3D-Pangel

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

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

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

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

"It all ends up as triangles in the end" ....please don't tell Cerbera. 😄 I wondered about how well Nanite deals with noise. Is it a biased renderer? Can you control the number of secondary rays for reflection, refraction, GI and/or SSS? I would imagine not as that would kill the real time rendering capability. So how do you get noise free renders out of a game engine? For me, that is where the rubber hits the road: managing noise. Rough surfaces like desert rocks, ancient runes, etc probably hide noise better along with motion blur but there are racing car games so at some point smooth reflective surfaces need to be dealt with and that may be what is pushing Unreal 5 from a 2021 release (as originally projected) back to 2022. Not sure. Dave

I have been extremely impressed by Nanite and Lumen for quite some time now, ever since their first demo. So given all that this software can do, I have to ask what does this mean for the traditional users of non-game engine DCC tools? I mean if the goal is to create realistically rendered images with physically accurate lighting, why should we be using anything OTHER than Unreal? I mean the darn thing only needs the power of a PS5 or X-Box to run. How many PS5's could you get for an RTX-3090? We pride ourselves on not creating triangles and Nanite is nothing but triangles. Have we been wrong all along thinking in terms of quads, ray optimization, big GPU's and full featured (and expensive) DCC software? Should we just embrace the metalness workflow and only create using game engines? Okay....sarcastic rant mode off. But the point remains valid. Just look at the investment you can make in the traditional DCC approach: Workstation level graphics cards, tons of memory,3rd party rendering software, fast CPU's. You could build a massive workstation, plunk down thousands in hardware and software and still never get the real time performance that Unreal is giving you. So why not just chuck it all and build your entire pipleline around Unreal? Hell, with Unreal all you need is a good modeler (modo), substance painter and a pretty decent gaming computer. Plus now Unreal directly links to Quixel megascans for FREE! That puts C4D's content browser to shame. So what is the advantage to NOT using Unreal for all your creative needs? I ask that as an honest question. Dave

Originally, I was thinking DasFrodo was being a bit too harsh but when you look at the amazing quality and mood set up by the lights and the falling net in comparison to the middle portion (tennis ball cans jumping to attention), I have to agree that they look like filler. They don't fit in to what looks to be an inspired work of art an animation. Honestly, don't feel constrained that the entire piece has to be 100% CGI. Using instead equally well lit shots of tennis players smashing the ball back and forth in ultra slow motion, the sweat flying off their hair and all starkly lit with a harsh key light would do far more for the mood you started to create at the beginning. Jumping to a mograph insert of tennis ball cans just does not fit in. With all that said though, I do stand in admiration of your skills. The first 38 seconds were outstanding. Dave

Teknow has it right as my understanding is that within the preview window, progressive mode does not exercise the full render calculations with secondary rays to calculate shadow, reflection, SSS, motion blur, DOF, etc. as the intent is fast previewing. Bucket mode will give you the full render calculation in the preview window, especially if GI is used. That is why rendering to the picture view in bucket mode made no difference. There are a number of settings on secondary sampling for each light and texture which you can isolate and preview in progressive mode. The recommended workflow is to fine tune the secondary sampling for each in isolation via progressive mode and then run a bucket mode calculation to evaluate the finished render. It may sound tedious but for animation it is time well spent because your sampling will be optimized and your renders super fast while preserving quality. In some cases increasing the secondary sampling size could even speed up the render. Such is life with a biased renderer. Dave

Welcome Bendik! Just wondering as you work in Oslo, have you ever heard of Gimpville? They are a VFX house in Oslo that does some pretty outstanding work. Dave

Judging by the 6 free courses offered by LFO Design, their courses appear to be very good. He is also training in the sweet spot of both X-Particles and Redshift and their integration. While I love Insydium's X-Particle training, any rendering discussions with X-Particles uses Cycles. I can't fault them for that, but how many render engines can one person use or does it make sense for one person to use. If anyone has purchased either the full Redshift and/or X-Partlcles courses from LFO Design, I would love to hear about your impressions. How much time is spent on Redshift optimization? That to me is the big gain with any biased renderer, especially Redshift so I would hope a lot of time is spent on that area and explained with just as much clarity as was spent on linear workspace. Dave

That is awesome news as I love to see top notch developers collaborate. I mean, XP did release xpScatter in 2020 for distributing objects over a terrain so you can see where this might go with Terraform as well as what Franke can do for xpScatter as he did develop SurfaceSpread after all. Plus Cycles 4D just implemented Sky Texture Nishita for more accurate spectral illumination of skies based on the sun's positions (eg. low sun creates that reddish glow of a sunset). And you can always use ExplosiaFX for clouds, etc. So I see a really good collaboration in the future especially in the area of landscape and natural environment creation. Something I have been hoping for since Vue lost its way in 2016 and then made the (IMHO) disastrous decision to regain their market two years later by coming back with a subscription model. I did have hope for Forester and their development of Rock Engine but that has just gone silent except for the fact that this web-site placeholder was created in 2021: Rock Engine | Nature Redefined (rock-engine.com) My fervent wish is that Insydium buys 3D Quakers and now they have everything they need to create a very powerful suite of applications that rivals WorldBuilder and Terragen....simply because those applications do NOT have native fluid modules. xpTerraform....xpForester...xpWorld.....just keep placing "xp" in front of everything🙂 Dave

I honestly don't think you would hold a delivery more than 5 months just to make a pun. In regards to your other questions, the book is 600 pages, I got it yesterday and I have a day job.....I will let you know. But based on the reviews at Amazon I don't think anything will be left out from abandoned story ideas to the technical challenges. Remember, at the time doing everything digitally was a risk and one that Lucas did take a lot of criticism for but still he had to lay the foundation for the digital production world we have today. Remember, it was written from a 2020 perspective so it should talk about how what we take for granted today was a huge challenge 20 years ago. That has to be a good part of the book's narrative and the reviews do give that impression. Reading about those technical challenges is entertainment to me. As I said, I really don't get caught up in the Star Wars mythos so books on the floor plans of their vehicles like you recommended really don't interest me. I just want a good story that makes sense and characters I can root for. That's about it....unfortunately, I can not say that about the sequel trilogy. Dave P.S. I noticed that the price of the book has gone up $30 since September.

My Christmas present from both my daughters finally arrived today. It was a little late to be sure but only because there were problems getting it released since printing started back in September, 2020. I guess they really had some problems because I have number 624...and it has been almost 8 months since they started printing. For those that may have read my profile, you'll know that seeing Star Wars at the age of 16 when it first came out really cemented my love of visual effects. I really had no desire to be a Jedi, but would have given anything to work at ILM. In fact, reading about motion control camera systems and 4 perf pin-registered optical printers is what made me realize that I really love mechanical engineering...and thus set me on my career path to where I am today. That love soon spread into computer animation and this book dives into everything from the Lucasfilm archives for Episodes 1 to 3. So pouring through this 600 page massive book (it is 12" x 16.5" x 2" and weighs 15 pounds) will be nothing but pure inspiration while reconnecting this old duffer with the dreams of his youth. And best of all....it arrived on May the 4th! Dave P.S. If you don't hear from me for a few days, you'll know why...either I am reading every page or the book fell on me and crushed me to death.

I have been leaning towards Lenovo lately. They hit a pretty good price point for me and their build quality is pretty solid. I would avoid HP at all costs -- very cheaply built. Lenovo also offers a very good configurator. Dell is also good and I would look at them as well. Now, relative to the required hardware, Otoy does have this page which goes into the GPU hardware recommendations. What they do NOT tell you is anything about the motherboard, the CPU and (most importantly) the number of PCIe lanes you need to reserve in your overall hardware configuration for the GPU (usually 16). As pretty much everything communicates through the PCIe bus (hard drives, graphics cards, USB drives, memory, M.2 drives) you need to make sure that the CPU/motherboard can support all of these devices while still leaving the maximum amount needed for the GPU (or GPU's). Otherwise, you will NOT be getting the maximum benefit from your expensive Nvidia card. Also, when it comes to the CPU, clock speed is more important than core count. Why? Think of it this way: The CPU sets the speed limit on that PCIe highway moving data back and forth from the hard drive(s) to the GPU. So you want as wide a highway as you can get with as fast a speed limit as you can get to move data in and out of your GPU. CPU cores are good only if you want to use C4D's AR ... or watch Netflix while working 🙂. So PCIe lane considerations are key when thinking about building a workstation for GPU rendering. So apart looking at the specs for the motherboard, I would also get an M.2 drive as your boot drive....just for the sheer convenience of having almost instant on when booting and fast program load times. And of course as much memory as you can afford. One other thing to consider that no one ever talks about: PC Warranty Both Dell and Lenovo offer a 5 year warranty on the entire build for pretty cheap money whereas most of the boutique places (Digital Storm, Puget Systems) only offer a 3 year warranty and/or want big money for any warranty over 3 years. Now, up until my recent Dell workstation (purchased in 2015 --- and still running quite well - after it was repaired while under warranty) the two previous Dell machines I purchased both had their motherboards replaced while under warranty after year 3. Prior to those two machines I had an HP which had a hard drive crash after year 3. All 3 computers were under warranty at the time of failure and their repairs were free to me. So apart from my own personal experience, you should know that I have been a manufacturing engineer in the electronics manufacturing industry for about 37 years working on high-end telecommunications gear. I have been to many of the factories building printed circuit boards (like PC motherboards) across China, Mexico and South East Asia. So trust me when I tell you that the following rule has never let me down: If you can get over a 3 year warranty for less than 10% of the purchase price, probably a good idea to get it... ....that is, unless your long term plan is to drop another $3,000 every 3 years to keep current with the hardware. That is what the industry expects you do to and why you rarely see greater than 3 year warranties or PC's built to last that long. That rule has worked on ovens, refrigerators, dishwashers and PC's. I could go into the why this rule works but trust me that it does*. Dave {*Electrical short inducing Sn whiskers can form due to un-activated solder fluxes remaining on the PCB solder connections when placed under electrical bias for an extended period of time - especially when consumer grade electronics use solder fluxes with detectable halide residues --- there --- happy you know now?}

Is it just me or does Intel look nervous when you see this web-page Dave

I would not count out X-Particles just yet. When you compare TFD to XP in terms of rendering fire and smoke you have to ask what renderer is being used for XP. Is it Cycles, Redshift or Octane? What makes XP infinitely better than TFD (IMHO) is the ability create VDB files for rendering in 3rd party programs like Octane, Redshift, etc. You now have more power/control to render fire and smoke than using TFD's built in rendering solution. For example, the ability for me to control the amount of fire and smoke in a simulation is a lot easier to control in Redshift than in TFD....or even Cycles for that matter as I find that method a bit too complex. Now TFD does not create VDB files by default but its own BCF format and to get VDB output from TFD you need to run bcf2vdb from the COMMAND line prompt. Why so difficult? Why can't it just be an option within the program? Not sure. Another thing I love about XP is that it is a multi-physics simulation solution. Water can push cloth. Water can catch on fire. You have flow fields that can then impact volume breaking. You have grains that can be impacted by advection. Just a whole host of solutions. Now you do have multi-physics in Realflow, but Realflow is engineering grade - and really slow - and expensive. Every particle carries a ton of information and the file sizes are huge. It is GPU accelerated which helps, but all that aside, the maintenance/upgrade costs are still too high for me (close to 50% of the purchase price). Now, every fluid simulation solution out there is GPU accelerated except XP....so it stands to reason that XP needs to incorporate GPU acceleration to stay competitive. I have confidence that they will do it. Once they do, then (again in my humble opinion) they become the most versatile, powerful, easy to use solution out there that can produce amazing results when paired with a 3rd party rendering solution for the money. Dave

Well.....the next release is expected in the summer...according to their web-site. Now the summer technically extends until September 22....more than enough time for them to still be beta testing a GPU version. Now, GPU acceleration will be at the core of their code base and therefore all new features will be built off of that -- so if it is to be part of this release then it is probably already well down the beta test path. But don't expect to see it announced just yet. Insydium tends to orchestrate how they release their sneak peeks so that they build to create excitement. Each new peek tends to eclipsing the one before it in terms of "wow" impact. Pretty confident that this is both marketing and that the more complex (and thereby the more impressive new features) take more time to beta test to a point where they feel comfortable enough to announce it -- so their announcements naturally come at the end. Either way, GPU acceleration would be huge! An absolute game changer that would really get their competitors (like EmberGen) to stand up and take notice. As such, if it is to happen, don't expect to see it announced until right before it is released as it will be the climatic conclusion to their sneak peek release videos. Dave

Mike, Can you post the C4D Redshift file and/or tell us how you did this? Brilliant! Dave

To get this back on topic, I just finished watching "Nezha Reborn." I thought Nezha's CG was just gorgeous. ACES rendered? Most likely as the dynamic range of each frame was amazing. I also enjoyed the story and characters. Now the plot does move quickly and you really need to give it two viewings to pick up everything. Originally, I thought the editing was too jumpy but on the second viewing you realize that each one makes sense as now you know where the scene is going --- it happens that fast. Also, you also need to see another Netflix movie before you watch "Nezha Reborn" which is simply called "Nezha" as that provide some of the background mythology of the character which is referenced in "Nezha Reborn". When "Nezha Reborn" goes into the back story, it is with assumption that you already know about that legend so they really don't spend much time on it. I was a little confused watching those scenes in "Neha Reborn" until they showed "Nezha" as a child and from their I made connection to the other Netflix movie. I think Igor said he watched it with sub-titles. It is now on Netflix and with English dubbing. Sorry, but it is very hard to read sub-titles while watching amazing eye-candy. You almost have to make a choice: enjoy the visuals or enjoy the plot. I really wish Monster Run on Netlix had an English dub version. Catch these movies when the come out as Netflix does not keep them up forever. I wanted to go back and watch "Harlock: Space Pirate" again as that CG was also very good, but it is no longer streaming. Drat. In fact, they no longer carry the DVD to rent at Netflix. But you can stream it on Amazon Prime. Dave

What you are both saying is at the core of my original point - that being when does the depiction of violence in entertainment become gratuitous. I think you would both agree that there is a point when it goes from being necessary to being gratuitous. Is that a fine line? Not sure, but I would imagine that line is different for everyone. I will leave it there as I have a world of respect for you both as artists and more importantly as people. I think we agree in some respect and I understand your point about how art should and does cast a wide net over all aspects of society. But, and this is the most important point after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We just have different eyes and therefore see things in different ways. That is perfectly fine with me and I hope it is perfectly fine with you as well. Dave

Wow...very glad to see that people do object to the violence. The first episode in Season 1 was like the gut check for the casual viewer as I found the violence extremely gory and over the top. If you can make it through that episode, then you can probably handle the rest. Though I must admit it took me two attempts to get through it. Had it been live action, I would have turned it off for good but because it was CG I had to give it a second attempt because it was that good. Now, I subscribe to the rule that just because you can do it in CG does NOT mean that you should. Crushing a women's head to pulp and then probing the crushed flesh with a cane really did nothing to further the story in that first episode. But some artists feel that they need to show over-the-top violence in order to be "edgy" or "relevant" and forget that everything needs to add to the story if you really want to be taken seriously. They don't seem to hold themselves back and ask a simple question like: Can we get the story points we need without being visually unpleasant or upsetting to watch? This is "entertainment" after all! Sometimes the violence is absolutely necessary (Saving Private Ryan, Hacksaw Ridge, We Were Soldiers) so I am not against the depiction of violence, just the depiction of gratuitous violence. Mature artists and film makers know the difference. Unfortunately, I am afraid that there is a lack of maturity out there with many rationalizing that because video game violence sells, then it really is entertainment after all. I mean the first episode was created by Blur Studios after all (and their work was stunning) who does make video games. So guess what people: We really haven't changed much since the days when gladiators fought to the death in the Roman Colosseum. But with all that said, LD&R really had some fun and funny episodes as well - and I will be looking forward to watching the next anthology in May and even the third anthology in 2022. Dave

For me, it is more important to discuss perpetual pricing than a cheaper form of subscription pricing (which is in effect indie pricing). Here's why. There is an assumption we are all making with subscription pricing and that is Maxon will continue to improve the software with new features each year to warrant that subscription price. Right now, we are seeing that so all looks good. But at some point in the future (and hopefully the far future) there will come a time when C4D goes the way of Adobe products and that is long standing bugs do not get fixed or missing features we have requested for a long time do not get implemented. In that scenario, we are paying a subscription price each year to get essentially the same program with nothing new being added that is relevant to the user. If you don't believe that will happen, just listen to the complaints about Adobe Premiere or 3D Studio Max subscription programs. For those long term users that got into C4D by buying the full program, that is a worst case scenario. So a few years of just paying to use the program with no added benefits will start to erode the implicit trust we have in Maxon to make the subscription model worthwhile to us each year. If history is any teacher, this will happen. History is also showing that is a not a good long term strategy either as people are leaving Adobe and Autodesk products (why else would they try and get people back with an "indie" license). So I want Maxon to be better than that. We all "think" that Maxon is different than those behemoth cash grab companies like Adobe and Autodesk. This is our hope based on their current reputation. But there really is nothing that they have done since subscriptions were announced to support that view. In fact, quite the opposite is true with Maxon making Cineversity as subscription only benefit, not updating AR since they bought Redshift, and recent comments made on this forum about subscriptions updates being the best path to get bugs fixed, etc. Indie licenses is not the solution as that will just be another subscription program but at a lower price. But, to be fair to Maxon, we also need to understand that Maxon wants recurring revenue that subscriptions provide as that helps them maintain current operations and hopefully continues to support development in the future the way we have seen it in the past. It is a business after all and we can never forget that. So we need a model where everyone wins but at the same time protects the user by holding Maxon accountable to continually address user needs with each subscription release (eg. not fall into the Adobe/Autodesk mode). As I think about this (and I do think about it a lot), the answer was surprisingly simple. Allow all SUBSCRIPTION users the option to either pay $720 a year to renew their subscription or pay the extra amount for a perpetual upgrade license to the next version (I have no idea what the price is as it varies and unfixed). You can then go back and forth between subscription and perpetual for the same fixed costs for both regardless of what version you are on. But the only path to that fixed perpetual upgrade license cost is by first having a subscription license. While this may sound like the current situation, it really is not so let me explain with an example. Let's assume the 1 version perpetual upgrade license cost is $900 in this example. You are are subscription license holder at S24. You have decided to step out of the subscription program for a bit but you want to keep using C4D so you decide to purchase the perpetual upgrade license with the next release for $900. You then continue to use that perpetual license until R29 is released 5 years later. At that time, when R29 is announced, it has features that you want so you decide you want that latest version. To do that you must first sign up with a subscription license for one (or X) years. As you are now back into the subscription program, you can stay with that program as long as you want until you decide to step out of it again by purchasing the perpetual upgrade license for $900 again at that point in the future. Remember, you can't get the upgrade perpetual license cost until you have purchased subscription plan for a set period of time. You can repeat that cycle as many times as you want. So why is this better? Because it gives the user choice while still giving Maxon the recurring revenue that subscriptions provide. It also holds Maxon accountable to meet the user needs over the long term via meaningful updates and bug fixes if they want the subscription program to keep working for everyone. If they fail to keep their end of that implicit bargain, people exit with the perpetual license. Once they start to deliver again, people jump back in but they have to do that with the subscription model...and when they jump back in, it is at some minimum number of years before they can jump out again (ideally as minimum of a 1 year subscription would be great but Maxon could decide that 1 year of subscription is too short and could make this commitment longer before they offer this option --- but that is still a win over the current model). So there is some commitment from the user as well as to Maxon to this program. So win-win. Also, If Maxon continues to keep up their end of that bargain, people stay in the subscription program as that is the cheapest option. My biggest fear with the current subscription program is that it removes choice and holds me hostage to renewing. This plan removes that fear. Now, this proposal would ONLY be rejected if Maxon never had any intention of EVER giving the user that much choice and freedom or honoring the implicit bargain between Maxon and the user to continually upgrade the software to meet the user needs (in general). I challenge Maxon to be better than the industry and to be concerned that having users feel they are held hostage is really not a long term winning strategy. Dave

One thing to watch out for is what Autodesk did with the initial release of Maya Indie. Originally, only the first year was at the $250/year indie subscription price and that was then set to renew automatically at the full $1620/year subscription price for the second year. Now, Autodesk changed that on August 7th, 2020 so that the renewal price is now at the $265/year level but current users are a still suspicious as they say that the terms of the indie subscription do change often and therefore strongly recommend that everyone shut off the auto-renew option. Plus, the ability to get the indie subscription is a well kept secret at the Autodesk site and you are more than likely to be directed to Maya Light which is NOT the indie subscription. Here is the link So once again, we see that nothing is clean and clear when it comes "to good to be true" licensing. Honestly, this is where modo beats everyone and that may be one of the main reasons why their users are so passionate about the software as they have a very simple and fair model: upgrade from any past version for the same price under their maintenance plan of $440. Honestly, if MAXON allowed perpetual license holders to upgrade to any future perpetual license version for the same price, I would not need an indie version. That would be ideal. Dave

Is it just me or does it seem like MAXON really puts their foot in their mouth when discussing/defending the features of each new release? Invariably, the arguments they make don't wash with everyone and after much discussion in the forums we get the expected "Goodbye MAXON...it has been a great X years but I am out of here". The gaffe this time around didn't even have anything to do with S24 but a discussion on why R23 bugs may not be fixed. I mean, that really is a little irritating to your perpetual license customers and essentially says "Hi. We at MAXON only stand behind our current products! Customer Care to us means if you want it fixed, you need to buy it again!" Really? Imagine if the automobile industry worked that way. "Brakes don't work on the 2020 car you just purchased? Well, just lease the 2021 model." I mean, that is essentially what was said in a previous post over the advantages of subscriptions over perpetual licenses. Seriously, that is a ridiculous argument. Personally, I don't buy the whole code base argument because I can't imagine that it is impossible to modify the S24 code base such that new features introduced between R23 and S24 get turned off. You then release this as an R23 patch. That would be the smart thing to do because you then only have ONE code base across you entire user base to worry about rather than separate codes bases for each release...with the additional benefits of happy customers of previous releases getting their bugs fixed. Even if you can't do that for certain tools in R23 because that tool was completely re-written from scratch in S24, then just disable as much of the new features as you safely can. So what if a new feature creeps into the R23 patch -- it is a win-win situation for everyone. You have only one code base to worry about and users of previous revisions get more stable software with a few additional features. So using bug fixes as a motivation for going with subscriptions was an ill conceived statement where perpetual license owners are concerned. No one who is dead set against subscriptions will be pushed into subscriptions...they will just be pushed into Blender. I think MAXON needs to seriously wake up to that fact. If you want to keep the perpetual license user you need to think differently. We are a lost cause as far as subscriptions are concerned because Adobe has taught us that at some point in the future, the new features will not justify the cost of the annual subscription and eventually you will feel like you are paying each year just to use the same old software...bugs and all. Honestly, MAXON should just hire Chris Schmidt to talk about the features of a new release and stay quiet. You are not helping yourself. Dave

People really need to watch Chris Schmidt's EXCELLENT overview of S24 at RocketLasso before they pass any sort of judgement. He takes almost 90 minutes to explain everything and is very thorough. From the standpoint that this is a 0.5 release (IMHO as it was only six months since the last release), I find it a very respectable set of features. Look....everything in this release is focused on USER EFFICIENCY which is never a bad thing and something which you will only appreciate after you used it for a bit and then try to go back to the old way of doing things. I can see that happening with the Asset browser, place tools and the tween tools where you say "how did I live without this for so long?". The tween tool alone should make life easier for animators everywhere. True - nothing big - nothing flashy - nothing to make the competition stand up and take notice.....but all very useful nonetheless. Dave