. 3D-Pangel

    INSYDIUM MeshTools

    This looks to be a better and more power take on the work of Merk Vilson (topoformer, etc). I even checked if Merk Vilson is now employed by Insydium (he is not). If it is a separate plugin, I would need to hear more about it as right now as right now the couple of examples provided in that video are not that compelling...interesting but I would need to understand how applicable and extendable the tool is to creating a variety of techniques and looks. With that said, I am confident that by the time Insydium is done with it (this is a sneak peek after all), it will be amazing. Dave
  16. 3D-Pangel

    INSYDIUM MeshTools

    Interesting. Is this a whole new plugin or part of X-Particles? I would imagine a whole new plugin but there is nothing about it at the Insydium site.
  17. So do you want your scene to be rendered in R20 with RS or use C4D's material nodes? If you want to keep using RS, the current version of RS can run in C4D R19 or higher. For the scene created in a higher version of C4D (21 or higher as you stated), why couldn't you export it to FBX and then create an RS library file of all the materials. You then load RS onto R20, import the FBX file and then load up the library and apply the RS materials? If you want to use R20's material node system, I really don't think there is a quick way to port RS materials to C4D material nodes....other than taking a screen shot of the RS node set-up for each material for you to follow in recreating it in R20 material nodes. Dave
  18. Just wondering if there is any value to this strategy for using and staying current over the long term - especially if you have R23 perpetual. as R23 was a pretty good release, especially in the area of cross platform integration and animation. Purchase and keep current with Redshift, Octane and/or whatever 3rd party renderer you prefer. Really, from a "features" perspective, rendering improvements usually deliver the biggest gains to most users. For me, I love Redshift and its upgrade costs are only $250/year. Use Substance Designer for all your texturing and mapping needs. Indie license is $240/year. I am now at $490/year total. Also, Redshift can read .sbsar files so those two play together. Should you need a new feature with the latest version of C4D, then purchase the monthly subscription (billed monthly) for the latest version. You could do that for 9 months out of 12 and still be ahead of the annual perpetual license upgrade cost. When you have what you need, export it to FBX and alembic to bring it back into R23. As I am already into this for $490, I could do the monthly plan for 4 months out of the year and still be ahead of the perpetual license upgrade cost. So with that mindset, what have you really lost? True, there are some convenience issues you have to deal working with multiple apps but you actually end up with better tools like Substance Painter, Substance Source, Substance Alchemist and Redshift - resorting only to the latest version of C4D for a brief period of time should you need a new tool -- and you bake out the result for importation back into R23. Of course, this is all so we can stick with the interface and stability we love the most. You could always follow a fourth option: Chuck it all, bite the bullet and live with a quirky interface and use Blender. Just a thought. Dave
  19. Yeah....still not a lot to go on. BTW: That Cinefex issue you described is from Issue 14 on The Right Stuff and it was the Mercury Space capsule on the front. The movie Apollo 13 was highlighted in Issue 63. I know my Cinefex having all 172 issues as I have been subscriber over the last 40 years. Hearing they closed shop was like hearing you lost an old friend. Dave
  20. Honestly (IMHO), 4K on a 27 inch monitor is probably overkill. I have two 25 inch 1440p monitors which work amazingly well for all my C4D needs. 4K would probably only be of benefit if you wanted your nose 3 inches from the screen at all times. If you want to view the screen from a more comfortable position, then 1440p will serve you just as well. One thing though that you may want to invest in is a monitor that uses 10 bit color (as opposed to 8 bit) and has the ability to switch to another color space other than sRGB should you be using a program that requires it. To me, color fidelity is more important than resolution. Most monitors "should" be color calibrated to the sRGB space in the factory but always nice to actually get the calibration report when you open the box. I do notice a color shift between the two monitors. While both have been color calibrated, they are from two different manufacturers and purchased at different times. The newer one is a Viewsonic monitor (just outstanding) and the older one is a Dell. Both are 10 bit color and sRGB calibrated with the Viewsonic capable of self calibration should I ever purchase the add on color calibration attachment (which almost costs as much as the monitor itself) and can switch to different color spaces. So the Viewsonic is my main monitor. I was actually able to purchase the Viewsonic at Best Buy for an amazing price as it was a 2018 monitor which I purchased in 2020. They benefit of the 2018 monitor is that it was 10 bit color while the newer models in that series were 8 bit....but Best Buy was trying to deplete their old inventory and basically sold it at 50% off. What a gift. The Dell I actually got at Walmart. Again, that UFP monitor did not fit what the average Walmart customer was looking for so its price kept it on their shelves longer than they wanted and again they were unloading it at a good price. I don't think I paid more than $600 total for both monitors. Dave
  21. Interesting. The modeling to fit all that into a model in a way that makes sense is very impressive. Personally, I never get excited over cross sections of fictional crafts of any kind. They are fictional after all. But I think that extends to my overall relationship with any fictional universe or world building. I love the art. I love the imagination. I just don't love it enough to invest in learning enough details about it as if it was a real world place. Now, if someone wants to model the interior of a Star Destroyer in real world detail (textures, lighting, etc) such that it can be used in an animation then I am definitely interested. For example, just look at the this model of the Star Trek Enterprise made by Neil F Smith on Turbosquid (and in C4D R20 no less). He modeled about 75% of the interior of the Enterprise as well in render ready perfection. Plus it is fully rigged. Now that is an "inside view" I can get excited about. Dave
  22. Can you describe him? Thin/Fat/beard. Also, how large is that visual effects company. Do they do complete features or were they a boutique shop that worked with other vendors on a show. Also, did he work at ILM or did he just work for Lucasfilm as all you said was that he was at the Ranch. After 40 years of reading Cinefex, I may be able to piece together some better clues for you as that magazine was very good at mentioning all the key creatives on every movie they covered from pre-visualization to final effects. But just being impressed by Jurassic Park, playing with computers, etc. is just not a lot to go on as that probably describes 75% of everyone in the industry today. Dave
  23. Look...Unreal is becoming a force in the industry and the partnerships between Unreal and the DCC apps are growing. But what is interesting, is that the partnership is around the workflow from the DCC app to Unreal and NOT getting real time rendering into the DCC programs. And this partnership is even being funded by Unreal. Nine months ago, Maxon was awarded $200,000 USD by Epic games to improve workflow integration between the two programs (read here). I am sure with that grant comes deeper insight in to and modification of Unreal version 5's API to so that C4D models can be better imported to take advantage of Nanite and Lumen....but in no way does that sharing include how Nanite and Lumen could work in C4D. This is a smart move by Epic games and essentially sets the boundaries - you work on modeling, we will work on rendering and we both agree NOT to compete in those areas. That non-compete clause could easily have been part of the grant -- again, a very smart move by Epic, especially when you realize that Epic is not just doing these deals with Maxon as they have set aside $100 Million for these grants (read here). So don't hope for Maxon to start rolling out real time viewport performance that rivals Nanite and Lumen any time soon. If that is your heart's desire, then consider U-Render Dave
  24. Just gorgeous. I don't care how you get there or for which purpose, the ability to create images such as this in real time (or close to it) is the ideal case. Dave
  25. Well....you and I are both right (in a matter of speaking) because Signed Distance Fields (as a mathematical concept) really just involve taking position as an input and outputting the distance from that position to the nearest part of a shape. Raytracing does the exact same thing, the difference being that when it calculates the ray from one surface to another, the secondary surface passes information (color, light intensity, etc) along that ray back the ray's point of origin from the originating surface to use in the rendering calculation. I would imagine SDF just does some form of approximation at that point. In short, all renderers have to mimic the real world properties of light and light is always bouncing from one surface to another. Whether the ray is cast to the surface or their is some approximation of how a surrounding surface's color contributes to the current polygon being rendered - via that surfaces distance, color, normal vector and angular position to all light sources - there still has to be some form of "vector calculation" going on involving a vector from the polygon being rendered to its surroundings. Whether or not that calculation is based on a ray or some distance field, essentially we are talking about vector calculations. So whether it is rays in a ray tracer or vectors in an SDF render, the mechanics of what is going are pretty close in my mind. At its core, as the real world works in rays, so no matter how you want to approximate it, you are calculating angular position and distance from each polygon to its surroundings for every pixel being rendered. And you can't say that SDF does not use rays (or vectors) because the camera has to shot out some form of vectors or rays so that the renderer knows what is in view or not. I would imagine the noise comes from how many SDF or ray calculations you want to make per pixel being generated. The real time shadow demo you created in the first video shows that noise and that noise looks like any other type of noise being created in a raytraced algorithm. So getting back to my original question: how do you control noise in Unreal Engine? Dave
×
×
  • Create New...

Copyright Core 4D © 2023 Powered by Invision Community